On This Day: Duke Willian conquers

October 14th, 1066: A pivotal day in Britain’s history as Anglo-Saxon England abruptly ended.

What followed we might today call “regime change” as William the Conqueror’s accession went far beyond founding a new royal dynasty. As Domesday Book shows, by 1086, just twenty years later the old ruling class of Anglo-Saxon England had been entirely replaced by Norman overlords. With more than 90% of the land now held by continental newcomers, the country’s physical appearance was almost immediately affected. Castles, which had hardly existed in England before 1066, were built in their hundreds. Anglo-Saxon churches and religious institutions were torn down and rebuilt in the Romanesque style. The “Harrying of the North” left vast swathes of land devastated while notoriously forcing northern England to submit to William’s rule.

Less obvious were the subtle changes made to English life. After the Conquest, new ideas were introduced on how society should be regulated. Slavery, commonplace amongst Anglo-Saxons, disappeared over the next fifty years, and the notion of sparing a defeated opponent became the new norm for the ruling elite. The rapid adoption of these concepts set the English apart from their Welsh and Scottish neighbours. The latter continued the wholesale slaughter of their enemies waging war as a form of slave-hunt. The perception of the Irish, Scots and Welsh as uncivilised barbarians was almost certainly a result of the Norman conquest and, as mediæval historian, author and broadcaster Marc Morris argues, “fuelled the aggressive English colonisation of those countries in the centuries that followed.”

Prelude

The dramatic events of 1066, with three kings sitting on the throne of England, had a complex inter-connected Anglo-European ancestry. In summary, in AD 911, the Carolingian ruler Charles the Simple allowed a group of Vikings to settle in Normandy under their leader Rollo. Their settlement proved successful, and they quickly adapted to the indigenous culture, renouncing paganism, converting to Christianity, and intermarrying with the local population. Over time, the frontiers of the duchy expanded to the west. In 1002, King Æthelred II married Emma, the sister of Richard II, Duke of Normandy. Their son Edward the Confessor spent many years in exile in Normandy before succeeding to the English throne in 1042. This led to the establishment of a powerful Norman interest in English politics, as Edward drew heavily on his former hosts for support, bringing in Norman courtiers, soldiers, and clerics and appointing them to positions of power, particularly in the Church. Edward was childless and embroiled in conflict with the formidable Godwin, Earl of Wessex, and his sons, and he may also have encouraged Duke William of Normandy’s ambitions for the English throne.

Succession crisis

After 24 years as king, Edward “the Confessor” dies childless on January 5th, 1066 without an heir creating a succession struggle between several claimants to his throne. Shortly before his death, however, it is believed Edward entrusted the kingdom to his wife, Edith of Wessex, and to Edith’s brother, none other than Harold Godwinson. He was the richest, most powerful Anglo-Saxon Earl and member of the prominent Godwin family, with its ancestral ties to Cnut the Great, King of Denmark, England and Norway. Upon the death of his brother-in-law King Edward, the Anglo-Saxon nobles of the Witenagemot (or Witan) convened and confirmed Harold’s succession.

Harold was crowned by Ealdred, the Archbishop of York, although Norman propaganda claimed the ceremony was performed by Stigand, the uncanonically elected Archbishop of Canterbury. The new king was at once challenged by two powerful neighbouring rulers. Duke William claimed he had been promised the throne by King Edward and that Harold had sworn an oath on sacred relics in agreement. Harald Hardrada of Norway also contested the succession. His claim to the throne was based on an agreement between his predecessor Magnus the Good and the earlier King of England Harthacnut, whereby, if either died without heir, the other would inherit both England and Norway. William and Harald Hardrada immediately set about assembling troops and ships for separate invasions.

January 6th, a day after Edward’s death, witnessed both the old king’s burial in Westminster Abbey and the coronation of Harold who, it is widely held, became the first English monarch to be crowned in the Abbey. That day in January 1066 should have been a joyous one had it not been that in 1051 King Edward appears to have chosen Duke William of Normandy as his successor to the English throne. Confirmation of this inconvenient truth is seemingly borne out by the account of William of Poitiers. He records that King Harold II sent an envoy to Duke William who, on behalf of Harold, admitted that Edward had promised the throne to William but argued that this was over-ridden by his deathbed promise to Harold. In reply, William did not dispute the deathbed promise but argued that Edward’s prior promise to him took precedence. Thus, on hearing of Harold’s coronation, William began plans to invade England and commenced the building of 700 warships and transport ships at Dives-sur-Mer on the Normandy coast. Initially, however, William could not garner support for the invasion until his argument that Harold had sworn on sacred relics to support William’s claim to the English throne was accepted by the Church. With the latter’s blessing, Norman nobles flocked to Duke’s cause. William spent almost nine months on his preparations, assembling a large invasion fleet and gathering an army from Normandy and the rest of France, including large contingents from Brittany and Flanders. 

English army and Harold’s preparations

Anticipating an invasion, Harold assembled an army largely composed of land owning men who were equipped by their community to meet their king’s requirement for military service. The English army consisted entirely of infantry. It is possible that some of the wealthier men and nobility rode to battle but then dismounted to fight on foot. The core of Harold’s army was built round Housecarls (Old Norse: húskarl; Old English: huscarl), an institution originated amongst the Norsemen of Scandinavia and brought to Anglo-Saxon England during the Danish conquest in the 11th-century. Originally referring to non-servile manservants or household bodyguards, Harold’s housecarls were well-trained and paid as full-time professional soldiers. Each man was armoured with a conical helmet, a mail hauberk, and a shield which might be either kite-shaped or round. While armed with swords, the Bayeaux Tapestry reveals that many housecarls fought with the two-handed Dane axe or long axe. These were formidable weapons with a long wooden shaft varying in length between 0.9 to 1.2 m (2 ft 11 in - 3 ft 11 in) and 1.5 to 1.7 m (4 ft 11 in - 5 ft 7 in). Sometimes referred to as a broadaxe from the Old Norse breiðøx, their broad, thin blades were intended to deliver powerful cuts effective against cavalry, shields and unarmoured opponents. The rest of the English army was made up of levies from the fyrd, who also fought as infantry but were more lightly armoured and were not professional soldiers. Most of this infantry would have formed part of the shield wall, in which the front ranks locked their shields together. Behind them would have been axemen and javelin throwers as well as archers.

The fyrd was a type of early Anglo-Saxon army mobilised from freemen or paid men to defend their Shire lord’s estate, or from selected representatives to join a royal expedition. One man, providing his own arms and provisions, was supposed to serve for every five hides, a unit of land nominally capable of supporting one household. Service in the fyrd was organised round the “hundred”, an Anglo-Saxon administrative division that was geographically part of a larger region such as a Shire. Men of the fyrd served under the command of their respective Eorl (Earl), Bishop or Shire Reeve (sheriff). As a whole, England could furnish about 14,000 men for the fyrd, when it was called out. The fyrd usually served for two months, except in emergencies. It was rare for the whole fyrd to be called out. A national mobilisation only occurred three times, in 1051, 1052, and 1065. 

Tostig and Hardrada’s invasions

To complicate matters further, in early 1066 Harold’s exiled brother Tostig Godwinson raided south-eastern England with a fleet he had recruited in Flanders, later joined by other ships from Orkney. Threatened by Harold’s fleet, Tostig moved north and raided in East Anglia and Lincolnshire. He was driven back to his ships by the brothers Edwin, Earl of Mercia and Morcar, Earl of Northumbria. Deserted by most of his followers, Tostig withdrew to Scotland, where he spent the middle of the year recruiting fresh forces.

William had mustered his forces at Saint-Valery-sur-Somme and was ready to cross the English Channel by about August 12th. But the crossing was delayed, either because of unfavourable weather or to avoid being intercepted by Harold’s powerful English fleet. Consequently, after waiting all summer on the South coast for William’s expected invasion, and with provisions running out, Harold was forced to disband the fyrd on September 8th. While his army returned to their villages to bring in the harvest, Harold headed to London. On the very same day King Harald III of Norway, known as Hardrada or “hard ruler”, invaded northern England to pursue his claim to the English crown. According to most contemporary sources, the Norwegian king and Tostig met at Tynemouth - a town literally at the mouth of the River Tyne. Harald Hardrada had a force of, at the most, around 10,000 to 15,000 men, transported on 240 to 300 longships, while Tostig had a mere 12 ships with soldiers.

Four days after the Norwegian landing, on September 12th Duke William’s fleet finally sailed from Normandy. Several ships sank in storms, however, forcing the fleet to shelter once more at Saint-Valery-sur-Somme and wait for conditions and the wind to change. Meanwhile in the north of England, on September 20th, the invading forces of Hardrada and Tostig defeated a hastily gathered English army led by earls Edwin of Mercia and Morcar of Northumbria at the Battle of Fulford, two miles south of York. The battle was a decisive victory for Harald and Tostig and forced the people of York to surrender to the Norwegian king four days later. This would be the last time a Scandinavian army defeated English forces, however.

Learning of the “Viking” invasion, King Harold led his army North on a forced march from London, reaching Yorkshire in just four days. Thus, on the same day as York surrendered to Hardrada and Tostig, King Harold arrived with his army in Tadcaster, just seven miles from Riccall where the Norwegian fleet was anchored. The Anglo-Saxons probably scouted the Norwegian fleet in preparation for a surprise attack but, as Hardrada had left no forces in York, King Harold marched right through the town to Stamford Bridge.

Earlier that day, September 25th, Hardrada and Tostig had departed their landing place at Riccall with two-thirds of their forces, leaving the remainder behind to protect the ships. The Norwegians wore light armour since, as agreed the day before, they were only expecting to meet the citizens of York to decide who should manage the town under Hardrada’s rule. As they arrived at the agreed meeting place at Stamford Bridge, Hardrada saw King Harold’s forces approaching, heavily armed and armoured, and greatly outnumbering the Norwegians. The Anglo-Saxon’s forced march had caught Hardrada and Tostig by surprise.

According to the 12th-century Icelandic historian Snorri Sturluson, a single man rode up to Hardrada and Tostig before the battle. He gave no name, but spoke to Tostig, offering the return of his earldom if he would turn against Hardrada. Tostig asked what his brother Harold would be willing to give Hardrada for his trouble. The rider replied: “Seven feet of English ground, as he is taller than other men” before riding back to the Anglo-Saxon host. Hardrada was impressed by the rider’s boldness, and asked Tostig who he was. Tostig replied that the rider was Harold Godwinson himself.

The Norwegian army was, in the end, severely beaten. Hardrada and Tostig were both killed.  Hardrada had been struck in the throat by an arrow and killed early in the battle while reputedly in a state of berserkergang (berserker fury). Wearing no body armour, his sword gripped in his two hands, the king of Norway fought aggressively before being slain.

Although sources state that Hardrada’s remaining army only filled between 20 and 25 ships on the return to Norway, it is likely that this number only accounts for the Norwegian forces. Most of the forces from Scotland and Orkney probably remained at Riccall throughout the battle and were not counted in the traditional figure. Even so, this was the last, so-called, Viking invasion of England.

William lands

The deaths of Tostig and Hardrada at Stamford Bridge left William as Harold's only serious opponent. On September 27th, having been delayed by wind and tides, the Norman fleet finally set sail for England. Arriving the following day William established a castle within the ruins of the Roman fort at Pevensey on the coast of East Sussex. The landing of perhaps 7,000 Normans in the south meant that celebrating the Anglo-Saxon success at Stamford Bridge was short-lived.

The exact numbers and composition of William’s force are unknown. One contemporary document claims that William had 776 ships, but this number cannot be relied upon. Figures given by contemporary writers for the size of the army are highly exaggerated, varying from 14,000 to 150,000. Modern historians have offered a range of estimates for the size of William’s forces, the average being somewhere between 7,000 and 8,000 men including 1,000 to 2,000 cavalrymen. Whatever the number, the Norman army consisted of about one half infantry, one quarter cavalry, and one quarter archers or crossbowmen.

Dressed almost identically to the English, the Normans also wore mail hauberks, usually knee-length, with slits to allow riding, some with sleeves to the elbows. Some hauberks may have been made of scales attached to a tunic, with the scales made of metal, horn or hardened leather. Headgear was the popular conical helmet with a vertical nasal guarding the bridge of the nose. Both horsemen and infantry carried shields. The latter’s shields were usually round and made of wood with metal reinforcement, while the cavalry had adopted a kite-shaped shield offering better protection for horse and rider. The cavalry was armed with a long spear or lance. Couching the lance, that is carrying it tucked under the right arm against the body, was relatively new innovation but probably not used at Hastings, as the terrain was unfavourable for long cavalry charges. Both infantry and cavalry usually fought with a straight sword, long and double-edged. The infantry could also use javelins and long spears. Some of the cavalry may have used a mace instead of a sword. Norman archers, as depicted on the Bayeaux Tapestry, appear to have used a self-bow or a crossbow, and most appear not to have worn armour.

Harold moves south

After defeating his brother Tostig and Harald Hardrada in the north, King Harold left much of his forces in the north, including Earls Morcar and Edwin, and marched the rest of his army south to deal with the threatened Norman invasion. It is unclear when Harold learned of William’s landing, but it was probably during the march. It seems Harold stopped in London for about a week before the battle, so it is likely that the move south took about a week, with the army averaging about 27 miles (43 km) per day, for the approximately 200 mi (320 km). Having gathered fresh troops as he went, on the night of October 13th Harold eventually made camp at Caldbec Hill, near a “hoar-apple tree” [1]. In hastily built earthworks, the English army was positioned only about 8 miles (13 km) from William’s recently constructed, prefabricated castle at Hastings. 

The armies assemble

The following day, October 14th, Harold’s army moved to a defensive position on Senlac Hill (near the present day town of Battle) only 6 miles (9.7 km) from William’s base. Although Harold had attempted to surprise the Normans, William’s scouts had reported the English arrival to the duke. Even so the exact events preceding the battle remain obscure, with contradictory accounts in the sources. Yet all agree that William’s army advanced from his castle to confront Harold.

Sunrise on October 14th, 1066 was at 6:48 am, with the day unusually bright. The precise route of the English army southward to the battlefield is not known. Several routes are plausible, but whichever was taken Harold’s forces deployed in a small, dense formation at the top of steep slope, with their flanks protected by woods and marshy ground in front of them. The line may have extended far enough to be anchored on a nearby stream. The English front ranks held their shields close together, or even overlapping, to form a protective shield wall. Sources differ on the exact site of the English position, but the generally accepted version is along a ridge where the Battle Abbey later would be built.

The exact numbers present at this pivotal battle are unknown. Even modern estimates vary considerably with most historians arguing for a figure of 7,000–8,000 English troops. That said, the composition of the forces present is somewhat clearer. As previously mentioned, the English army was composed almost entirely of infantry, a mix of housecarls and the fyrd, and had few archers, whereas only about half of the invading Norman force was infantry, the rest being split equally between cavalry and archers.

More is known about the Norman deployment. Duke William appears to have arranged his forces in three groups, known as “battles”. On the left were positioned the Bretons, together with those men from Anjou, Poitou and Maine, led by Alan the Red, a relative of the Breton count. The Normans formed the centre battle under the direct command of Duke William and with many of his relatives and kinsmen grouped around the ducal party. The final division, on the right wing, consisted of the Frenchmen, together with some men from Picardy, Boulogne, and Flanders and was commanded jointly by William fitzOsbern and Count Eustace II of Boulogne. Archers, probably interspersed with a few crossbowmen and slingers, formed the front lines with spear-armed infantry behind them. With the Norman cavalry held in reserve, this disposition strongly suggests William planned to open the battle with archers weakening the enemy with arrows before advancing his infantry to engage in close combat. The infantry presumably would create openings in the English shield wall to be exploited by a cavalry charge aimed at breaking the English forces and pursuing any fleeing soldiers.

Battle is joined

Unfortunately, many of the primary accounts contradict each other at times so it is difficult to be certain what exactly happened during the battle. The only undisputed facts are that fighting began at 9 am Saturday October 14th, 1066 and that the fighting lasted until dusk. Indeed, the sun set at 4:54 pm leaving the battlefield mostly dark by 5:54 pm and in full darkness about 30 minutes later (6:24 pm). It was not until 11:12 pm that night that the moon rose to shed some light on the aftermath of battle. 

The battlefield lies 7 miles (11 km) north of Hastings at the site of the present-day town of Battle, between Caldbec Hill to the north and Telham Hill to the south. The area was heavily wooded, with a marsh nearby. The name traditionally given to the battle is unusual as there were several settlements much closer to the battlefield than Hastings. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle called it the battle “at the hoary apple tree”, which does suggest Caldbec Hill (refer above) may have been the centre of the fighting. Within 40 years, however, the battle was described by the Anglo-Norman chronicler Orderic Vitalis as “Senlac”, a Norman-French adaptation of the Old English word “Sandlacu” meaning “sandy water”. This may have been the name of the stream that crosses the battlefield. Either way, by 1086 the Domesday Book referred to the battle as “bellum Haestingas”, that is, the “Battle of Hastings”.

The fighting began with the Norman archers shooting, to little effect, uphill at the English shield wall. The uphill angle meant that the arrows either bounced off English shields or overshot their targets and flew over the top of the hill. Any prolonged archery duel was hampered by the lack of English archers. The practice at the time was to recover your enemy’s arrows to continue shooting but the Norman archers found that, as there were so few English archers, there were few arrows to be gathered up and reused. With the archery attack effectively negated, William ordered the spearmen forward only to be met with a barrage of missiles; not arrows but spears, axes and stones. The Norman infantry was unable to force openings in the shield wall, so the cavalry advanced in support. The cavalry also failed to make headway, and a general retreat began, blamed on the Breton division on William’s left. At this point a rumour started that the Duke had been killed adding to the confusion of battle. The English forces began to pursue the fleeing invaders, but William rode through his forces, showing his face and yelling that he was still alive. The Duke then led a counterattack against the pursuing English forces; some of the English rallied on a hillock before being overwhelmed.

It is unknown whether the English pursuit was ordered by King Harold or whether it was a spontaneous act. It is during this action that the Bayeux Tapestry depicts the death of Harold’s brothers Gyrth and Leofwine occurring just before the fight around the hillock. This may mean that the two brothers led the pursuit. The Norman account of the battle, Carmen de Hastingae Proelio (“Song of the Battle of Hastings”), relates a different story for the death of Gyrth, stating that Duke William slew Harold’s brother in combat, perhaps thinking that Gyrth was Harold. To confuse matters, William of Poitiers states that the bodies of Gyrth and Leofwine were found near Harold’s, implying that they died late in the battle. Had they died earlier in the fighting, then it is entirely possible that the bodies of the two brothers were recovered to Harold’s position, thus accounting for their being found near his body after the battle.

Feigned flights

If a lull occurred early in the afternoon then it was probably a much needed break for rest and food. Perhaps William took this time to implement a new strategy, one inspired by the English pursuit and subsequent rout by the Normans. If the Normans could send their cavalry against the shield wall and draw the English into more pursuits, breaks in the English line might form. William of Poitiers [2] says the tactic, employed by other Norman armies during the period, was used twice during the battle. It has been argued that the story of the use of feigned flight [3] as a deliberate tactic was invented after the battle, but most historians agree that it was used by the Normans at Hastings.

Although the feigned flights did not break the lines, it is possible that they thinned the number of housecarls in the shield wall. Replaced with members of the fyrd, the English shield wall held. Archers appear to have been used again before and during an assault by the cavalry and infantry led by the Duke. Although 12th-century sources state that the archers were ordered to shoot at a high angle to shoot over the front of the shield wall, there is no trace of such an action in the more contemporary accounts. It is not known how many assaults were launched against the English lines, but some sources record various actions by both Normans and Englishmen that took place during the afternoon’s fighting. The Carmen claims Duke William had two horses killed under him during the fighting, but William of Poitiers’ account states it was three.

An arrow in the eye

King Harold appears to have died late in the battle, although accounts in the various sources are contradictory. William of Poitiers, for example, only mentions his death without giving any details on how it occurred. The notion that Harold died by an arrow to the eye is a popular belief today, but this historical legend is subject to much scholarly debate. The Norman account of the battle, Carmen de Hastingae Proelio, said to have been written shortly after the battle by Bishop Guy of Amiens, recounts that Harold was killed by four Norman knights, probably including Duke William. Much later in the 12th-century, Anglo-Norman histories (such as William of Malmesbury’s Gesta Regum Anglorum and Henry of Huntingdon’s Historia Anglorum) recount that Harold died by an arrow wound to his head. Subsequent accounts reflect either one or both these two versions.

It is true that in one panel of the Bayeux Tapestry a figure beneath the inscription “hic Harold Rex Interfectus Est” (“here Harold the King has been killed”) is shown gripping an arrow that has struck his right eye. For many people this is proof that the figure with an arrow in his eye directly beneath his name is indeed King Harold [4]. Yet some historians have questioned whether this man was intended to be the king or whether the embroiders intended Harold to be the figure lying to the right, almost supine, being mutilated beneath a horse’s hooves. Scholars examining other panels from the Tapestry dispute the “arrow in the eye” version arguing that the visual centre of a scene, not the location of the inscription, identifies named figures. To confuse things further, an arrow volley probably would have been loosed at the Anglo-Saxon defending the ridge before a Norman cavalry charge. Thus, is it possible that both accounts are correct, and that Harold suffered first the mortal eye wound, then the mutilation of his body with the Tapestry attempting to depict both events in one scene.

The mutilation of the king’s body is certainly supported by at least one account which states: “the two brothers of the King were found near him and Harold himself, stripped of all badges of honour, could not be identified by his face but only by certain marks on his body.” Another source notes that Harold’s common-law widow, Edith Swanneck [5], was called to identify the body by some private mark known only to her.

The truth of the “arrow in the eye” may never be proven, but King Harold’s death left the English force leaderless. The army began to collapse, with many men fleeing the battlefield. The soldiers of the royal household, however, gathered around Harold’s body and fought to the bitter end. The Normans began to pursue the fleeing troops, and except for a rear-guard action at a site known as the “Malfosse” or “Evil Ditch”, the battle was over. What happened at the Malfosse, and where it took place, is unclear. The rear-guard action is said to have occurred at a small fortification or set of trenches where some Englishmen rallied and seriously wounded Eustace of Boulogne before finally succumbing to the Normans.

The third king that year

The day after the battle, Harold’s body was identified, and his personal standard presented to William. Later he gifted it to the Pope presumably in gratitude for papal support. Exact casualty figures are unknown. The bodies of the English dead, including some of Harold’s brothers and housecarls, were left on the battlefield only to be removed by relatives later. The Norman dead were said to be buried in a large communal grave, which to this day has not been found. Likewise, Harold’s body has disappeared from the archaeological record. One story relates that Gytha, Harold’s mother, offered the victorious Duke the weight of her son’s body in gold for its custody, but was refused. It is said William ordered Harold’s body be thrown into the sea, but whether that took place is unclear. Waltham Abbey, which had been founded by Harold, later claimed that his body had been secretly buried there. If so, then to date his grave has not been identified.

William expected to receive the submission of the surviving English leaders after his victory but instead, with the support of Earls Edwin and Morcar, Stigand, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Ealdred, the Archbishop of York, the Witenagemot proclaimed Edgar the Ætheling [6] as king. William therefore advanced on London, marching around the coast of Kent to meet up with reinforcements that had landed by Portsmouth and met him between London and Winchester. He defeated an English force that attacked him at Southwark but was unable to storm London Bridge, forcing him to reach the capital by a more circuitous route. William moved up the Thames valley to cross the river at Wallingford, where he received the submission of Stigand, Archbishop of Canterbury. He then travelled north-east along the Chilterns, before advancing towards London from the north-west, fighting further engagements against forces from the city. By swinging around to the north, William had cut off London from reinforcements leading eventually to the English leaders surrendering to the Duke at Berkhamsted in Hertfordshire. 

Anglo-Saxon England’s demise

The victorious William was acclaimed King of England and crowned by Ealdred, the Archbishop of York, in Westminster Abbey on December 25th, 1066. Even so, there continued to be resistance to William’s rule for several years. There were rebellions in Exeter in late 1067, an invasion by Harold’s sons in mid-1068, and an uprising in Northumbria in 1068. A year later William faced further troubles from Northumbrian rebels, an invading Danish fleet, and rebellions in the south and west of England. He ruthlessly put down the various risings, culminating in the “Harrying of the North” in late 1069 and early 1070 that devastated parts of northern England. At Ely in Cambridgeshire William defeated a further rebellion by Hereward the Wake in 1070. Twenty years later the Normans had achieved control of the England, Wales and even Ireland.  So, the Battle of Hastings, in 1066, marked the end of Anglo-Saxon England and the beginning of Norman rule.

Legacy

Despite the foundation of Norman, and later Plantagenet, rule in England, Wales and Ireland, three key legacies emerged from the events of October 14th, 1066. Firstly, Battle Abbey was founded by William at the site of the battle. According to 12th-century sources, William had vowed to build a monastery if he won the battle. In 1070, Pope Alexander II ordered the Normans to do penance for killing so many people during their conquest of England. William vowed to build an abbey where the Battle of Hastings had taken place, with the high altar of the church on the supposed spot where King Harold fell in battle.

Secondly, keen to know what he was king of, mostly so he could tax the people, William ordered the compiling and writing of Domesday Book in AD 1086. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states that a year earlier, in 1085, the king sent his agents to survey every shire in England, to list his holdings and dues owed to him. Domesday Book remains an amazing record of early Norman England giving us the annual value of every piece of landed property to its lord, the resources in land, labour force, and livestock from which that value derived.

Thirdly is the Bayeux Tapestry, which is of major significance at the time of writing as it has returned to England for the first time in over 900 years. Although called a Tapestry it is in fact an embroidered narrative of the events leading up to Hastings. It was probably commissioned by Odo of Bayeux soon after the battle, perhaps to hang at the bishop's palace at Bayeux. The first recorded mention of the tapestry is from 1476, but it is similar in style to late Anglo-Saxon manuscript illustrations and was probably composed and executed in England. Normally, the Tapestry is displayed at the former Bishop’s Palace at Bayeux in France. Bon appétit!

Reference:

Morris, M., (2026), “What was the most important year in history - and why?”, Ask the Experts, History Extra Magazine, London: Immediate Media, p. 38.

Endnotes:

1. “Hoar” means grey and probably refers to a crab-apple tree covered with lichen that was likely a local landmark.

2. William of Poitiers was a Norman priest serving as the chaplain to Duke William II of Normandy, for whom he chronicled the Norman conquest of England in his Gesta Willelmi ducis Normannorum et regis Anglorum.

3. Examples of the use of feigned flight include the Battle of Arques around 1052, the Battle of Messina in 1060, and the Battle of Cassel in 1071.

4. The issue is further confused by the fact that there is evidence that the 19th-century restoration of the Tapestry changed the scene by inserting or changing the placement of the arrow through the eye.

5. “Swanneck” seemingly comes from the folk etymology which made her in Old English as swann hnecca or “swan neck”. This was most likely a corrupted form of the epithet swann hnesce meaning “Gentle Swan”.

6. Ætheling is the Anglo-Saxon term for a royal prince with some claim to the throne.

Dispelling Some Myths: Falconry and some common phrases

Keep it under your hat

It is time for a confession. Tastes Of History was supporting a history event recently during which the author was guilty of entertaining one visitor with the origin of the phrase “to keep it under your hat”. The mistake was to repeat the commonly told tale concerning mediæval English longbowmen keeping a spare bowstring under their hat where it would be protected from inclement weather. At first sight this explanation makes some sense. Bowstrings of the period were handcrafted from locally sourced natural fibres such as hemp, flax (linen), horsehair, sinew, and sometimes rawhide. These materials were chosen for their strength, flexibility, and durability in both hunting and warfare, but sinew and rawhide strings can be seriously affected by water; a particular problem in the rainy climes of northwest Europe. So, for archers to keep a spare bowstring in a dry place like under their hats seems a sensible precaution. There are several problems with this explanation which Tastes Of History should have checked.

Firstly, why under a hat? In excessive wet weather even woollen hats and hoods retaining natural wool’s water-proof lanolin will eventually become waterlogged. Likewise, even headwear made of leather oiled to resist water will in time succumb. So, keeping a spare bowstring under a hat may not be the best option especially where an archer could stow one in a waterproof belt pouch or bag. Most significantly, however, there is no contemporary evidence of the practice. Even more damning is that the phrase does not appear in English until the 19th-century long after the mediæval period. Crucially, to “keep it under your hat” has nothing to do with staying dry but rather keeping a secret; “under your hat” simply meant “in your head”. According to the website www.phrasefinder.org, the oldest citation appears in the novel “The History of Pendennis” by William Makepeace Thackeray (1848):

“Thus, oh friendly readers, we see how every man in the world has his own private griefs and business…You and your wife have pressed the same pillow for forty years and fancy yourselves united. Psha, does she cry out when you have the gout, or do you lie awake when she has the toothache?…Ah, sir - a distinct universe walks about under your hat and under mine.”

In the 20th-century the expression was extended from “under your hat” to the more familiar “keep it under your hat”. At this point the phrase simply meant “keep it in your head”, that is, “think it, but do not say it”. Again, thanks to Gary Martin and his Phrase Finder website which cites an early example in P. G. Wodehouse’s Inimitable Jeeves, 1923:

“It made such a hit with her when she found that I loved her for herself alone, despite her humble station, that she kept it under her hat. She meant to spring it on me later.”

The language of falconry

Having clarified our understanding, and dispelled the archery myth, the author was reminded of several other phrases and sayings with widely accepted historical roots. Tastes Of History has had a longstanding friendship with Emma and Mike Raphael of Raphael Historic Falconry from whom we have learnt much about the ancient art of falconry. In doing so we have been introduced to several idioms that pepper English which are originally sourced, or so it is claimed, from the language of falconry. Indeed, the website of Wingspan National Bird of Prey Centre in New Zealand has a section titled “The language of falconry” that highlights the extensive vocabulary used to describe the practice of falconry that developed through its long and rich history around the world. Many of these words and phrases have become embedded in everyday use without many of us realising the original meaning. With that in mind, Tastes Of History has searched for some of the most common phrases attributed to falconry and sought to establish their etymological truth. While in no particular order, the first example may well have come from the language of falconry but today its meaning has significantly changed. 

Fed up  The term “fed up” comes from the falconry term for when a trained hawk has eaten its fill. When a bird is “fed up”, meaning fully satisfied, it has no incentive to fly and hunt for the falconer. From this technical expression formed an early conceptual basis for the phrase’s later metaphorical leap from physical fullness to emotional saturation. Interestingly, all known contextual evidence and early examples point to Britain as the origin of “fed up.” In 18th-century British newspapers and regional periodicals the phrase was used to describe people or livestock that were properly fed, fattened, or prepared for sale. By the turn of the 20th-century however, the phrase had gained currency in military slang, with soldiers using “fed up” to convey irritation, boredom, and emotional exhaustion. A documented example from 20 October 1900 records a soldier remarking, “I’m about fed up with it…” revealing the contemporary sense, that is annoyance brought on by overexposure, had become fully established. Its rapid spread into newspapers and general conversation soon made it a common, informal expression. So, today, to be “fed up” means one is no longer interested in doing something.

Boozer  In a manner to being “fed up”, a bird that drinks too much will not hunt and is said to be a “boozer”. The word “booze” originates from the 14th-century Middle English “bouse” meaning an intoxicating drink or, as with the Middle Dutch verb “buse”, the act of drink excessively. The word’s modern spelling with a “z” was established by the 17th-century. It is likely that rather than falconers introducing the term they simply adopted it from common mediæval parlance. Whether boozer’s origin is in the language of falconry, the same word has been extended to describe the equivalent tendency in humans. So, a “boozer” in English is someone who drinks a lot, and the place where they do that - typically a public house or pub - is nicknamed the “boozer”.

Hoodwinked  Dating to AD 1560, the term “hoodwink” meant “to blindfold or blind by covering the eyes”. In falconry, a hood is a small leather cap placed over a raptor’s head, especially its eyes, to calm it and make it manageable. Birds of prey have extremely sharp vision - about ten times better than humans - so without a hood, they can spot targets invisible to the falconer and become distracted or agitated. So, when a falconer is said to “hoodwink” a bird, they place a hood over its eyes to block out unwanted sights, forcing the bird to focus on the intended target. There is a problem, however. Circa 1600 the term was being used in the figurative sense of “blind the mind, mislead, deceive by disguise”. In the centuries that followed “hoodwink” has meant somebody being fooled or tricked into doing something. The connection with falconry would appear to be folk etymology [1].

Under the thumb  To be “under the thumb” means to be under someone’s complete control. It is said to derive from falconers holding the leash, or jesses [2], of the hawk under their thumb to maintain control of the bird in hand. The problem is that the first recorded use of the phrase in print dates to the early 18th-century in English politician Arthur Maynwaring’s eponymous work “The Life and Posthumous Works of Arthur Maynwaring” (1715):

“The French King having them under his Thumb, compell’d them to go at his Pace.”

In this sense the phrase alludes “to a protagonist so powerful and a victim so insignificant that even the former’s thumb was strong enough to control them. None of the early references relates to falconry, or to any other specific origin” (Phrase Finder). Today the term “under the thumb” is generally used in a derogatory manner to describe one partner’s overbearing control over another’s actions.

Wrapped around someone’s little finger  Related to “under the thumb” the language of falconry claims “wrapped around someone’s little finger” as its own because wrapping the jesses around this finger adds extra security when the bird is on the hand. Much as before, however, the origin of the phrase is believed to date to the 17th- or 18th-century, which is quite late in falconry terms. Moreover, the phrase’s gist is rooted in the imagery of wrapping a ring or string around a finger. Historically, the finger was a symbol of engagement or commitment, as in marriage, but in this context, it evolved into a metaphor for control and influence. The idea is that just as a ring or string fits snugly around a finger, a person can become so captivated or controlled that they are essentially “wrapped” around someone else’s finger.

Bated breath  As mentioned, in falconry birds are typically held by jesses while on the hand or tethered to a perch or block. A bird attempting to fly from the fist or perch will often beat their wings, while prevented from leaving by said jess or tether. In such instances, the flapping may be because the bird was startled, or is an indicator they are upset, fearful or impatient to be flying. Falconers use the word bate, from the Old French batre (to beat), to describe the bird’s behaviour. Eventually this meaning evolved to that of “to hold back or restrain”. In the phrase “bated breath” however, “bated” is simply a shortened form of “abated” meaning “to bring down, lower or depress”. The gist of “bated breath”, therefore, makes perfect sense when describing subdued or reduced breathing caused by suspense or emotion; essentially “holding your breath” while awaiting an outcome. As so often is the case, the earliest known citation of the phrase appears in William Shakespeare’s work, specifically “The Merchant of Venice” (1596):

What should I say to you? Should I not say 

’Hath a dog money? is it possible

A cur can lend three thousand ducats?’ Or

Shall I bend low and in a bondman’s key,

With bated breath and whispering humbleness, Say this;

‘Fair sir, you spit on me on Wednesday last;

You spurn’d me such a day; another time

You call’d me dog; and for these courtesies

I’ll lend you thus much moneys’?

There are, therefore, two versions of the word “bate” even though both seemingly originate circa AD 1300. In falconry, bating describes a bird beating its wings impatiently or trying to fly from the perch. This sense enters English as mentioned via Old French batre meaning “to hit, beat or strike”, itself ultimately deriving from Latin batuere “to beat, knock”. The second variant is now found only in the phrase bated breath, as introduced by the inimitable Bard of Avon, and would appear unconnected to falconry.

At the end of one’s tether  The term “at the end of one’s [or ‘my’] tether” reputedly also comes from the bating action of a falcon, particularly a young, untrained one. A bird bating (see above) from their perch is restrained by their leash such that being “at the end of one’s tether” has become synonymous with being extremely frustrated. While clearly applicable in the above case, the phrase itself is not unique to falconry as from the 1600s it described any animal or livestock that can move no further than the end of a rope or tether allows. Interestingly, the word “tether” is not found in Old English but its meaning of “a rope for fastening an animal to a fixed point” has been in use from the late 14th-century onward. Today the phrase “at the end of one’s tether” is used more figuratively to mean someone has reached a point of complete exhaustion, frustration or lack of patience. A person at this juncture may have been pushed to the very end of their patience and might feel overwhelmed such that they just cannot cope with a given situation.

Cadge a lift  A “cadge” was the name falconers gave the portable perch on which birds were carried to the hunting grounds. Frame carrying was said to be a job for elderly falconers, who reputedly came to be called “old cadgers” that later became an affectionate term for an elderly person - an “old codger”. Linked to the carriage of falcons is a second derived phrase “to cadge a lift” with the sense of someone or something getting a free ride. According to Phrase Finder however, the theory is almost certainly wrong as the phrase is unknown until the 19th-century some while after falconry had ceased to be a common practice. Moreover, the “beg” or “borrow” sense of cadge was in use as a general term for “obtaining without payment” and only later became used in “to cadge a lift”. As for “old codger”, it is the begging sense of cadge rather than the carriage of falcons meaning that is more likely to be linked to “cadger” and later “codger”.

Haggard  In the 1560s the word “haggard” meant “wild, unruly” and was originally in reference to hawks. It is said to derive from the Old French term faulcon hagard meaning “wild falcon”, or more literally “falcon of the woods”. In falconry, therefore, a “haggard” was a bird captured in the wild most often at the end of its migration. At this time the bird would appear thin and tired from its arduous journey. Over time “haggard” evolved to describe someone who looks exhausted and unkempt. Today it is also associated with the word “hag” denoting a dishevelled old woman or from Old English, a witch, sorceress or enchantress.

Rouse  The word “rouse” probably stems from mid-15th-century Anglo-French or Old French reuser or ruser. In English it was originally a technical term in falconry meaning “to shake the feathers of the body”. Yet, like many mediæval hawking and hunting terms, it is of obscure origin and probably not from the language of falconry.

Pounce  In falconry, the heel claw of a bird of prey is a talon, while the others are “pounces”, so called for being the “claws that punch” holes in things. The Middle English pownse (late 15th-century) probably comes from the Old French word ponchon for a “lance, javelin; spine, quill”. 

Lure  Originally a “lure” (from Anglo-French lure) was a bunch of feathers, arranged to resemble a bird, on a long cord, from which the hawk was fed during its training. Falconers also cast lures or decoys to attract a hawk’s attention thereby recalling the bird. Indeed, the Old French word loirre meant a “device used to recall hawks”. In the early 14th-century, however, lure gained the familiar figurative meaning of “something which allures or entices, an attraction”.

Turn tail  Dated to the 1580s, “to turn tail” seems to have a genuine origin in the language of falconry quite simply meaning “to take flight” or “wheel about”.

Attribution?

While only a selection of common phrases has been explored, it should be obvious now that hunting with birds of prey may not be the origin of several of those popularly attributed to this ancient art. That said, “fed up”, “haggard”, “lure”, “pounce”, and “turn tail” do appear to originate in the language of falconry. The same can be said of “bating”, but the phrase “bated breath” has a different root and its link to falconry is unlikely. The common parlance of 14th-century England may have given us “at the end of one’s tether” which may have passed into the language of falconers but there is no suggestion that the latter was its source.  Likewise, “boozer” may also have been a term drawn from common speech, with “hoodwink” following a similar path into English. The most familiar of the selected phrases, namely “under the thumb”, “wrapped around someone’s little finger”, and “to cadge a lift”, all have antecedents elsewhere. However, it is easy to see how the practices in falconry, for instance the use of jesses to control a bird, could lead to such mistaken attributions. Bon appétit!

References:

www.inspirepearls.com, (2026), “What Does It Mean When Someone Says Wrapped Around Your Finger”, available online (accessed 25 August 2026).

www.etymonline.com, Online Etymology Dictionary, available online (accessed 20 August 2026).

Martin, G., (2026), “Keep it under your hat”, Phrase Finder (www.phrases.org.uk), available online (accessed 19 August 2026).

Wingspans National Bird of Prey Centre, (2026), “The Language of Falconry” (www.wingspan.co.nz), available online (accessed 18 August 2026).

Endnotes:

1. Folk etymology refers to the alteration of a word’s form or meaning when speakers reinterpret an unfamiliar term as if it were composed of more familiar elements.

2. A jess is a thin strap, traditionally made of leather, that is used in falconry to tether a trained hawk, falcon, or owl. Jesses allow a falconer to keep control of a bird while it is on the glove or in training, and they allow a bird to be secured on a perch outside its aviary.

About History: the Greek Gods become Roman

With its roots in oral and literary traditions, Greek mythology predates the Roman version by more than a millennium. For the most part, the Greeks envisioned their gods in a familiar human likeness portraying them with, often exaggerated, human traits, emotions, and physical forms. In this way the Greek gods and goddesses espoused both the beauty and flaws of mortal beings. From the thunderous Zeus to the wise Athena, the gods were at the very core of Greek culture influencing everything from art to politics.

Assimilation

While profoundly influenced by the Greeks, Roman mythology emerged in a society with a distinct worldview. The Romans, pragmatic and disciplined, adopted most of the Greek gods and goddesses into their own pantheon, but often changed their names and attributes to better align with Roman values and societal norms. For instance, the Greek god of war, Ares, known for his fierce and tumultuous nature, was transformed into Mars, a more disciplined and virtuous figure in Roman culture.

In the table below is an alphabetical list of the Greek gods and goddesses and their Roman equivalents. The list is by no means exhaustive as there are many more minor deities and other personifications of the natural world within which the superstitious Romans inhabited.

Of those listed above, the principal deities of ancient Greek mythology lived atop Mount Olympus and were thus known as the Olympian gods. They governed all aspects of life, from love and war to wisdom and the natural world. Adopted by the Romans, it is generally accepted that there were twelve Olympians as follows:

Jupiter (Zeus)  For both the Greeks and Romans, Jupiter/Zeus is often referred to as the King of the Gods. He was not the original creator of the mythological creatures that dominated tales and lore as that distinction belongs to his father, Saturnus (Greek: Kronos). Also known as Jove in Roman mythology, Jupiter was the chief deity of Roman religion, presiding over the sky and thunder, and acting as the guardian of justice, oaths, and treaties in the Roman state. He was considered central to the Capitoline Triad alongside Juno, his consort, and Minerva, his daughter. His sacred tree was the oak, and his primary symbol was the thunderbolt, often depicted in the claws of an eagle, which was also his sacred animal.

Juno (Hera)  The Queen of the Gods was the second central deity in ancient Roman religion. She served as the wife and sister of Jupiter, the King of the Gods, and was mother to deities such as Mars, Vulcan, Bellona, Lucina, and Juventas. She was revered as the protector of women, particularly in marriage and childbirth, and held significant civic roles as a guardian of the Roman state. Her sacred animal was the peacock, symbolising her regal status.

Minerva (Athena)  Goddess of wisdom, strategy, and warfare, but also of crafts, medicine, and the arts. Minerva originated as an Italic and Etruscan deity, known as Menrva, before being fully integrated into Roman religion as the third of Capitoline Triad. Her name is linked to the Latin root mens (“mind”) and the Proto-Italic meneswo (“understanding” or “intelligence”), reflecting her association with wisdom and intellect. Over time, she was equated with the Greek goddess Athena, adopting many of Athena’s martial and strategic attributes while retaining her original Italic identity as a goddess of crafts and professional skill.

Neptune (Poseidon)  God of the sea, earthquakes, and of horses. Known in Latin as Neptūnus, he was initially a god of freshwater sources such as springs, rivers, and wells, reflecting the practical concerns of early Roman agricultural society. Later he became identified with the Greek god Poseidon. Neptune is the brother of Jupiter (sky) and Pluto (underworld), forming part of the ruling generation of Roman gods who divided the cosmos after overthrowing their father Saturnus. Neptune’s wife was Salacia, a goddess associated with saltwater and possibly originally with natural groundwater springs, paralleling the Greek Amphitrite.

Ceres (Demeter)  Goddess of agriculture, grain, fertility, the harvest, and motherly relationships. She was a central deity in Roman religion being particularly associated with the growth of wheat and spelt, reflecting the vital importance of grain to Roman survival and society. Her symbols include the sickle, shafts of grain, and the cornucopia, and she is typically depicted as a matronly woman wearing flowing draperies, crowned with wheat ears. Ceres could bring plentiful harvests or, if angered, blight, drought, and famine.

Apollo (Apollo)  The son of Leto and Jupiter (Zeus), Apollo was born on the island of Delos together with his twin sister Diana (Artemis), Goddess of the hunt. Both he and Diana shared an aptitude for archery. The nine Muses were companions of his, they being the goddesses known for inspiring art and music. Apollo was a significant deity in ancient Greek and Roman mythology, known for his numerous functions, including healing, prophecy and oracles. He was widely revered with temples dedicated to him across the ancient world, particularly in cities like Athens and Sparta. Apollo is often depicted as a handsome youth associated with the sun, light, music, poetry, and archery.

Diana (Artemis)  Goddess of the hunt, the moon, wild animals, childbirth, and virginity. Diana was originally an Italian deity worshipped in the forests and countryside. Over time, she absorbed aspects of the Greek goddess, Artemis, including associations with the moon (Luna/Selene) and the underworld (Hecate), forming a triformis or triple goddess concept. She was the daughter of Jupiter and Latona, born on the island of Delos alongside her twin brother, Apollo. Diana was revered as a protector of the wilderness, a skilled huntress, and a guardian of animals, often believed to communicate with and control woodland creatures. Her name likely derives from the Latin dius (“godly” or “divine”), connecting her to the sky and daylight, and she was sometimes called Diana Lucifera, meaning “light-bearer”. 

Mars (Ares)  The God of War who represented its violent and chaotic aspects in contrast to Minerva (Athena). Often depicted in bronze armour, emphasizing his martial character, he was the protector of Rome, and originally a guardian of agriculture, second in importance only to his father Jupiter. Being also the son of Juno, the goddess of women and marriage, made Mars a central figure in the Roman pantheon. He fathered Romulus and Remus, the legendary founders of Rome, through Rhea Silvia, a Vestal Virgin, establishing his role as a divine progenitor of the Roman people. As Rome expanded, his warrior aspect became dominant, symbolising military power to secure peace rather than mere destruction in contrast to the Greek god Ares, who was often seen as impulsive and violent. Mars’ worship was closely tied to the Roman calendar. The month of Martius (March), named after him, marked the start of both the agricultural and military seasons, while October marked their conclusion. Mars was associated with the wolf, reflecting his connection to Romulus and Remus, and the woodpecker, a symbol of vigilance and war. His sacred shield, the Ancile, was believed to protect Rome, and priests maintained multiple copies to safeguard the city.

Venus (Aphrodite)  The Roman goddess of love, beauty, desire, fertility, prosperity, and victory, and the divine ancestress of the Roman people (Gaius Julius Caesar for example claimed descent from her). She was originally a native Italian deity associated with gardens, cultivated fields, and the beauty of growing things, symbolising charm, grace, and productive abundance in nature. Venus was later identified with the Greek goddess Aphrodite. In Greek myth, Aphrodite was born from sea foam after Uranus (Ouranos), one of the primordial deities representing the sky itself, was castrated by Kronus. Despite Greek influences, Venus retained her earlier Italian character, emphasizing fertility, natural beauty, and the flourishing of life. According to mythology, her son Aeneas fled from Troy to Italy. He became the ancestor of Romulus and Remus, co-founders of Rome.

Vulcan (Hephaestus)  A son of Jupiter, king of the Gods, and Juno, queen of the Gods. It was believed that with such parents he would be quite handsome. As a baby, however, Vulcan (or Vulcanus in Latin) was very small and ugly, his face red and distorted. Notwithstanding his looks, Vulcan was married to Venus (Aphrodite). He was revered as the God of fire, volcanoes, metalworking, and craftsmanship. He was known as the master of the forge and patron of artisans, associated with both the creative and destructive aspects of fire. He is often depicted with a blacksmith’s hammer, working at a forge surrounded by flames and tools, symbolising his mastery over metallurgy and craftsmanship. Vulcan is credited with forging powerful artifacts, such as Jupiter’s lightning bolts and Mercury’s winged helm.

Mercury (Hermes)  Known in Latin as Mercurius, was the son of Jupiter, king of the gods, and Maia, one of the Pleiades and daughter of the Titan Atlas. His cult was influenced by the Greek god Hermes and the Etruscan deity Turms, blending traits of speed, cunning, and mediation between gods and mortals. Mercury’s name likely derives from the Latin merx (“merchandise”) or mercari (“to trade”), reflecting his association with commerce and boundaries. He was a versatile deity with multiple responsibilities including protector of merchants, shopkeepers, and of financial gain; God of messages, languages, and divination; patron of travellers, transporters of goods, and the keeper of borders. Known for cunning, wit, and cleverness, often using his intelligence to outsmart others, Mercury was also the God of tricksters and thieves. He also guided the souls of the dead to the underworld, uniquely able to cross freely between realms of the living and the dead.

Vesta (Hestia)  One of the original twelve Olympians as the firstborn child of the Titans Kronus and Rhea. She chose to remain a perpetual virgin, rejecting marriage proposals from gods such as Neptune (Poseidon) and Apollo. Instead, she dedicated herself entirely to being the Goddess of the hearth and domestic harmony, being revered as the guardian of family. Vesta ensured the hearth fire in every household remained burning thereby symbolising stability, warmth, and continuity of family life. Her symbols include the aforementioned hearth, fire, and kettle, while her sacred plant is the chaste-tree and her sacred animal is the pig. She is often depicted as a modest, middle-aged woman, sometimes standing by a fire or holding flowers. In some lists of the twelve Olympians, Vesta is omitted in favour of Bacchus (Dionysus), so some cany readers will note that the twelve have a thirteenth member.

Bacchus (Dionysus)  Bacchus is the Roman counterpart of the Greek god Dionysus, who is associated with wine, fertility, and ecstatic celebrations. He is often depicted as a youthful figure, crowned with ivy and holding a thyrsus (a staff entwined with vines). Bacchus was born to Jupiter (Zeus) and the mortal Semele. His birth is unique as he is considered “twice-born” first from Semele and then from Jupiter’s thigh after Semele perished upon seeing Jupiter in his divine form. Bacchus represents not only wine and festivity but also the liberation of the human spirit from societal constraints. He is often associated with the concept of bacchanalia, wild festivals that celebrate his influence, where participants engage in music, dance, and revelry.

One notable exception to this list is Pluto (Hades), one of three brothers and two sisters born to the Roman god, Saturnus, and his goddess wife, Ops. Upon the death of Saturnus and after the defeat of the Titans, the three brothers divided the realm of their father. Jupiter received the sky as his dominion, Neptune the sea, and Pluto the underworld. So, while Pluto was a major deity in first the Greek pantheon, being a brother of Zeus and related to the other Olympians, his realm of the underworld was far away from Mount Olympus. Pluto therefore was not usually considered to be one of the twelve. Bon appétit!

About History: Amazing early inventions II

Roman concrete

By rights the Pantheon in Rome should not exist, except that it does after more than 2,000 years. Given the technology of the time it should not have been possible for Roman engineers to have constructed such a perfect concrete dome spanning 43 metres, pierced by its great oculus or “eye”. Still standing two millennia after its concrete was first poured, it remains the largest unreinforced dome in the world. It is a structure that has resisted earthquakes, fires, the sack of Rome and centuries of use. Visitors to the Pantheon today can marvel at this example of architectural brilliance but few probably acknowledge the extraordinary role of Roman concrete.

Concrete itself was not a Roman discovery as there is evidence that Nabatean builders were using an early form of it as far back as 6,500 BC. The Roman innovation was adding pozzolana, a volcanic ash sourced from the Bay of Naples to a traditional lime and water mix. The additive created a durable hydraulic concrete with the unique property of setting underwater and the ability of growing stronger over time. The material is even able to “self-heal” when exposed to water.

Concrete was the foundation of an architectural revolution that meant Roman engineers were not bound by the limitations of cut stone. Its use led to impressive basilicas, amphitheatres such as the Colosseum, and monumental harbours and warehouses like those built in Ostia. Concrete allowed the construction of multi-floored insulae (apartment blocks) that housed tens of thousands of Rome’s inhabitants. It enabled the building of bridges across Europe’s rivers some of which are still in use today, and the vast network of aqueducts that kept the Empire’s citizens supplied with fresh water. 

Writing

Homo sapiens have walked this planet for some 300,000 years. In all those millennia humanity relied on the spoken word or pictograms to communicate and record thoughts, beliefs, ideas and histories. Such was the case until around 3200 BC when the first writing system emerged in ancient Sumer in Mesopotamia. From there the concept of writing spread over the world via a process German ethnologist and archaeologist Leo Frobenius called “cultural diffusion” [1]. The discovery of ancient Mesoamerican scripts, far distant from Middle Eastern sources, proved writing systems had been invented independently in at least five different times and places: Mesopotamia as mentioned, Egypt around 3250 BC, Micronesia in the 1800s BC, Shang Dynasty China around 1300 BC, and in Mesoamerica after 900 BC. Of these original writing systems, Egyptian and Sumerian are the oldest known (Regulski, 2016).

These new writing systems did not supplant oral traditions but did dramatically extend the reach of communication. Groups could record and disseminate their histories, knowledge, traditions, and laws which became fundamental to how communities understood themselves in time and place. According to associate professor of history at Duke University, Adriane Lentz-Smith: “Writing made societies easier to administrate over distance. For better or worse, it allowed the development of bureaucracy” (Lentz-Smith, 2026, 42). Moreover, the advent of the next amazing invention meant the written word could be circulated faster and further than ever before. Whole nations and global interests could now be governed from a single location.

Printing innovation

The sharing of written knowledge exploded with the invention of the printing press in AD 1440 by German goldsmith, Johannes Gutenberg. His design was modelled on the helical screw press used by ancient Roman wine and olive oil producers to crush grapes and olives. Moreover, Gutenberg’s printing press also used innovative moveable cast metal type, known as “sorts” [2], to represent individual letters or characters known in typesetting as glyphs [3]. When typesetting compositors combine sorts into lines of type to make up a “forme” secured in a “chase” from which a page is printed. Using moveable type sets meant Gutenberg presses could print up to 3,600 pages per day compared to 40 by hand-printing and a few by hand-copying.

A printing revolution ensued spreading from Gutenberg’s Mainz workshop to more than 200 European cities. Famously, it was William Caxton (born in Kent, England c. 1422; died in London in 1491) who first introduced the printing press to London. He had learned the art of printing in Köln (Cologne) where he lived from 1470 to the end of 1472. He set up a press in Brugge some time in 1474 where “The Recuyell of the Historyes of Troye”, the first book printed in English, was published in 1475. Caxton’s translation from the French of “The Game and Playe of the Chesse” (in which chess is treated as an allegory of life) was published a year later. He went on to print two or three other works in French while in Brugge, but toward the end of 1476 Caxton returned to England. He established his press at Westminster and devoted himself to writing and printing. The first dateable book printed in English, “Dictes and Sayenges of the Phylosophers”, appeared on November 18th, 1477.

Coinciding with a sharp rise in learning and literacy among the middle-classes, by AD 1500 more than 20 million books had been produced by the new printing presses. As demand for books increased, so did the printers’ output, which rose to an estimated 150-200 million copies during the 16th-century. Quite simply, traditional mediæval scribes could not have kept up with such a voracious demand.

Reforming practices

Arguably the greatest impact of the printing press was the democratisation of knowledge. Even more people had access to ideas and information previously denied them. Yet, while fuelling worthwhile debate, dissent also followed. German priest, theologian, author, hymnwriter, professor, and former Augustinian friar, Martin Luther (10 November 1483 – 18 February 1546) was the seminal figure of the Protestant Reformation. Ordained to the priesthood in 1507, Luther came to reject various teachings and practices of the Roman Catholic Church, in particular the view on indulgences [4] and papal authority. Luther initiated an international debate on these in works such as his “Ninety-five Theses” authored in 1517. From 1518 to 1520, some 300,000 copies of his tracts were printed and circulated widely across Europe, reaching France, England and Italy as early as 1519. The following year (1520) Pope Leo X demanded that Luther renounce all of his writings. Luther refused and was excommunicated from the Catholic Church in January 1521 (at the time of his death in 1546, his excommunication was still in effect). Later that year (1521), at the Diet of Worms, the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, condemned Luther as an outlaw. Regardless, Luther clearly made effective use of Gutenberg’s printing press to spread his views. He even switched from Latin to German in his writing to appeal to a broader readership. Between 1500 and 1530, Luther’s works represented one fifth of all materials printed in Germany, but more significantly demonstrated the power of the printed word to reach and influence a vast audience and spark Reformation.

Printers’ legacies

The development of printing has had other, perhaps less obvious, impacts. Several words and phrases are thought to have entered the English language from printing. For example, the terms “uppercase” and “lowercase” letters seemingly derive from printers storing type in shallow compartmentalised drawers called “type cases”. In most print shops, the majuscule (capital) letters were kept in a separate case typically positioned above the case containing the miniscule (“small”) letters. Hence, we refer to capital letters as “uppercase” and the smaller forms of the letters in the English alphabet as “lowercase”.

The metal sorts used in printing are cast as mirror images so that the resulting print will be the correct way round. In older type cases, lowercase p’s and q’s are in sections right next to each other and therefore were prone to getting mixed up. So, compositors in the print shop were encouraged to take care and “mind their p’s and q’s”, eventually leading to the phrase meaning to be on one’s best behaviour. Interestingly, several letters look like mirror images of each other but mixing them up was less likely. B’s and d’s, for example, may be mirror image letters but they are not kept side-by-side in type cases.

Limited supplies and storage space within a print shop often made it impractical to leave type set in its “forme” just in case a reprint was required. Yet, given the time and labour involved in setting type, especially if one considers the prospect of re-setting an entire book for a subsequent edition, it was sometimes worth the expense of using a “stereotype”. The process involved creating a mould, known as a “flong”, in papier mâché of already set type. A mixture of molten lead, antimony and tin was poured into the mould to cast the type as a single metal plate or “stereotype” that could be used for reprints. The original type set could then be taken apart and distributed for use in other jobs. The idea of printing many identical copies from a single plate of type was soon connected to the broader meaning “stereotype” describing individuals belonging to a single group as being effectively the same as one another.

Cliché is the French word for stereotype. The difference in this case is that rather than casting a whole plate of text, the French would cast frequently used phrases as a block that could be set in a forme alongside any other individual letters to save time. The word cliché is derived from the French verb “clicher” meaning “to click” and imitates the sound made when using stereotype plates in a method known as dabbing or abklatschen (“to tap”) in German. Phrases cast in this way were so frequently used that cliché become synonymous with its modern meaning.

The casting of printer’s stereotypes or clichés is believed to have given rise to the word “typecasting”. Once again the idea of printing multiple identical copies has been transferred to actors chosen for roles relying on their specific profile, particularly when they are picked for very similar roles time and again. In these instances, they are being typecast.

One last example is contested, but it may have had an origin in print shops. If someone is feeling unwell or ill-tempered, they might be described as “out of sorts”. As previously mentioned, individual characters or “glyphs” of cast metal type are called “sorts”. When typesetting, a compositor might run out of type part way through a job thus making them “out of sorts”. In such circumstances the compositor may well have felt fed up about it and it is therefore tempting to think that this could be the source of the phrase. According to the website Phrase Finder, however, the first known citation of “out of sorts” appears in “The Proverbs, Epigrams, and Miscellanies of John Heywood” dated to AD 1562. No mention is made to typesetting and it seems the phrase pre-dates the first use of the word “sorts” to mean blocks of type. So, it is safer to conclude that “sorts” is just a synonym for “spirits or health”. That said, an earlier citation may yet be discovered, especially given that Gutenberg invented movable type printing over a century earlier around AD 1440.

Da Vinci’s parachute

Forty-five years after Gutenberg introduced Europe to the printing press, in 1485 Leonardo da Vinci sketched the world’s first parachute in his work, the Codex Atlanticus. His design was for a pyramid-shaped canopy, approximately 12 braccia wide and 12 braccia tall [5], of sealed linen cloth stretched over a wooden frame. It seems Da Vinci’s vision was for a man to safely descend from any height providing the parachute was properly constructed. Unlike modern round parachutes, da Vinci’s version was rigid and structured to rely on air resistance to slow descent. There is no evidence that he ever built or tested his design, but centuries later da Vinci’s parachute was successfully tested to prove it was practicable. British balloonist Adrian Nicholas built a parachute of wood and canvas to the artist’s specifications. On June 26th, 2000 he was hoisted by a hot-air balloon to an altitude of 3,000 m (10,000 ft) and then released. Nicholas slowly and gently floated downward beneath da Vinci’s parachute thereby disproving predictions that the structure would not keep a man aloft. With the parachute weighing some 84 kg (185 lbs) there were concerns that it would crash down on top of Nicholas upon landing. To avoid injury, Nicholas cut away from the da Vinci parachute at 600 m (2,000 ft) and used a conventional parachute for the remaining, safe, descent.

Da Vinci’s flying machines

It is evident from his work that da Vinci’s approach to science was observational. He tried to understand phenomena through detailed description and depiction but not necessarily through experiments or theoretical explanation. The parachute was just one of the flying machines stemming from da Vinci’s fascination with the phenomenon of flight. Surviving to us are his many studies, including Codex on the Flight of Birds (c. 1505), as well as plans for several flying machines, such as a glider (below left & middle), the flapping Ornithopter [6], and one with a helical rotor (below right). 

Da Vinci is known to have studied the methods by which birds kept themselves airborne. He developed an in-depth understanding of bird flight, leaving behind a huge number of sketches, notes and musings about their behaviour. Da Vinci’s drawing of the Ornithopter (pictured right) conceived human flight inspired by his copious observations. The design had the pilot lying prone while operating a complex system of pedals and pulleys to flap the wings and adjust the tail. His engineering solution attempted to scale up the natural strength of humans to generate sufficient lift for take-off and sustained flight. After several attempts at re-creating the flapping action of birds, da Vinci concluded that his design could not generate enough power or lift to overcome the weight of a pilot and achieve flight. While practically impossible, given the machine’s size and weight, the ornithopter nonetheless remains a brilliant conceptual exercise and an innovative leap of imagination far ahead of its time.

Once it became clear that the ornithopter was doomed to failure, and probably injury in any testing scenarios, da Vinci reverted to his studies of the most efficient form of bird flight, i.e. gliding through the air. He quickly realised that fixed-wing gliders were more likely to succeed in keeping a moving object off the ground. Even so, da Vinci’s alternative approach was still constrained by the materials of the period being far heavier than those available today. Even so, da Vinci pioneering observations on aerodynamics recognised the importance of airflow both over and under wings to create lift. He identified vortices formed by wing movement, a concept still relevant to aerospace engineering today, and noted the role of a bird’s “thumbs”, or alulae, in controlling descent and ascent. Da Vinci’s work demonstrated a deep understanding of the physics involved that paved the way for later advances in flight mechanics (Bianchi, 2026).

Da Vinci’s tank 

More correctly termed an armoured fighting vehicle, the concept of da Vinci's Tank first appeared a letter to his patron, Ludovico Sforza, the Duke of Milan. Written around 1482 as part of his Codex Atlanticus, da Vinci proposed:

“I will make protected wagons, reliable and impregnable, which, piercing the enemy’s ranks with the fire of their artillery, will destroy him, no matter how great the number of his soldiers. The infantry can follow without suffering great losses and without encountering any resistance.”

The resulting design, inspired by a turtle’s shell, incorporated a conical cover made of wood reinforced with metal plates. The angled cover was intended to deflect enemy fire in much the same way as modern sloped armour. Da Vinci envisioned the machine would be driven by two large cranks, operated internally by four strong men, powering two wheels each connected by an axle. The circular fighting vehicle would be equipped with an array of light cannons spaced around its circumference.

Study of da Vinci’s sketches revealed a flaw in the gear design, which would cause both wheels to rotate in opposing directions rendering the machine inoperable. This error has been described as a deliberate security feature should the design be stolen or because of da Vinci’s mirror writing style that appears in his other designs. The superb 3D model by Ľuboš Černák, shown right, was created in 2022 according to da Vinci’s original drawing. The model emphasizes the machine’s proportions but also illustrates the flawed gearing design alongside three possible solutions to the problem. During one episode of the US documentary series “Da Vinci's Machines” (2009), a team of engineers and craftsmen undertook the challenge of reconstructing Leonardo’s armoured vehicle. During the build the flawed gearing design was corrected enabling the team to successfully operate and move the machine. From the vehicle’s impressive size, it was clear that it would not have been capable of moving across rugged terrain. Moreover, while it would not have been possible to realise da Vinci’s idea in the 15th-century, the reconstruction validated his innovative thinking.

Bon appétit!

References:

Bianchi, L. (2026), “Leonardo da Vinci Glider: Could It Really Fly?”, Leonardo da Vinci Inventions and Experiences, available online (accessed 18th June 2026).

Borman, T, (2026), “Ask the Experts: The printing press”, in History Extra Magazine (April 2026), London: Immediate Media Company, p.44.

Gurney, T. (2023), “Leonardo da Vinci”, https://www.thehistoryofart.org, available online (accessed 14th May 2026).

Lentz-Smith, A, (2026), “Ask the Experts: Writing”, in History Extra Magazine (April 2026), London: Immediate Media Company, p.42.

Regulski, I., (2016), “The Origins and Early Development of Writing in Egypt”, available on-line (accessed 16th June 2026).

Venner, J, (2026), “Ask the Experts: Roman concrete”, in History Extra Magazine (April 2026), London: Immediate Media Company, p.42.

Endnotes:

1. In his 1897/98 publication “Der westafrikanische Kulturkreis”, Leo Frobenius conceptualised “cultural diffusion” as the spread of cultural ideas, styles, religions, technologies, languages between individuals, whether within a single culture or from one culture to another.

2. In physical typesetting, a sort or type is a block with a typographic character etched on it that are used, when lined up with others, to print text. In movable-type printing, the sort or type is cast from a matrix mould and assembled by hand with other sorts bearing additional characters into lines of type to make up a form, from which a page is printed.

3. A glyph is any kind of purposeful mark. In typography, a glyph is “the specific shape, design, or representation of a character.” It is a particular graphical representation, in a particular typeface (in computing, a font), of an element of written language.

4. The remission of the temporal punishment of sin.

5. The term braccia refers to an Italian unit of measurement derived from the length of a man’s arm that could vary between 318 mm and 991 mm (15 in and 39 in). Historically, braccia were used to measure cloth as well as other items. Interestingly, in 18th-century Milan one braccio was redefined as one metre and is only 90 mm shorter than the modern SI unit.

6. From the ancient Greek ὄρνις (órnis) meaning “bird” and πτερόν (pterón) or “wing”, an ornithopter is an aircraft that flies by flapping its wings. Designers like da Vinci sought to imitate the flapping-wing flight of birds, bats, and insects.