The Norman Conquest (65 page)

13
   Douglas,
Conqueror
, 196–7; HH, 25. The chronicler at Waltham Abbey, writing after 1177, improbably claims that Harold heard the news while at Waltham.
The Waltham Chronicle
, ed. and trans. I. Watkiss and M. Chibnall (Oxford 1992), xliii, 44–5.

14
   OV, ii, 172–3.

15
   WP, 116–17.

16
   Ibid., 116–23;
Carmen
, 14–21.

17
   Ibid., 10–11.

18
  
ASC
E, 1066; JW ii, 604–5; OV, ii, 170–3.

19
   Lawson,
Battle of Hastings
, 62–3, 110–11; WP, 122–5.

20
  
GND
, ii, 166–7; WP, 124–5.

21
  
Carmen,
18–21; WP, 122–5.

22
  
GND
, ii, 168–9.

23
  
ASC
D, 1066; OV, ii, 172–3; Lawson,
Battle of Hastings
, 56–8.

24
  
ASC
D, 1066;
GND
, ii, 166–9; WM,
Gesta Regum
, 452–5.

25
   WP, 124–5;
The Chronicle of Battle Abbey
, ed. and trans. E. Searle (Oxford, 1980), 34–7; ‘The
Brevis Relatio de Guillelmo nobilissimo comite Normannorum’
, ed. E. van Houts, idem,
History and Family Traditions
, VII, 31.

26
   WP, 124–7;
Carmen
, 20–1; WM,
Gesta Regum
, 422–3; Wace, 178.
ASC
D also says that Harold’s army was large.

27
   WP, 126–7;
Carmen
, 22–3;
Chronicle of Battle Abbey
, ed. Searle, 44–5.

28
   wp; 128–9;
Carmen
, 24–5;
Carmen
, ed. Morton and Muntz, 112–15; HH, 26.

29
   WP, 128–9;
Carmen
, 24–5.

30
   Ibid.

31
   WP, 128–9;
Carmen
, 22–3.

32
   Ibid., 26–9; WP, 128–31.

33
   Ibid., 132–3.

34
  
Carmen
, 26–7; WP, 128–9, 132–3;
GND
, ii, 102–5.

35
   WP, 132–3.

36
  
Carmen
, 32–3; WP, 136–7;
GND
, ii, 168–9. In the same paragraph Jumièges contradicts himself by saying that Harold fell ‘during the first assault’. For a possible solution, see Gillingham, ‘William the Bastard’, 101, n36.

37
   Brown,
Bayeux Tapestry
, 174 (a translation of Baudri); WM,
Gesta Regum
, 454–5; HH, 28.

38
   D. Bernstein, ‘The Blinding of Harold and the Meaning of the Bayeux Tapestry’,
ANS
, 5 (1983), 41–8; Lawson,
Battle of Hastings,
255–66.

39
   Bernstein,
Mystery
, 171–4; idem, ‘Blinding of Harold’, 60–4.

40
   M. K. Foys, ‘Pulling the Arrow Out: The Legend of Harold’s Death and the Bayeux Tapestry’,
Bayeux Tapestry
, ed. Foys, Overby and Terkla, 158–75; C. Dennis, ‘The Strange Death of King Harold II’,
The Historian
(2009), 14–18.

41
  
Carmen
, 32–3; Bernstein,
Mystery
, 160.

42
   Brown, ‘Battle of Hastings’, 215.

43
   J. Gillingham, ‘“Holding to the Rules of War
(Bellica Iura Tenentes)”:
Right Conduct Before, During and After Battle in North-Western Europe in the Eleventh Century’,
ANS
, 29 (2007), 8–11; above, 81–2;
Carmen
, lxxxii–lxxxv.

CHAPTER 12

1
  WP, 136–9;
GND
, ii, 168–9 (also OV, ii, 176–7);
Chronicle of Battle Abbey
, ed. Searle, 38–9. Although there has been much debate about the timing of the Malfosse episode, there can be little doubt that WP and OV were correct to place it after the battle. William of Malmesbury later described a similar incident
during
the battle, apparently based on a scene in the Bayeux Tapestry—a source well known for putting events in a different order for dramatic or artistic purposes. Cf. Brown, ‘Battle of Hastings’, 215–18.

2
  WP, 138–43;
ASC
D, 1066;
Carmen
, 32–5; Gillingham, ‘“Holding to the Rules of War’”, 4–7.

3
  WP, 140–1;
Waltham Chronicle
, ed. Watkiss and Chibnall, xliii–xliv, 54–7;
Carmen
, 34–5.

4
  Ibid.; WP, 142–3.

5
  Ibid., 146–7;
Carmen
, 38–9.

6
 
ASC
D, 1066; OV, ii, 180–1; JW, ii, 604–5.

7
 
ASC
D, 1066; WP, 142–5;
Carmen
, 36–7.

8
  Ibid., 36–9; WP, 144–5.

9
 
Carmen
, 38–9; WP, 146–7.

10
   Ibid.;
ASC
D, 1066; JW, ii, 606–7. Cf. WM,
Gesta Regum
, 460–1.

11
   F. Baring, ‘The Conqueror’s Footprints in Domesday’,
EHR
, 13 (1898), 17–25. Cf.J.J. N. Palmer, ‘The Conqueror’s Footprints in Domesday’,
The Medieval Military Revolution
, ed. A. Ayton and J. L. Price (1995). 23–44.

12
   Williams,
English and the Norman Conquest
, 100–1;
GND
, ii, 170–1; B. English, ‘Towns, Mottes and Ring-Works of the Conquest’,
Medieval Military Revolution
, ed. Ayton and Price, 51.

13
   WP, 100–1, 146–7.

14
  
ASC
D, 1066; JW, ii, 606–7; WM,
Gesta Regum
, 460–3.

15
  
ASC
D and E, 1066; WP, 146–7.

16
   G. Garnett,
Conquered England: Kingship, Succession and Tenure, 1066–1166
(Oxford, 2007), 3–4; WP, 146–9.

17
   Ibid., 148–9.

18
  
GND
, ii, 170–1 (cf. OV, ii, 180–1);WP, 160–3.

19
  
Carmen
, 38–41; OV, ii, 182–3.

20
   For debate on the service, cf. G. Garnett, ‘The Third Recension of the English Coronation
ordo:
The Manuscripts’,
Haskins Society Journal
, 11 (2003), 43–71 and J.L. Nelson, ‘Rites of the Conqueror’, idem,
Politics and Ritual in Early Medieval Europe
(1986), 375–401; Maddicott,
Origins of the English Parliament
, 44–5; JW, ii, 606–7.

21
   WP, 148–9;
ASC
D, 1066.

22
   WP, 150–1; Garnett,
Short Introduction
, 19–21; OV, ii, 184–5.

23
   WP, 150–5, 178–9; Douglas,
Conqueror
, 209.

24
   WP, 156–61;
EHD
, ii, 945;
ASC
D, 1066.

25
   WP, 160–3. Poitiers’ statement that Eadwine and Morcar submitted at Barking is at odds with the account of the D Chronicle, which names the two brothers among those who surrendered the previous year at Berkhamsted. There is no easy way to reconcile these two statements. Most historians have preferred the English version, despite the fact Poitiers’ account is far more detailed and there is no obvious reason for him deliberately to have misdated the earls’ surrender. Some have argued that he confused Barking with Berkhamsted (Douglas,
Conqueror
, 207). Others have rejected this, and suggested instead that Eadwine and Morcar might have submitted twice (Baxter,
Earls of Mercia
, 270–1). But Poitiers’ account—especially his line ‘they sought his pardon for any hostility they had shown to him’—hardly sounds as if he is describing a second submission. It seems equally if not more likely that Poitiers has it right on this occasion, and that the much shorter account in the Chronicle, which says nothing of the Barking episode, has telescoped the two events into one. John of Worcester follows the Chronicle in saying that Eadwine and Morcar submitted at Berkhamsted, but his earlier statement that the earls had left London with their army and gone home strongly suggests they had retreated into northern England. Such a scenario would be consistent with the Conqueror’s reported reluctance to be crowned while ‘some people were still rebelling’, and his subsequent willingness to return to Normandy in the New Year once the Barking submissions had taken place.

26
   WP, 162–3;ASC E, 1066; Williams,
English and the Norman Conquest
, 8–9.

27
  
EHD
, ii, 918; WP, 164–5.

28
   WP, 162–3, 166–9;
ASC
E, 1067.

29
   WP, 168–81.

30
   Ibid., 154–5, 176–7, 180–1; OV, ii, 198–9.

CHAPTER 13

1
  OV, ii, xiii–xvi, xxix–xxx.

2
  Ibid., iii, 6–9, 150–1. Orderic’s modern translator, Marjorie Chibnall, was also born in Atcham in 1915.

3
  Ibid., ii, xxxii, 184–5, 258–61.

4
  WP, 114–15; OV, ii, 170–1. Similarly, Orderic provides quite different versions of the Malfosse incident and the violent scenes that marred the Conqueror’s coronation – differences we might in each case attribute to his English origins. Above, 189, 200.