View My Stats

Sunday, December 30, 2012

The 1066 Norwegian Invasion of England according to the Anglo Saxon Chronicle


Megan Arnott
ENGL: 6760
Prof. Jana Schulman
Friday, December 7, 2012



                1066 has been called the ‘linchpin year” in English history.[1] For historians, the Norman Conquest has been used to divide English history into a ‘before’ and ‘after.’[2] Taking a back seat to the main arenas of the Conquest was the earlier events of 1066, which comprised the Norwegian Invasion of England.[3] Historiographically speaking, the events at Stamford Bridge are always mentioned as a prelude to the Conquest because it is significant that Harold Godwinson, last king of the Anglo-Saxons, fought two pitched battles on either side of the country in less than a month, and that the English at York fought two battles against the Norwegians in September, cutting down their military capabilities before the Normens arrived in October.
                The Norwegians, under king Haraldr Harðráði., and their English allies, under the exiled earl Tostig Godwinson, Harold’s brother, raided the countryside before the two battles around the city of York. They won the battle at Fulford Gate, but they lost the one at Stamford Bridge five days later. Kelly De Vries, writing exclusively about the Norwegian invasion of England in 1066, lists three categories of sources for the invasion, “those which were written in England close to the time of the events which they discuss; those written (or, in the case of the Bayeux Tapestry, embroidered) in England or Normandy after the conquest of William the Conqueror but before the turn of the twelfth century; and those written in England or Normandy during the early part of the twelfth century by historically astute writers compiling their histories from other earlier sources and eye-witnesses.”[4] There are only two sources in the first category: the Vita Ædwardi regis and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. [5] Of these sources, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle represents an interesting English genre of historical documentation. Apart from the Irish Annals and an early Russian chronicle, and those are again of a slightly different genre, at this time there are no comparable vernacular sources that record history.[6] The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle gives its readers an English - in language and perspective - take on the events of 1066, differing from the point of view given in the Scandinavian, Norman and later Anglo-Norman narratives.  The goal of this paper is to understand how the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle portrays the Norwegian Invasion of 1066 and how they characterize the Norwegians, particularly the figure of Haraldr Harðráði.[7]
The text that we call the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is not one text, but seven separate manuscripts and two fragments, each representing an individual document in their own right.[8] The origins of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle reside in the Easter Tables that clergy used to mark the passage of time. These reports are terse, and are often begun with ‘Here, in this year.’[9] Even though they are short and somewhat bland in nature, these references may have triggered a whole host of references or memories for their Anglo-Saxon audiences.[10] Around 890 what would become the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was compiled using Easter Tables and supplemented with material from other, often Latin sources like Bede’s chronological summary in his Ecclesiastical History.[11] It is thought that it was compiled not by king Alfred, but possibly by someone in his court who was interested in promoting national identity in the face of Viking raids.[12] There was a surge of Anglo-Saxon literature during this time period, as it was felt that Latin was in decay, and education was one of the courtly concerns.[13] An Alfredian Chronicle was compiled and distributed to many different political/religious and learning centres, just as Alfred’s translation of the Cura Pastoralis was.[14] The seven manuscripts containing the Chronicle, up until the entry for 890, are all drawing on similar stock. However, no year in the entire Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is exactly the same across all versions, including up until the year 890.[15] After 890 the relationship between the texts becomes even more interesting and certainly hard to trace. The entries in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle become their own prose genre, whose main function is still to mark the year, but which become more original and often more detailed.[16] Kevin Crossley, characterizing the entries in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, has noted that part of the conventions of this genre are special attention to wars, and an interest in what Crossley considers the ‘superstitious’ attention paid to portents and signs.[17] And while there are many indicators that suggest many entries were added after the date they represent, the entries are at least nominally contemporary after 890, which has partly explained their appeal for historians trying to reconstruct this period in English history.[18]
The seven manuscripts have been named /A, A (which is also sometimes called G or W), B, C, D, E, and F.[19] Charles Plummer’s account of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle identifies /A, C, D and E as Chronicles in their own right, with B, A and F as derivative of the others.[20] Manuscript /A is of interest because it is clear that after 890 the entries were recorded one at a time for each year. The other six manuscripts change hands mid-way through entries, suggesting a different kind of textual transmission.[21]
The entries for 1066 embody all the genre conventions of Chronicle entries. There are portents, and political moves that mark the year, as well as three key battles. The Battle of Hastings tends to be the battle that is most remembered, but this emphasis was created by the outcome not by the events as they unfolded. We cannot tell if the sources are directly contemporary, or when exactly they were written down, but again they are considered to be some of the most contemporary sources. In Chronicle C, within the description of Harold Godwinson’s preparations for the Norman Conquest, it says “eallswa his syððan aeode,” showing that the chronicler writes after the event.[22] Conversely, in manuscript A there is a mention of 1066 which gives equal space to the Norman Conquest as to the burning of Christ’s Church in Canterbury: “her com Willelm gewann Ængla land. Her on ðison geare barn Cristes cyrce.”[23] It is less clear that this was written after the events described, because of the fact that it doesn’t obviously use outside textual sources like Chronicle C does, nor does it use those phrases which specifically say it was written later. In addition the brevity of it means that it could have been written as events were unfolding. Because \A’s entries were written one at a time A seems even more contemporary to the events than C, though C is also thought to be nominally contemporary.[24]
 And there are different emphases on the three battles depending on which Chronicle you are reading. By focusing on the battles that the Norwegians fought in, namely the first two battles (the Battle of Fulford Gate and the Battle of Stamford Bridge) as opposed to the Battle of Hastings, the Chronicle gives you three overlapping but vastly different narratives for the events as they unfold. Chronicle C, which provides the greatest amount of detail, is cut off due to a mangling of the manuscript, and so covers the Battle of Fulford Gate and Stamford Bridge in great detail, but does not touch on the Norman Conquest at all, save for the levy Harold had in response to what he had heard (from credible sources) about William of Normandy gathering an army.[25] So Chronicles C, D and E deal with the events of the Norwegian Invasion in depth. Chronicle B cuts off at 977, and so doesn’t reach the year 1066.[26] F is a bilingual version of E, written in Old English and Latin, marking the full circle of Latin sources, informing an Old English text, transitioning back to Latin.[27] Therefore, in the genre of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, there are three versions of the events of 1066.

The Norwegian Invasion in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle

In the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the start of the year is flexible. Bede said that the practice of starting the year at Christmas was falling into disuse in his day, but this still seems to be the case in a lot of the Chronicle, including for the year 1066.[28] However, in other Chronicle years the year begins like ours, a.k.a. like the Roman civil calendar on January the 1st.[29] In other entries the year begins with the Annunciation on March the 25th, such as the entry for year 1044.[30] Chronicle C and D, open the year 1066 following the exact same tradition or text, save for some spelling variation: “on þissum[31] geare com Harold cyng[32] of Eoforwic to Westmynstre to þam Eastran þe wæron æfter þam middanwintre[33] þe se cyng[34] forðferde, wæron þa Eastran on þone dæg[35] .xvi. kalendas Mai.”[36] The events follow the mid winter celebration, or Christmas as the acknowledged bench mark. In Chronicle E this is even clearer because it starts off the year with mention of a church consecrated on December 28:
Millesimo.lxvi. On þissum geare man halgode þet mynster æt Westmynstre on Cilda mæssedæg, se cyng Easward forðferde on twelfta mæsseæfan, hine mann bebyrgede on twelftan mæssedæg innan þære niwa halgodre circean on Westmynstre, Harold eorl feng to Englalandes cynerice swa swa se cyng hit him geuðe, eac men hine þærto gecuron, wæs gebletsod to cynge on twelftan mæssedæg.[37]

In our modern calendar the consecration of the Church at Westminster would fall in 1065, but not in the reckoning of this Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

Even though it doesn’t mention the Norwegian Invasion, Chronicle A mentions the portent in the sky. The presence of such conventions, depending on the genre, can make us question the veracity of the text. Certainly mentioning portents often draws our disbelief and caused Crossley to call the Anglo-Saxons superstitious.[38] In this case, history has vindicated the mention of a comet in the sky in 1066, and it doesn’t stretch our credulity because the implications of the comet are implied, not stated explicitly. Not only is the comet mentioned in other narratives, the timing would have coincided with Haley’s Comet.[39] It is mentioned in A, and C and D, though in CD it is again an exact repetition of the text, drawing from exactly the same example with very few spelling variations:
Þa wearð geond eall Englaland swylc tacen on heofenum gesewen swylce nan mann[40] ær ne geseh.[41] Sume men cwædon[42] þæt hyt[43] cometa se steorra wære, þone sume men hatað þone fexedan[44] steorran, he æteowde ærest on þone æfen Letania Mairoa, þæt ys .viii. idus[45] Mai. Swa scean[46] ealle þa .vii.[47] niht.[48]

C also says it was “viii. idus Mai” (May 8) and D says viii. kalendas Mai, (24 April) that the comet was first seen, but these are minor variations. E does not mention the portent, however the account in E is much shorter in general, though not as short as A.
According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the first threat to Harold’s kingdom consisted of attacks from his brother Tostig Godwinson, exiled earl of York, who was raiding in the south of England. The most thorough account of Tostig’s activities occurs in Chronicle C. The former earl landed on the Isle of Wight and raided up to Sandwich. Chronicle D does not make explicit mention of raids, but says that Tostig came to the Isle of Wight and received money and supplies there. In Chronicle C when Tostig learns that his brother Harold is on his way to Sandwich he leaves, capturing men from the port, and attacks the area along the Humber, especially at Lindsey. Not much is said about what may have happened then, whether it was a battle, or simply a retreat, but Chronicle C says that Earl Eadwin and Morkere, who had taken over from Tostig as earl, drove him and his men out. At this point Chronicle D and E (not C and D as was the case up until now) use the exact same wording to state that “þa wile[49] com Tostig eorl into Humbran mid sixtigum[50] scipum,  Eadwine eorl com mid lanferde[51] adraf[52] hine ut, þa butsacarlas[53] hine forsocan.”[54] Chronicle C says that it is as many men as he can muster, whereas the tradition that D and E refer to are saying that originally Tostig had sixty ships to attack England with. Historians have made much out of the number of ships mentioned in Chronicles D and E, often using them to recreate numbers for the Battle of Fulford Gate and the Battle of Stamford Bridge.[55]
The sequence of events in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle has Tostig attacking England while Harold Godwinson was building an army .But all three versions agree that the threat is Harold is worried about is not coming from Tostig. In Chronicle C there is a logic gap: when king Harold hears about his brother Tostig in Sandwich (something only C mentions) his response is to gather an army to meet the threat from the south. In fact Tostig himself has to get out of Sandwich, not necessarily because Harold is coming for him, though this could be inferred, but because he doesn’t want to run into him and Sandwich is where Harold has chosen to muster his troops. D likewise, creates flow by mentioning how Harold is Tostig’s brother, but talks about Harold’s preparations for the impending invasion from the south: “Harold cyng, his broþor, gegædrade swa micelne sciphere eac landhere swa nan cyng her on lande ær ne dyde, for þam þe him wæs gecyðd þæt Wyllelm Bastard wolde hider ðis land gewinnen, eallswa hit syððan aeode.”[56] E is even pithier in its mention of Harold’s preparations: “þy ilcan geare þe he cyng wæs, he for ut mid sciphere togeanes Willelme.”[57] C talks about waiting for an invasion, but in the end they waited too long, and they couldn’t feed the troops – they simply couldn’t keep them there. C refers to the impending tragedy; “þeh hit æt þam ende naht ne forstode.”[58] Chronicle C refers to ships that Harold sailed into London from the Isle of Wight, after having to disband his men. Most of the ships were lost. E also refers to his naval force, but never actually mentions the Isle of Wight or the loss. However, Chronicle E gives historical weight to the tradition detailed in Chronicle C by mentioning this naval force, even without details, and without proof that they are necessarily referring to the same tradition.
Chronicles D and E again draw on the exact same tradition to describe how Tostig’s force went from sixty ships to twelve, implying that they were lost somewhere between when he sailed into the Humber and when he met up with Haraldr of Norway in Scotland. By implication they were lost at the battle with earl Eadwin at Lindsey, but this is not explicit. Chronicles D and E also draw from a tradition where now Tostig becomes Haraldr Harðráði’s man. Other traditions have Tostig as an instigator of the Norwegian invasion, inviting Haraldr to come to England and claim inheritance from Knútr, but here that is not the case. It is the case, however, in Chronicle C. In Chronicle C there is no mention of Haraldr being in Scotland, just Tostig. Instead the two meet up at the Tyne to begin raiding: “Tostig eorl him com to mid eallum þam þe he begiten hæfde eallswa hy ær gesprecen hæfdon.[59] In Chronicle C the two have met before and planned to meet up for the invasion. And Tostig’s force is painted in a much better light. He has all the forces that he can muster, instead of having been reduced to twelve ships.
                Chronicles D and E are drawing on the same tradition again for the description of the Battle at Fulford Gate, however, as opposed to the passages above, the wording has started to differ. Haraldr and Tostig fight with earls Eadwin and Morkere at York and win. At first the two accounts are still basically the same. This is the account in D: “hi foron þa begen into Humbran, oð þæt hi common to Eoforwic.”[60] However, at this point, while the meaning is retained, the wording changes: “heom þær wið fuhton Eadwine eorl Morkere eorl, his broðor, ac þa Normen ahton sige. Man cyðde þa Harolde, Engla cynge, þæt þis wæs þus gefaren, þis gefeoht wæs on Uigilia sancti Mathei.”[61] Compare this to the account in Chronicle E: “hi bægen foran into Hunbran oð þet hi coman to Eoferwic, heom wið feaht Morkere eorl Eadwine eorl, se norrena cyng ahte siges geweald.”[62] Chronicles D and C also agree on the date, September 20th, the vigil of St. Matthew’s day, for the battle. This was twelve days after, according to Chronicle C, the army gathered by Harold Godwinson at Sandwich had to be dismissed. Chronicle C, as per usual, gives us a lot more detail about the battle beyond what we learn in D and E, which is only that the Norwegians won. Instead, Chronicle C states: “þa gegaderode Eadwine eorl Morkere eorll of heora eorldome swa mycel werod swa hi begitan mihton, wið þone here gefuhton, mycel wæl geslogon, þær wæs þæs Engliscan folces mycel ofslagen adrenct, on fleam bedfiren Normen ahton wælstowe gewald.”[63] Chronicle C also mentions the terms of the surrender, indicating that waiting for hostages was one of the reasons Haraldr and Tostig would wait around York after the battle: “þa æfter þam gefeohte for Harold cyninge of Norwegan Tostig eorl into Eoforwic mid swa miclum folce swa heom þa geþuhte, him on gislade of þæreburh eac to metsunge fylste, swa þanon to scipe foran to fullan friðe gespræcon, þæt hig ealle mid him suð faran woldon, þis land gegan.”[64]
Chronicle C describes how as soon as earl Tostig and Haraldr land near York, Harold marches night and day, as quickly as he can, just as soon as he can get his men together. Makes sense, if he is going to have enough time to reassemble a force and march with them to York for September the 25th, the day of the Battle of Stamford. After the battle took place (on a Wednesday says Chronicle C), by Sunday Harold had come with all of his forces to Tadcaster and was marching for York on Monday: “Đa amang þissan com Harold Engla cyninge mid ealre his fyrde on ðone Sunnandæg to Tada, 7 þær his lið fylcade, 7 for þa on Monandæg þurh ut Eoferwic.”[65] Chronicle D and E have a greatly truncated version of events, which do not take time to say much of anything, let alone pay such attention to the sequence of events. Both texts say simply that Harold was informed of the outcome of the battle.
                It is in their brief descriptions of the actual Battle of Stamford Bridge that the chroniclers of both D and E, in different ways, come out in support of Harold Godwinson. Chronicle E’s account is the shortest: “man cydde Harolde cyng hu hit wæs þær gedon geworden, he com mid mycclum here engliscra manna gemette hine æt Stængfordesbrycge hine ofsloh þone eorl Tostig eallne þone here ahtlice ofercom.”[66] To have ‘ahtlice’ or courageously defeated the force of Norwegians and earl Tostig’s men, shows the chronicler’s support of Harold Godwinson and the English in this battle. Chronicle D’s account is longer. Not only does Harold defeat the force at Stamford Bridge, but he takes them by surprise, ‘com … on unwær’:
Đa com Harold ure cyng on unwær on þa Normenn hytte hi begeondan Eoforic æt Steinfordbrygge mid micclan here englisces folces, þær wearð on daeg swiðe stranglic gefeoht on ba halfe. Þar wearð ofslægen Harold Harfagera, Tosti eorl, þa Normen þe þær to lafe wæron wurdon on fleame, þa engliscan hi hindan hetelice slogon, oð þæt hig sume to scype coman, sume adruncen, sume eac forbærnde, swa mislice forfarene þæt þær wæs lyt to lafe, Engle ahton wælstowe geweald. [67]

Both chronicles say that Harold had a “micclan here englisces folces’ or ‘mycclum here engliscra manna.’ Chronicle D, at the moment of his death, calls Haraldr ‘Harold Harfagera,’ which is unfortunately the wrong epithet, but shows that the chronicler had heard something of Norwegian history. But more than one historian of the conquest has noted that Chronicle D calls Harold Godwinson, ‘Harold ure cyng,’ indicating some sort of sympathy with the last Anglo-Saxon king of England.[68]
Chronicle C, again is much more detailed. It goes into Haraldr and Tostig’s motivations for being at Stamford Bridge, as they wait for ‘gislas’: 
Harold cyning of Norwegan tostig eorl heora gefylce wæron afaren of scipe begeondan Eoforwic to Stanford brycge, forþam þe him wæron behaten to gewissan þæt him man þær of ealre þinre scire ongean hy gislas bringan wolde. Đa com Harold Engl cyning, heom ongean on unwaran, begeondan þære brycge, he þær togædre fengon swyðe heardlice lange on dæg feohtende wæron, þær wæs Harold cyning of Norwegan Tostig eorl ofslagen, gerim folces mid heom, ægðer ge Norman age Englisca.[69]

Both Norwegians and the English are being killed during this battle. This Chronicle chooses to highlight the losses in battle, in addition to the English victory. As the Norwegians flee for their ships there is an interesting account which was added to the end of Chronicle C in a twelfth century hand. This account, of the Norwegian who defended the bridge against a whole English force, is attested to in Henry of Huntingdon’s account, a later English source, in addition to Chronicle C:
þa Normen flugon þa Englisa. Đa wes þer an on Norwegan þe widstod þet Englisce folc þet hi ne micte þa brigge oferstigen ne sige gerechen. Þa seite an Englisce mid anre flane ac hit nactes ne widstod. Ænd þa com an oþer under þere brigge, end hine þurustang en under þere brunie. Þa com Harold Engla chinge ofer þere brigge hys furde forð mid hine; þere Michel wel geslogon ge Norweis ge Flæming.[70]

The problem of the late addition to the Chronicle C  text is that it makes this account more troublesome than other things in C which are just from a different tradition than D or E. This is a problem for historians who have valued the historicity of other aspects of the Chronicle, despite the fact that the accounts do not agree. Certainly historian Ian Walker believes that this event has no historical value.[71] It may have a much later provenance, and in terms of how we moderns imagine the world, it is even less believable than the rest of the narrative. Regardless, it is an interesting part of the tradition that is left to us because we do not know why someone else decided to add that in, or really that it wasn’t part of the earlier narrative in the first place. It is not recorded in non-English sources, but as DeVries points out, this could be because it would be something the English would notice and not the Norwegians, who were in retreat, though that is speculation and adds no evidence to give the event more historical weight.[72] The text of Chronicle C ends in 1066 not necessarily because it was finished at that time, but because the manuscript was mangled. This part of the narrative may have even originally been a part of Chronicle C before the mangling.  
                The last words in Chronicle C are: þes cyninges sunu Hetmundus let Harold faran ham to Norweie mid all scipe.[73] We know about Haraldr’s son Magnus, but Mundus has not been mentioned before. At this point the Chronicle stops. The best wrap up of the Norwegian Invasion of England is given in Chronicle D:
Se kyng þa geaf gryð Olafe, þæs Norna cynges suna, heora biscoppe, þan eorle of Orcanege, eallon þan þe on þam scypum to lafe wæron, hi foron þa upp to uran kyninge, sworon aðas þæt hi æfre woldon fryð freondscype into þisan lande haldan, se cyng hi let lam faran mid .xxiiii. scypum.[74]

The speed with which this all happened really comes across in Chronicle D: Þas twa folcgefeoht wæron gefremmede binnan fif nihtan.[75] Whereas up until now Chroncile C’s account of the year has offered the most detailed narrative, Chronicle D offers historians of 1066 a tale of woe, one that really criticizes the decisions of the Anglo-Saxons after Harold Godwinson’s death, and lamenting the loss of life that could have been spared by earlier surrender. Chronicle E does not even mention what happened next, but in its effort  to get on with it jumps right into a description of the Norman Conquest, which it also speeds through so it can get on to the very important task of relating what happened in the local area in that same year.

The Norwegians in Chronicles C, D and E

Chronicle C, British Library, MS Cotton Tiberius B.i, is one of the Abingdon Chronicles, which like MS B draws on an Abingdon Chronicle text for a lot of its material.[76] The manuscript itself was composed around 1044 and was added to after that.[77] While there are a lot of markers in the 1066 entry to indicate its later addition, it is still thought to be roughly contemporary with the events of 1066. The events in 1065 and 1066 have been shown by D.C. Douglas to have an anti-Godwinist slant, which should be taken into account when reading the events of 1066, though it is unclear how that relates to the sentiment of the rest of the chronicle.[78] It can not be said that it did originally have an account of the Battle of Hastings, just that the Chronicler knew about it. In the introduction of the entry for 1066 C and D use the same text or tradition, which gives typical markers for the year including the ascension to the throne of Harold Godwinson, the death of the previous king Edward, and the comet. But from there C offers a truly unique text, one that historians of the Conquest would love to have been continued. It is very detailed, and gives motivations to Tostig and Harold for their decisions. In this narrative the Norwegian invasion is an extension of Tostig’s treachery. Tostig is already characterized negatively, by saying he attacked the country and by kidnapping men in Sandwich. This is the only Chronicle that speaks of a sort of ‘conspiracy’ with Haraldr: Tostig is not just joining up with an already in process invasion, this Chronicle gives more weight to the interpretation that Tostig was heavily involved in creating the Norwegian Invasion than in Chronicle D and E. Haraldr is a surprise to the English, but not to Tostig. Tostig also does not submit himself to Haraldr as he does in the other Chronicles. With Haraldr Tostig is able to win against Eadwin and the new earl of York Morkere, but even the two of them combined are not able to defeat Harold Godwinson.
The chronicler is also very concerned with the loss of life on both sides. Norwegian lives lost show how well the English are doing, but the English lives lost show at what cost: “he þær togædre fengon swyðe heardlice lange on dæg feohtende wæron, þær wæs Harold cyning of Norwegan Tostig eorl ofslagen, gerim folces mid heom, ægðer ge Norman age Englisca.”[79] Along those lines, there is a lot of futility in Harold’s actions: “man hafde landfyrde æghwar be sæ þeh hit æt þam ende naht ne forstode.”[80]  The Norman Conquest, while not described, is alluded to several times by talking about how futile the preparations Harold made actually were. The focus on Tostig and the trials and tribulations, and the extensive characterization of the people and events makes for an interesting read. It also indicates that in Chronicle C, Haraldr Harðráði and the Norwegians are props for the internal conflict amongst the English. The original contributions of the Norwegians are played down, and the English decisions are played up.
According to G.P. Cubbin, Chronicle D, British Library, Cotton MS. Tiberius B.iv, gives the ‘most patriotic’ version of the events of 1066.[81] Chronicle D is sometimes called the Worcester Manuscript, as it was found there in 1565 and also has a particular interest in local events from both there and from York, which is probably explained by shared interests in both regions in the 1050s when the manuscript was first compiled.[82] D is interesting because for 1066 it uses one source that is the same as C and one source that is the same as E. Again, the textual histories and relationships are very diffilcut to decipher. Chronicle D takes a much more ‘us versus them’ perspective, amplified by the presence of the ‘our king’ note.  In the depictions of the Norwegians, the Norwegians’ death alone is described in the battles fought with them. The description of the Battle at Fulford Gate only says that Norwegians won: “hi foron þa begen into Humbran, oð þæt hi common to Eoforwic, heom þær wið fuhton Eadwine eorl Morkere eorl, his broðor, ac þa Normen ahton sige.”[83] In the depiction of the Battle of Stamford Bridge the description of the battlefield at the end of the battle is extensive: hig sume to scype coman, sume adruncen, sume eac forbærnde, swa mislice forfarene þæt þær wæs lyt to lafe, Engle ahton wælstowe geweald.”[84] At the end of the battle the mercy of the English is also highlighted.
This us vs. them perspective continues into the description of the Norman Conquest, as the chronicler focuses on what the English should do differently, and not describing the Norman victory in the same glowing and graphic terms as the Battle of Stamford Bridge. In fact there was slaughter on both sides, showing how well the English come off. There is an overtly pro-Anglo-Saxon version of the 1066 in this Chronicle. It differs from C, which is about internal conflict, and presents the English as a whole. Tostig joins up and swears fealty to Haraldr, showing that he has ultimately become a ‘them’ and not an ‘us.’ Unintentionally, by calling Haraldr Harfagera instead of Harðráði the chronicler in D has accidentally conflated the most famous ‘Viking’ kings of Norway, from one the earliest to the so-called last, into one conceptual Norwegian ‘other.’
For the entry for 1066, while Chronicle E, Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Laud Misc. 636, takes a lot of its information from the same source as Chronicle D, it is a lot shorter. Chronicle E is also known as the Peterborough Chronicle because of its creation and location in Peterborough and because of its heavy interest, in the form of interpolations throughout the Chronicle, of local interest material. The entry for 1066 is a perfect example of this, because all the national political events take up the same amount of textual space as the local events, which are not listed in other Chronicles. The details that are left out of E that are present in D are a lot of the details which make the D version a pro-Anglo-Saxon text. Instead it is much more neutral in its description. For instance, there are no appeals to God’s mercy during the Conquest, as there are in Chronicle D. There are instead more generic markers of the time period. Chronicle E uses national events to create a setting for the local participation in those events.
However, the role of Haraldr Harðráði is more important in E than it is in D and C. In an interesting, minor difference between D and E, in the description of who won the battle at Fulford Gate D says the Norwegians had the victory. E says the Norwegian king has the victory: “hi bægen foran into Hunbran oð þet hi coman to Eoferwic, heom wið feaht Morkere eorl Eadwine eorl, se norrena cyng ahte siges geweald.”[85] Though the description is not more than a few lines, Haraldr has the most agency in E, where he meets with Tostig in Scotland and is submitted to by Tostig, minimizing Tostig’s involvement in getting him to England. Likewise, he is a military power-house, by being the force behind Fulford Gate. Harold Godwinson journeys north to meet ‘him’, and slays ‘him’ and earl Tostig at the bridge, with the ‘him’ in this case referring to Haraldr Harðráði: “he com mid mycclum here engliscra manna gemette hine æt Stængfordesbrycge hine ofsloh þone eorl Tostig eallne þone here ahtlice ofercom.”[86] In Chronicle E Haraldr is a force to be reckoned with, and is reckoned with, by King Harold Godwinson.
That all three texts are focused on the English perspective was a foregone conclusion; we would not expect anything different.  All three texts are focused on how these events affect the Anglo-Saxons, with the E text focused even a little closer to home than England. But their English biases affect them here in three different ways, especially in terms of how they characterize the invading Norwegian force and the Norwegian King Haraldr Harðráði. Historians have used this useful information to reconstruct the events of 1066 and the Norwegian Invasion, and have used later chronicles and sagas to fill out the account. But the genre of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, due to the way it is constructed, has a historicity to it that few other sources can match and will continue to be an important source for historians reconstructing this crucial period in English and Scandinavian history.

Bibliography

Bately, Janet M., ed. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition (MS A). Vol. 3. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1986.
Brown, Michelle P. Manuscripts from the Anglo-Saxon Age. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007.
Conner, Patrick W., ed. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition (The Abingdon Chronicle A.D. 956-1066). Vol. 10. Cambrige: D.S. Brewer, 1996.
Crossley-Holland, Kevin. The Anglo-Saxon World. 2nd. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2002.
Cubbin, G.P., ed. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition (MS D). Vol. 6. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1996.
DeVries, Kelly. The Norwegian Invasion of England in 1066. Woodbrige: Boydell Press, 1999.
Finch, Paul. "Viking dusk at Stamford Bridge." Military History 20, no. 1 (April 2003): 34-40.
Garmonsway, G.N., ed. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. London: J.M. Dent and Sons Ltd., 1972.
Georgianna, Linda. "Periodization and Politics: The Case of the Missing Twelfth Century in English Literary History." MLQ: Modern Language Quarterly (Duke University Press) 64, no. 2 (June 2003): 153-168.
Irvine, Susan, ed. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition (MS E). Vol. 7. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2004.
Reeves, Scott. "Glamping at Stamford Bridge." British Heritage 33, no. 1 (March 2012): 56-59.
Rex, Peter. 1066: A New History of the Norman Conquest. Stroud: Amberley Publishing Plc, 2009.
Savage, Anne, trans. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles: The Authentic Voices of England from the time of Julius Caesar to the Coronation of Henry II. New York: Crescent Books, 1995.
Swanton, Michael J. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. New York: Routledge, 1998.
Walker, Ian W. "Chapter Ten: Harald of Norway." In Harold: The Last Anglo-Saxon King, 152-165. Stroud: Sutton Publishing Ltd., 1997.



[1] Scott Reeves, "Glamping at Stamford Bridge," British Heritage 33, no. 1 (March 2012), 57.
[2] Linda Georgianna, "Periodization and Politics: The Case of the Missing Twelfth Century in English  
  Literary History," MLQ: Modern Language Quarterly (Duke University Press) 64, no. 2 (June 2003), 154.
[3] Kelly DeVries, The Norwegian Invasion of England in 1066 (Woodbrige: Boydell Press, 1999), 1.
[4] DeVries, The Norwegian Invasion, 5.
[5] DeVries, The Norwegian Invasion,  5
[6] Anne Savage, trans., The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles: The Authentic Voices of England from the time of
  Julius Caesar to the Coronation of Henry II (New York: Crescent Books, 1995), 10.
[7] Many historians, like Kelly DeVries, use the saga spelling for Haraldr Harðráði and the Old English spelling for Harold Godwinson. Since this paper is analyzing only the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle it would make sense to render them both in Old-English, but in the end there is a lot of confusion between Harolds. This paper instead is going to keep the saga spelling for Haraldr Harðráði and the Old English for Harold Godwinson for clarity, and also to fit in with current historiography.
[8] Savage, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 11.
[9]  Kevin Crossley-Holland, The Anglo-Saxon World, 2nd ( Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2002), 32.
[10] Crossley-Holland, The Anglo-Saxon World, 32.
[11] G.P. Cubbin, ed. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition (MS D). Vol. 6. (Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1996), xvii; Michael J. Swanton, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (New York: Routledge, 1998), xix.
[12] Michelle P. Brown, Manuscripts from the Anglo-Saxon Age (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007), 86.
[13] Savage, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 10.
[14] Swanton, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, xix.
[15] Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, xvii.
[16] Swanton, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,  xvii-xviii.
[17] Crossley-Holland, The Anglo-Saxon World, 32.
[18] Swanton, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,  xxxi.
[19] G.N. Garmonsway, ed. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (London: J.M. Dent and Sons Ltd., 1972), xxxiii.
[20] Garmonsway, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, xxxiii; Savage 11
[21] Susan Irvine ed., The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition (MS E), Vol. 7 (Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2004), xxii-xxiii.
[22] Patrick W., Conner ed., The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition (The Abingdon Chronicle A.D. 956-1066). Vol. 10. (Cambrige: D.S. Brewer, 1996), 36.
Just as it subsequently came to pass
[23] Janet M. Bately, ed., The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition (MS A). Vol. 3. (Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1986), 35.
In this year came William and conquered England. In this year Christ Church was burned.
[24] Swanton, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, xxxi.
[25] Garmonsway, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, xxxvii.
[26] Garmonsway, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, xxxvi.
[27] Irvine, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, xxii-xxxiii; Garmonsway, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, xli.
[28] Swanton, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, xv.
[29] Swanton, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, xv.
[30] Savage, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 10; Swanton, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, xv.
[31]  MS C þisum
[32] MS C kyng
[33] MS C middan wintran
[34] MS C kyng
[35] M C dæig
[36] Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 79.
In this year came king Harold from York to Westminster, the Easter following the Christmas of the king’s death, Easter being on 16 April.
[37] Irvine, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 86.
1066. In this year the abbey church at Westminster was consecrated on Holy Innocents’ day [28 December], and king Edward passed away on the vigil of, and was buried on, Epiphany [6 January] in the newly consecrated abbey church of Westminster. Earl Harold succeeded to the kingdom of England as the king granted it to him and as he was elected thereto. He was consecrated king on Epiphany.
[38] Crossley-Holland, The Anglo-Saxon World, 33.
[39] DeVries, The Norwegian Invasion, 240.
[40] MS D man
[41] MS D geseah
[42] MS D cwedon
[43] MS D hit
[44] MS D faexedon
[45] MS D kalendas
[46] MS D scan
[47] MS D seofon
[48] Conner, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,  36.
 At that time, throughout all England, a portent such as men had never seen before was seen in the heavens. Some declared that the star was a comet, which some call ‘the long-haired star’: it first appeared on the eve of the festival of Letania maior, which is on 24 April, and shone every night for a week.
[49] MS E hwile
[50] MS E lx
[51] MS E landfyrde
[52] MS E adraf
[53] MS E butsecarlas
[54] Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 80.
Meanwhile earl Tostig came into the Humber with sixty ships, and earl Edwin came with land levies and drove him out, and the shipmen deserted him.
[55] Paul Finch, "Viking dusk at Stamford Bridge," Military History 20, no. 1 (April 2003), 37.
[56] Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 79.
King Harold, his brother, gathered together greater naval and land hosts than any king had ever done in this country, because he was informed that William the Bastard was about to invade this land to conquer it, just as it subsequently came to pass.
[57] Irvine, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 86.
In the same year in which he became king, he sailed out against William with a naval force. 
[58] Irvine, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 87.
Although in the end it was all to no purpose.
[59]  Conner, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 37.
And earl Tostig joined him, as they had previously agreed, with all the host he had been able to muster.
[60] Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 80.
Together they sailed into the Humber until they came to York.
[61] Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 80.
Where earl Eadwin and earl Morkere, his brother, fought against them, but the Norwegians had the victory. Then king Harold was informed how the fight had gone – it took place on the vigil of St Matthew’s day [20 September].
[62] Irvine, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 87.
Together they sailed into the Humber until they came to York, where earl Morcar and earl Edwin fought against them, and the Norwegian king gained the victory.
[63] Conner, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 38.
Earl Eadwin and earl Morkere had gathered as great a force as they could from their earldom, and fought that host and made great slaughter of them; but a great number of the English were either slain or drowned or driven in flight, and the Norwegians had possession of the place of slaughter.
[64] Conner, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 38.
After the battle king Harold of Norway and earl Tostig entered York with as great a force as seemed to them necessary and received hostages from the borough, besides assistance in the way of provisions, and so retired thence to their ships. They offered to conclude an abiding peace with the citizens provided that they all marched southwards with them to conquer this realm.
[65] Conner, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 38.
Then meanwhile came Harold, the king of the English, with all his levies on the Sunday to Tadcaster and there drew up his household troops in battle order; and on the Monday he marched through York.
[66] Irvine, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 87.
When king Harold was informed what had happened and come to pass, he came with a great host of Englishmen, and met him at Stamford Bridge, and slew him and earl Tostig and courageously defeated all that host.
[67]  Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 80.
Then Harold our king came unexpectedly upon the Norwegians, and met them beyond York at Stamford Bridge with a great host of Englishmen, and that day a very stubborn battle was fought by both sides. They were slain Harold the Fairhaired [recte Hardrada] and earl Tostig, and the remaining Norwegians were put to flight, while the English piercely assailed their rear until some of them reached their ships: some were drowned, others burnt to death, and thus perished in various ways so that there were few survivors, and the English had possession of the place of slaughter.
[68] Ian W. Walker, "Chapter Ten: Harald of Norway," in Harold: The Last Anglo-Saxon King, (Stroud: Sutton Publishing Ltd., 1997), 161.
[69] Conner, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 38.  
Harold, king of Norway, and earl Tostig and their force had gone from their ships beyond York to Stamford Bridge, for it had been expressly promised them that hostages would be brought to meet them there from the whole of the shire. Then Harold, king of the English, came upon them unawares beyond the bridge. They joined battle and fierce fighting went on until late in the day; and there Harold, king of Norway, was slain and earl Tostig and countless numbers of men with them, both English and Norwegians.
[70] Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 80.
The Norwegians fled from the English, but there was one Norwegian who stood firm against the English forces, so that they could not cross the bridge nor clinch victory. An Englishman shot with an arrow but to no avail, and another went under the bridge and stabbed him through under the coat of mail. Then Harold, king of English, crossed the bridge and his levies went forward with him; and there made great slaughter of both Norwegians and Flemings.
[71] Walker, “Chapter 10,” 162-3.
[72] DeVries, The Norwegian Invasion, 283.
[73] Conner, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 39.
And Harold let the king’s son, who was called Mundus [the ‘Elegant’], return to Norway with all the ships.
[74] Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 80.
The king then gave quarter to Olaf, the son of the king of the Norwegians, to their bishop, to the jarl of Orkney, and to all those who were left aboard the ships. They then went inland to our king, and swore oaths that they would ever maintain peace and friendship with this land; and the king let them sail home with twenty-four ships.
[75] Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 80.
These two pitched battles were fought within five days.
[76] Conner, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, vii.
[77] Conner, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, xxxiv.
[78] Conner, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,  lxviii.
[79] Conner, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 39.
They joined battle and fierce fighting went on until late in the day; and there Harold, king of Norway, was slain and earl Tostig and countless numbers of men with them, both English and Norwegians.
[80] Conner, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 36.
Although in the end it was all to no purpose (also quoted above).
[81] Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,  lxxviii.
[82] Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, ix, liv.
[83] Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 80.
Together they sailed into the Humber until they came to York, where earl Eadwin and earl Morkere, his brother, fought against them, but the Norwegians had the victory. 
[84] Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 80.
Some of them reached their ships: some were drowned, others burnt to death, and thus perished in various ways so that there were few survivors, and the English had possession of the place of slaughter.
[85] Irvine, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 87.
Together they sailed into the Humber until they came to York, where earl Morcar and earl Edwin fought against them, and the Norwegian king gained the victory.
[86] Irvine, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 87.
He came with a great host of Englishmen, and met him at Stamford Bridge, and slew him and earl Tostig and courageously defeated all that host