Dispelling Some Myths: Medieval medical knowledge

Despite the best efforts of historians, the internet is still awash with misconceptions about the Middle Ages. Many of these ideas were the product of Victorian writers and historians reflecting Mediæval life through the lens of their own society, as was done by antiquarians before and by historians since. However, after more than a century in popular culture, and having been taught in schools, these sometimes broad, sweeping assertions remain deeply rooted in everyday consciousness, especially when repeatedly reinforced online, in social media, on television and in the movies. Before addressing one such notion, it is worth remembering that the Mediæval period lasted roughly 1,000 years during which peoples’ lives and experiences varied according to time, place and circumstance.

No medical knowledge  Into the early years of the 20th-century most historians were seemingly content to accept the concept of a “Dark Age” in the centuries after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. It was an idea that originated with the Italian scholar Petrarch [1] in the 1330s. He regarded the post-Roman centuries as “dark” full of ignorance and error compared to the “light” of classical antiquity with its knowledge and understanding. The term “Dark Age(s)” comes from the Latin phrase saeculum obscurum which was originally applied, in 1602, by Caesar Baronius to the turbulent period of the 10th- and 11th-centuries. The concept was expanded to characterise the entire Middle Ages as a time of intellectual darkness in Europe between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance. With that in mind, some have assumed that Mediæval doctors had little idea of what they were doing and that all classical Greco-Roman knowledge had been lost. Clearly modern medicine has benefited from centuries of innovation in technology triggering original research, new medical techniques, novel drugs and medicines. Yet, Mediæval hospitals were clean and well managed, and skeletons show examples of complicated medical procedures that were successful.

Enduring practices  Mediæval medicine benefitted greatly from the work of Aelius Galenus (or possibly Claudius Galenus), whose name is often anglicised as Galen of Pergamon to reflect the city of his birth (present-day Bergama, Turkey). He was a physician, surgeon and philosopher [2]. The son of a wealthy architect, he was educated as a philosopher but with Pergamum housing a magnificent shrine to the healing god Asclepius, at the age of 16 Galen changed his career to that of medicine. Initially studying in Pergamum, his training continued in Smyrna (modern İzmir, Türkiye), and finally in Alexandria, Egypt, which at the time was the greatest medical centre of the ancient world. After more than a decade of study, in AD 157 he returned to Pergamum where he served as chief physician to the troop of gladiators maintained by the high priest of Asia.

His extensive travels exposed him to a wide variety of medical theories and discoveries before he eventually settled in Rome in AD 162. Once there Galen served prominent members of Roman society until, in AD 168–169, he was called by the joint emperors Lucius Verus and Marcus Aurelius to accompany them on a military campaign in northern Italy. After Verus’ sudden death in AD 169, Galen returned to Rome where he went on to serve as a personal physician to Marcus Aurelius and the later emperors Commodus and Septimius Severus. Considered to be one of the most accomplished of all medical researchers of antiquity, he influenced the development of various scientific disciplines, including anatomy, neurology, pathology, pharmacology, physiology, as well as philosophy and logic. Of those disciplines Galen regarded anatomy as the foundation of medical knowledge. He frequently dissected and experimented on animals such as Barbary apes (or African monkey), pigs, sheep, and goats. Galen’s advocacy of dissection, both to improve surgical skills and for research purposes, was a large part of his self-promotion, but his accounts prove he was an accurate observer. He distinguished seven pairs of cranial nerves, described the valves of the heart, and observed the structural differences between arteries and veins. Most significantly he demonstrated that the arteries carry blood, not air, as had been taught for 400 years. Unfortunately the prevailing taboo on human dissection meant much of Galen’s understanding of human anatomy was based upon his dissections of animals. Unsurprisingly this led Galen to make mistakes. His anatomy of the uterus, for example, is largely that of a dog’s.

Galen’s understanding of physiology was constructed from the philosophers Plato and Aristotle as well as the physician, Hippocrates. Building on the latter’s ideas, Galen conceived that human health required a balance between the four main bodily fluids known as humours. Each corresponds to one of the traditional four temperaments. Blood was associated with a sanguine nature (enthusiastic, active, and social), while yellow bile caused a choleric nature (ambitious, decisive, aggressive, and short-tempered). Black bile was associated with a melancholy nature, with the word melancholy being derived from the Greek for “black bile” namely μέλαινα χολή (melaina kholé). As its name suggests, phlegm was associated with a phlegmatic behaviour. People with this temperament may be reserved, thoughtful, reasonable, calm, patient, caring, and of a tolerant nature. Based on Hippocratic medicine, it was believed that for a body to be healthy, the four humours should be balanced in amount and strength. The proper blending and balance of the four humours was known as eukrasia. Galen also related a correspondence between humours and seasons based on the properties of both. Blood, as a humour, was considered hot and wet and thus corresponded with spring. Yellow bile was considered hot and dry, which related it to summer. Black bile was considered cold and dry and thus related to autumn, and phlegm being cold and wet was related to winter. This was a system of medicine detailing a supposed makeup and workings of the human body, is known as humourism (or the humoral theory) dominated medical thinking for the next 1,400 years.

During his lifetime, Galen’s writings were widely circulated. His final medical treatises were written after AD 207, evidence that his Arab biographers were probably correct when claiming he died in AD 216/217 at the age of 87. Copies of some of his surviving works were produced within a generation of his death, and by AD 500 Galen’s theories were being taught and summarised at Alexandria to the exclusion of others in the medical handbooks of the Byzantine world. Greek manuscripts began to be collected and translated by enlightened Arabs in the 9th-century. About AD 850 Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq, an Arab physician at the court of Baghdad, prepared an annotated list of 129 works of Galen that he and his followers had translated from Greek into Arabic or Syriac. Learned medicine in the Arabic world thus became heavily based upon the commentary, exposition, and understanding of Galen. Here his authority was long-lived but initially, except for drug recipes, Galen’s influence was almost negligible in western Europe. 

From the late 11th-century, however, Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq’s translations, commentaries on them by Arab physicians, and sometimes the original Greek writings themselves were translated into Latin. These Latin versions came to form the basis of medical education in the new medieval universities. Around 1490, Italian humanists felt compelled to prepare new Latin versions of Galen directly from Greek manuscripts to free his texts from medieval preconceptions and misunderstandings. Galen’s works were first printed in Greek in their entirety in 1525, and printings in Latin swiftly followed. Such Renaissance texts presented Galen differently and emphasized Galen as a clinician, a diagnostician, and above all, an anatomist. His new followers stressed his methodical techniques of identifying and curing illness, his independent judgment, and his cautious empiricism. Galen’s injunctions to investigate the body were eagerly followed, since physicians wished to repeat the experiments and observations that he had recorded. Paradoxically, this soon led to the overthrow of Galen’s authority as an anatomist. In 1543 the Flemish physician Andreas Vesalius showed that Galen’s anatomy of the body was more animal than human in some of its aspects, and it became clear that Galen and his subsequent mediæval followers had made many errors. Galen’s notions of physiology, by contrast, lasted for a further century, until in 1628 the English physician William Harvey correctly explained the circulation of the blood. Eventually, in 1673 Antonie van Leeuwenhoek discovery, using simple single-lensed microscopes of his own design, and his subsequent scientific experiments with microorganisms finally put paid to Galen’s dominance. Yet, the mediæval renewal of the Galenic tradition, followed by the challenges to his theories in Renaissance Europe, were significant for the advancement of modern science.

Mediæval progress  When the Western Roman Empire collapsed some Greek and Roman medical knowledge was inevitably lost but progress in medicine did not come to an abrupt stop. Quite a few advancements in surgery, medical chemistry, dissection, and practical medicine were made in the Mediæval era. As Theodoric of Lucca wrote in the 13th-century: “Every day we see new instruments and new methods [to extract arrows] being invented by clever and ingenious surgeons.” If you did not know Theodoric of Lucca, or to give him his proper name Theodoric Borgognoni (1205 – 1296/8) [3], was an Italian who became one of the most significant surgeons of the mediæval period. A Dominican friar and Bishop of Cervia, Borgognoni is considered responsible for introducing and promoting important medical advances including basic antiseptic practice in surgery and the use of anaesthetics. By the 14th-century, prominent surgeon Guy de Chauliac wrote about inhalational anaesthesia, medicaments that send the patients to sleep made of opium, juice of the morel, Hyoscyamus, mandrake, ivy, hemlock and lettuce. The practise was to soak a fresh sponge with these juices before drying it in the sun. When needed the sponge would be placed in warm water to activate the anaesthetic properties and then held under the nostrils of the patent until they fell asleep.

Another 14th-century surgeon, Henri de Mondeville (c. 1260 – 1316), served two French kings, namely Philip IV and Louis X. More importantly, in 1312 he wrote his treatise on surgery entitled “Cyrurgia” based on his years of training in both France and Italy. His work reveals a wide scope of mediæval medical treatments ranging from removing arrows to dealing with rabid dog bites and advice on how to perform amputations.

As to the removal of barbed arrowheads, of prime importance is knowing just what kind of arrow you are dealing with. There are different techniques for each, and various instruments accordingly. If the surgeon lacks that information he frequently be misled … as once happened to me … in a case when an arrow had entered the forearm near the wrist and had passed beneath the soft tissues along the surface of the bone, directed toward the elbow. It went under the outer cord which moves the hand. As I tried to pull it out through the wound of entry I failed to recognize that it had small barbs – it was an English arrow – which had caught the muscle and I could neither unhook it nor extract the arrow. I had to make an incision over the point to remove the metal piece, having to enlarge the wound in the process, much to the great distress of the victim as well as of me.                                                                

                                                                                                    Henri de Mondeville, “Cyrurgia”

Hospitals  While often been portrayed as an era of ignorant physicians and of health care based on superstition and quackery, a closer look reveals that there were many ways in which medical knowledge and healthcare improved during the Mediæval period. Hospitals, for example, had early antecedents. The Romans had no public hospitals as we would recognise them, but medical facilities - principally military valetudinaria and religious healing temples - did provide care for soldiers, slaves, and the sick. By the 4th-century AD the concept of a hospital – a place where patients could be treated by doctors with access to specialised equipment – was emerging in parts of the Roman Empire. The earliest mediæval hospitals originated in Christian religious establishments to provide lodgings and care for the poor and travellers. In Byzantium (the Eastern Roman Empire) and western Europe, for example, hospitals were usually run by monasteries. Over time they would gradually become larger and more complex. Meanwhile, in the Arabic world hospitals emerged a little later in the 9th-century as more secular institutions. In larger cities they could be staffed by dozens of physicians, having several wards for different illnesses, and could even have amenities like musicians playing in the halls.

Pharmacies  The first pharmacy was established in Baghdad in AD 754. One medieval Arabic physician explained these places were for “the art of knowing the materia medica samples in their various species, types and shapes. From these, the pharmacist prepares compounded medications as prescribed and ordered by the prescribing physician.” Proving to be very popular, ever more pharmacies opened across the Arabic world until, by the 12th-century, they could be found in Europe. Such pharmacies greatly aided our understanding of drugs and allowed more people to access their benefits.

Ophthalmology  The practice of ophthalmology has been documented since ancient times. Its existence can be traced back to Ancient Babylon with a reference to the eyes made in the Code of Hammurabi (2250 BC): “If a physician performs eye surgery and saves the eye, he shall receive ten shekels in money.” However, it was not until Ancient Egypt when the discovery of the Ebers Papyrus, a 110-page scroll dating to ca. 1550 BC, gives us the first written record of medical treatments for eye disease. A millennia later and the prominent Greek philosopher-physician Alcmaeon of Croton (540-500 BC) is widely regarded as the first to examine and describe the human eye. Building on this pioneering work, a collection of approximately 60 early Ancient Greek medical works by Hippocrates (460-375 BC) known as the Hippocratic Corpus further advanced Alcmaeon’s ideas.

By the time of the Romans, ophthalmology had further progressed and modified pre-existing classical Greek knowledge. Greco-Roman physicians made remarkable anatomical discoveries about the eye and refined surgical instruments and techniques. Among these, Celsus (25 BC to 50 AD) was the first to systematically deal with ophthalmology in his encyclopaedic work De Re Medica. Celsus described various ocular diseases and their treatment. His belief that the crystalline lens was the organ which received visual information before converting it into a different form persisted through the Middle Ages.

The field of ophthalmology was revolutionised by the medieval Arab scholar Ibn Al-Haytham (ca. 965 to ca. 1040) through his Book of Optics (كتاب المناظر, Kitab al-Manazir), a seven-volume treatise on optics and other fields of study. Known in the West as Alhazen or Alhacen, Ibn Al-Haytham presented experimentally founded arguments against the widely held extramission theory of vision. As understood, for example by Euclid in his Optica, this conceived that visual perception was accomplished by eye beams emitted by the eyes. Al-Haytham’s work, however, was the first to propose the modern intromission theory, the now accepted model that vision takes place by light entering the eye. The Book of Optics is also noted for its early use of the scientific method, its description of the camera obscura, and its formulation of Al-Haytham’s problem. The book extensively affected the development of optics, physics and mathematics in Europe between the 13th- and 17th-centuries.

Spectacles  The classical Roman writer Seneca is said to have read all the books in Rome by using a glass globe of water to enlarge the handwritten letters. Strictly speaking he was using a form of magnifying glass, but anything held to the eye and not worn on the face are categorised as “eyeglasses” not spectacles. The idea of wearing spectacles on the face for lengthy periods seems to have been a mediæval European invention. By the end of the 13th-century, however, spectacles designed to help correct vision were apparently well-known in Italy:

“It is not yet twenty years since there was found the art of making eyeglasses, which make for good vision…And it is so short a time that this new art, never before extant, was discovered…I saw the one who first discovered and practiced it, and I talked to him.”

                                            Dominican friar Giordano da Pisa, 1305

The earliest depiction of a person wearing spectacles was in 1352 when Tommaso da Modena included an image of Cardinal Hugh of Provence as part of a fresco in a church. It shows the cardinal wearing the glasses as he writes at his desk (above right).

Anatomy and dissection  Many historians have believed that knowledge about anatomy stagnated during the Middle Ages. There is, however, a great deal of evidence that medieval physicians were conducting experiments and examining the anatomy of the human body. In AD 1315 the Italian physician Mondino de Luzzi even conducted a public dissection for his students and spectators. The following year he would write Anathomia corporis humani considered the first example of a modern dissection manual and the first true anatomical text.

Caesarean sections  While caesarean sections had been practiced from Roman times, they were only performed to deliver a child in the full knowledge that either a pregnant mother had just died or had no chance of survival. Advances in mediæval anatomical knowledge led to the survival of both a mother and baby around AD 1500. In the first written record of surviving a caesarean section, a Swiss farmer named Jacob Nufer performed the operation on his wife. She had been in labour for several days and was being assisted by thirteen midwives but was still unable to deliver her baby. The operation was a success, with the mother subsequently going on to give birth to five more children, including twins. The baby lived to be 77 years old.

Cleaning wounds  Whether the patient survived such surgeries relied heavily on infection control in a world for whom microbiology was a distant horizon. Many ancient medical writers believed that during surgery some pus should remain in wounds in the belief that this would aid healing. This idea remained widespread until the aforementioned 13th-century surgeon Theodoric Borgognoni established an antiseptic method where wounds were to be cleaned and then sutured to promote healing. Even during surgical procedures this innovative Italian surgeon was known to have bandages pre-soaked in wine as a form of disinfectant. As already mentioned, Theodoric was also known for pioneering the use of anaesthetics in surgery.

Quarantine  The COVID-19 pandemic introduced to a hitherto unwitting worldwide audience the concept of quarantine and keeping groups of people apart to combat the disease’s spread. The word “quarantine” has its roots in the period of European history known as the Black Death [4], though the practice of isolating people to prevent the spread of disease is older. In the city-state of Ragusa (modern Dubrovnik, Croatia), implemented an isolation period in 1377 for new arrivals to the city’s port from plague-affected areas. Arriving ships had to wait 30 days in the harbour before docking so that authorities could be sure no one was infected. The isolation period of thirty days was later extended to forty days and given the name “quarantino” from the Italian word quaranta meaning “forty”. The success of these measures led to them being used in other parts of Italy and across Europe by the end of the Middle Ages.

Medical education in universities  All of these advances in medical knowledge and the gradual changes to the practises of medicine were aided by the rise of universities throughout Mediæval Europe. Many of these institutions would teach physicians and become the main centres through which medical knowledge would be shared. As early as AD 1231, the Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick II, promulgated a set of laws (the Liber Augustalis or Constitutions of Melfi) that made medicine a state‑regulated profession, set formal training requirements, and established public health standards. Before Frederick II, medical care in Mediæval Europe had been largely unregulated, provided by monastic healers, wandering practitioners, and apothecaries without oversight. Frederick’s reforms, enacted in his kingdom of Sicily, were unprecedented in placing medicine under royal authority rather than guilds or religious institutions. The key provisions were:

• The licensing of physicians. No one could practice medicine without first passing a public examination at the University of Salerno by a licensed professor. Successful candidates received a certificate from both the professor and a royal official.

• Training required at least three years in logic (one of the foundations of the liberal arts) before medical study, followed by five years of medical training in anatomy, dietetics, surgery, and pharmacology.

Although these laws did not have an immediate effect, Frederick II’s codification ensured a developing educational method would become a cornerstone in the professionalisation of physicians. Moreover, such foresight surely disproves any notion that mediæval medical knowledge was one of ignorance, superstition and quackery. Instead, one might argue that modern hospitals, pharmacies, anatomy, surgery, spectacles, and even the concept of quarantine owe much to Mediæval pioneers. Bon appétit!

Endnotes:

1. Francis Petrarch, born Francesco di Petracco on 20 July 1304 (died 19 July 1374), was a scholar from Arezzo and poet of the early Italian Renaissance. One of the earliest humanists, he is also known for being the first to develop the concept of the “Dark Ages”.

2. Galen was born in September AD 129 in Pergamum, Mysia, Anatolia [now Bergama, Türkiye] and died c. AD 216).

3. Also known as Teodorico de’ Borgognoni. His major contribution to western medicine was “The Cyrurgia”, or Chirurgia, (Surgery). Written in the mid-13th-century, it is a four volume work that covers the major fields of medieval surgery.

4. The Black Death was a plague pandemic that occurred in Europe from 1346 to 1353. It was one of the most fatal pandemics in human history, leading to the death of up to 50 million people, around 30% to 60% of the European population and approximately 33% of the Middle Eastern population. The disease was caused by the bacterium Yersinia pestis, which is primarily spread by flea bites, though it may also spread through contact with infected tissues or fluids and, in pneumonic cases, through respiratory droplets.

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.