Dispelling Some Myths: Crucifixion

Crucifixion is a method of capital punishment in which the victim is tied or nailed to a tree, stake, beam or large wooden cross, and left to hang until eventual death. It was used as a punishment by, among others. the ancient Greeks, Persians, Carthaginians and the Romans. Supposedly one of the keenest practitioners of crucifixion historically, to the Romans crucifixion was a punishment reserved for slaves or the worst kind of criminals, particularly those who threatened the status quo or challenged Rome’s authority. When, for example, the slave revolt led by the former gladiator Spartacus was finally suppressed, contemporary accounts claim 6,000 prisoners were duly crucified along the Via Appia between Capua and Rome. Such a visible punishment was clearly intended as an abject lesson to any slave tempted to flee from or kill their master that they would suffer the same fate.

Crucifixion is said to have evolved from the Assyrian, and later the Persian, preference for impalement as a means of execution where the criminal was transfixed by a pointed stake passing longitudinally through the body. The two methods are not truly comparable, however, even though in both methods some form of a stake (Latin stipes) was used, and victims were not subjected to a prolonged and painful death. It is from the Roman writer Seneca’s [1] De Consolatione ad Marciam (“On Consolation to Marcia”), written around AD 40, that we learn crucifixion and impalement are two distinct kinds of execution:

Video istic cruces ne unius quidem generis sed aliter ab aliis fabricatas; capite quidam conuersos in terram suspendere, alii per obscena stipitem egerunt, alii brachia patibulo explicuerunt; video fidiculas, video uerbera...

“I see crosses there, not just of one kind but made differently by different [fabricators]; some individuals suspended their victims with heads inverted toward the ground; some drove a stake (stipes) through their excretory organs/genitals; others stretched out their [victims'] arms on a patibulum [cross bar]; I see racks, I see lashes...”

(Seneca, Cons. ad Marc. XX)

Unlike the Assyrians and Persians, impalement was the less usual Roman method. Rather, it seems public crucifixion was preferred with the condemned typically suspended from a tree, a wooden stake, or some form of wooden cross (Latin crux). The familiar T-shaped cross, however, was not necessarily the most common method used. Rather an X-shaped construction made of two pieces of wood crossed to form four right angles, known as a Saltire, was more widespread, as was a single upright post or tree (Latin: crux simplex or stipes) to which the condemned would be tied or nailed either facing forward or backward. Interestingly, Seneca notes that some victims were suspended “with heads inverted toward the ground”. Possibly the most famous example of this was the execution of the apostle Simon Peter (later Saint Peter), at least in the Christian tradition.

St Peter  One of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus, and one of the first leaders of the early Christian Church, the Roman authorities sentenced Peter to death by crucifixion. Somewhat inconveniently, however, the details of his execution are not described in Scripture. Despite this, numerous writers at the time (or shortly thereafter) claim Peter was martyred for his faith in Rome sometime shortly after the Great Fire in AD 64. The same early Church tradition also claims Emperor Nero wished to blame the Christians for the disastrous fire that had destroyed large swathes of the city. Echoing Seneca observation above, in accordance with his eponymous apocryphal Acts, Peter asked to be crucified head down as he felt unworthy to die in the same manner as Jesus. Significantly, the Jewish historian Josephus informs us that, in the first century AD, Roman soldiers had delighted in nailing Jewish rebels to crosses in different humorous poses. It is likely that the author of the Acts of Peter would have known this and the position attributed to Peter's crucifixion is thus plausible, either happening historically or invented by the aforementioned author of the Acts.

Manner of execution  The criminal, after sentence was pronounced, carried his cross to the place of execution. According to William Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities under the entry for “crux” (“cross”) both Plutarch (De Tard. Dei Vind. ἕκαστος τῶν κακούργων ἐκφέρει τὸν αὐτοῦ σταυρόν), Artemidorus (Oneir. II.61) as well as the Gospels mention this practice. Smith also notes, from Livy (XXXIII.36) and Valerius Maximus (I.7), that the Romans, as with other capital punishments, would often scourge the condemned before their crucifixion. Stripped of their clothes, the criminal was taken to the place of execution and there nailed or bound to the cross. Binding was the more painful method as it prolonged suffering leaving the condemned to die of hunger. Instances are recorded of the crucified surviving nine days. It was usual to leave the body on the cross after death. Of note, the deliberate breaking of the legs of the thieves mentioned in the Gospels was not the normal practice. That this happened was most likely to hasten death given that Jewish law expressly demanded bodies of the condemned could not remain on the cross during the Sabbath-day.

Physical evidence?  Despite contemporary Roman authors recording thousands of victims being crucified throughout the Roman Iron Age there has been little archaeological evidence to shed light on how it was performed. In popular western consciousness, our understanding of the practice has been heavily influenced by Christian iconography and the Gospels. This should come as no surprise as the most famous example of crucifixion, certainly within Europe and its subsequent sphere of influence, is the execution of Jesus in Roman-controlled Judaea [2]. His gruesome and public death followed by his subsequent resurrection was, and remains, the foundation of Christian beliefs.

Although not the most common form of cross, as previously mentioned, that represented by the letter T - the Tau cross - had been adopted as a symbol of Early Christianity by the 2nd-century AD. The use of the more familiar Greek and Latin crosses (as pictured) with intersecting beams appear in Christian art towards the end of Late Antiquity (from the late 3rd-century to the 7th- or 8th-century in Europe). While we cannot say with any certainty which form of cross was used - remember the most common form was the Saltire or possibly Tau versions - representations of the crucifixion can be found in most Christian churches. These ubiquitous depictions nearly all show Jesus with nails driven through his feet and the palms of his hands - the stigmata of the Christian tradition. As shown above, Caravaggio’s [3] iconic depiction of the “Crucifixion of Saint Peter” of 1601, which hangs in the Cerasi Chapel of Santa Maria del Popolo in Rome, is a good example of crucifixion as portrayed in Renaissance art. Apart from the atypical upside-down attitude of Saint Peter, viewers will note that a single large nail is shown driven through each hand and each foot.

Ignoring the feet for a moment, depicting a nail pinioning each hand to a cross-beam (patibulum) derives from the description of Jesus’ wounds where the Greek word ‘χείρ’ used in the Gospel of John (20:25) has been traditionally translated as ‘hand’. Unfortunately, like so many other words with multiple meanings, χείρ could also refer to the entire forearm below the elbow. It has thus become popular to contend that the nails were inserted just above the wrist, through the soft tissue, between the two bones of the forearm (the radius and the ulna). While nails are almost always depicted in religious art, historically we know the Romans sometimes just tied victims to the cross. So, were victims tied or nailed to a gibbet, whether that was a tree, a stake or a cross? More worryingly, if the Romans crucified 1,000s of people as is so often stated, why is there such a lack of archaeological evidence?

A little piece of evidence  The small discovery of a nail, just a few millimetres long, hammered through a skeleton’s heel was hailed as both the best evidence yet of Roman crucifixion and the first example of its kind found in Britain [4]. The nail remains embedded in the right heel and ankle of a man who was aged in his mid to late thirties at the time of his death. The remains, dating to about AD 250, were found in a previously unknown settlement in the Cambridgeshire village of Fenstanton. Twelve other nails were also located about the skeleton perhaps indicative of the deceased being carried to his grave on a stretcher-like wooden board. Experts theorise that the man had been crucified since the mode of carriage would have been useful in cases where a corpse had been left to decompose on the cross (a sobering thought).

Little is known about the individual but given crucifixion was banned for citizens at the time, but not for members of the lower classes, rebels and slaves, implies the remains may be those of a slave (Ingham & Duhig, 2022, 18-29).

The case from archaeology  There are only three other known possible examples of Roman era crucifixion from Jerusalem, Italy and Egypt respectively. Although the ancient historians Josephus and Appian refer to the crucifixion of thousands of Jews by the Romans, there is only a single archaeological discovery of a crucified body of a Jew dating back to the Roman Empire around the time of Jesus. Discovered at Giv’at ha-Mivtar in northeast Jerusalem in 1968 (Tzaferis, 1970, 18-32), the remains included a heel bone (calcaneum) with a nail driven through it as pictured. This crucial piece of evidence was accidently found in an ossuary with a man's name inscribed on it that translates as “Jehohanan, the son of Hagakol” (Haas, 1970, 38-59; Tzaferis, 1985, 44-53; Zias, 1985, 22-27). Assigning this particular name to the person’s remains can be argued is no more than an assumption that, if we are truly critical, probably cannot be independently corroborated. Yet, while it is perfectly reasonable to assume the most likely explanation is that the bones are those of “Jehohanan”, what if the bones were placed in a re-used ossuary with the previous occupant’s name still scratched into its surface? An element of doubt means we cannot be completely certain but on the balance of probability, the name inscribed on the ossuary and the remains within are most likely synonymous. “Jehohanan, the son of Hagakol” is, for now, our single known Jewish victim of crucifixion.

Returning to the archaeological evidence, Nicu Haas, an anthropologist in the Department of Anatomy at the Hebrew University Medical School in Jerusalem, was the first to examine the ossuary and Jehohanan’s remains in 1970. The initial account of the length of the nail led Haas and others to conclude:

“The feet were joined almost parallel, both transfixed by the same nail at the heels, with the legs adjacent; the knees were doubled, the right one overlapping the left; the trunk was contorted; the upper limbs were stretched out, each stabbed by a nail in the forearm.”

(Israel Exploration Journal, Vol-20, 1970)

Interestingly, ancient sources mention the sedile, a small seat attached to the front of the upright, about halfway down, which could have served to take the person's weight off the wrists. A footrest (suppedaneum) attached to the upright perhaps for a similar purpose, is sometimes included in representations of Jesus’ crucifixion but, interestingly, is not discussed in ancient sources.

Haas’ conclusions became widely accepted by the public, but several errors in his observations were later identified. In 1985, Joe Zias, curator of the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums, and Eliezer Sekeles from the Hadassah Medical Centre, re-examined the crucifixion remains. They determined the initial measurement of the nail was inaccurate being shorter than Haas had reported. Its true length, 11.5 cm (4.53 inches), would not have been long enough to pierce two heel bones and the wood. Moreover, pieces of bone had been misidentified, some bone fragments were from another individual and, significantly, there was no bone from a second heel. In other words, the nail had pierced only one heel so Jehohanan’s two heels may not have been nailed together. In the absence of the second heel, which may or may not have been pierced by a nail, one might surmise that his heels could have been nailed separately to either side of the upright post (Chapman, 2008, 86-89; Zias, 1985, 22-27; Zias, 2004). Whichever way his feet were secured, to hasten the man’s death, his legs had been broken perimortem, but remember this is atypical for a Roman crucifixion as described above.

So far in all cases, Jerusalem, Italy and Fenstanton, only one heel bone transfixed with a nail have been recovered. Based on this slender evidence it has been assumed, not unreasonably, that both heels were [probably] nailed to the wooden upright, but might this be wrong? Whether or not the victim was nailed or bound to a patibulum crossbeam, what if only one heel needed to be transfixed to secure them to the upright? With their arms pinned, it is highly unlikely that the condemned could easily free their feet, and if they did, how would that serve to save them? Indeed, it might even serve to speed their demise, something the authorities would not be keen to happen. So, while it is probably unwise to extrapolate too much from these two finds, might they indicate the Romans were content that one heel bone pierced by a single nail was sufficient guarantee of security. And while it pains the author to say it, the bureaucratic Roman army might see using one less nail as being more efficient and (here is an awful thought) a cost saving measure.

Hand or wrist?  Further examination determined olive wood fragments were adhered to the point of the nail thus indicating that Jehohanan was probably crucified on a cross made of olive wood or more likely on an olive tree. However, as pictured olive trees do not grow nice and straight so manufacturing the archetypal cross of two intersecting straight beams becomes far more laborious and time-consuming. The tip of the nail was bent, possibly from striking a knot in the wood, which prevented it being extracted from the foot. In addition, a piece of acacia wood was found between the bones and the head of the nail. It is presumed that, where nails were used to crucify the condemned, these pieces of wood prevented the victim or their own body weight pulling the nail through the feet (or wrists).

Haas examination also identified a scratch on the inner surface of the right radius bone of the forearm, close to the wrist. He deduced from the form of the scratch, as well as from the intact wrist bones, that a nail had been driven into the forearm at that position. Along with many of Haas' findings, however, his conclusions have been challenged as it was subsequently determined by Zias and Sekeles that the scratches in the wrist area were non-traumatic and, therefore, not definitive evidence of crucifixion:

“Many non-traumatic scratches and indentations similar to these are found on ancient skeletal material. In fact, two similar non-traumatic indentations were observed on the right fibula, neither are connected with the crucifixion...Thus, the lack of traumatic injury to the forearm and metacarpals of the hand seems to suggest that the arms of the condemned were tied rather than nailed to the cross.”

The findings of Zias and Sekeles could not conclude whether in this case a horizontal patibulum crossbeam was attached to the upright stake to which the victim's heel was nailed. The evidence was so ambiguous concerning the victim’s arms that Zias and Sekeles had to rely on the data provided by contemporary writings to support their reconstruction of the position of the arms as attached to a crossbeam. Yet while contemporary Roman literary sources contain numerous descriptions of crucifixion, they say little about how the condemned were affixed to the cross. Unfortunately, as with the Fenstanton find, the direct physical evidence from Jerusalem is limited to one right heel calcaneum (heel bone) pierced by an 11.5 cm iron nail with traces of wood at both ends.

The end is nigh  Crucifixion was intended to be a gruesome spectacle leading to a painful and humiliating death. As stated, it was originally reserved to punish slaves, pirates and enemies of the state, the latter presumably being the category in which Jesus found himself condemned. As a capital punishment crucifixion was not applicable to Roman citizens until it was later extended to those of the lower classes (humiliores) [5].

The length of time it might take for a victim to die could range from hours to days depending on their health, the prevailing environment and which method of crucifixion was used. In 1950, Pierre Barbet theorised that, when the whole body weight was supported by the stretched arms, the typical cause of death was asphyxiation. The victim’s weight would cause hyper-expansion of the chest muscles and lungs making it difficult to breath. The only way to alleviate this would be for the victim to draw himself up by the arms to relieve the pressure, possible aided by his feet being supported by tying or resting on a wood block (suppedaneum). Regardless, the effort needed would quickly lead to exhaustion only for the body to sag once more. Over time the two sets of muscles used for breathing, the intercostal muscles and the diaphragm, would become progressively weakened. This cycle might continue until the victim is no longer able to lift himself leading to death within a few minutes. While Babet’s theory has been supported by several scholars (Habermas, Kopel & Shaw, 2021, 748–52), the medical consensus is that asphyxia is unlikely to be the primary cause of death by crucifixion (McGovern, Kaminskas & Fernandes, 2023, 64–79).

Several other possible causes of death (Maslen & Piers, 2006, 185–188) have been mooted. These include heart failure or arrhythmia (an abnormal heart rhythm) (Edwards, Gabel & Hosmer, 1986, 1455–1463; Davis, 1962, 182), hypovolemic shock caused by the loss of too much blood or fluid (Zugibe, 2005), acidosis leading to excess acid in the body fluids (Wijffels, 2000, 52 (3)), dehydration (Retief & Cilliers, 2003, 938–941), and pulmonary embolism, a blocking of an artery in the lungs (Brenner, 2005, 1–2). Any one of these factors or a combination of them, or indeed many other causes will most likely result in death.

Conclusion  In reconstructing any crucifixion reliance has to be placed on the limited skeletal evidence together with the observations made by Haas, Barbet et al. and the ancient historical sources. Despite that the most common of crucifixions used either a simple stake (stipes) or a tree, modern reconstructions usually include a crossbeam (patibulum). According to the ancient sources, the condemned man never carried the complete cross, as is commonly believed. Rather, only the crossbeam was carried, while the upright was set in a permanent place where it was used for subsequent executions. Usefully therefore the same crossbeam could be used repeatedly for attachment to an upright stake permanently fixed in the ground. Moreover, Josephus tells us that during the first century AD, wood was so scarce in Jerusalem that the Romans were forced to travel ten miles from the city to secure timber for their siege machinery. If wood was so scarce, it makes sense, at the very least economically, for the crossbeam and upright to be used repeatedly.

Literary and artistic evidence seems to suggest that the arms of the condemned were tied with ropes rather than nailed to the cross. Even so, it must be borne in mind that death by crucifixion resulted from the manner in which the condemned person hung from the cross and not any traumatic injury caused by nailing. Hanging from the cross resulted in a painful process of asphyxiation until the condemned person expired, unable to continue breathing properly.

References:

Arkeonews, (2021), ‘First example of Roman crucifixion in UK discovered in Cambridgeshire village’, available online (accessed July 13th, 2022).

Brenner, B., (2005), ‘Did Jesus Christ die of pulmonary embolism?’, J Thromb Haemost, 3 (9), pp. 1–2.

Chapman, D.W. (2008), ‘Ancient Jewish and Christian perceptions of crucifixion’, Baker Academic.

Davis, CT (1962). "The Crucifixion of Jesus. The Passion of Christ From a Medical Point of View". Arizona Medicine. 22: 182.

Edwards, W.D., Gabel, W.J. & Hosmer, F.E., (1986), ‘On the physical cause of death of Jesus Christ’, Journal of the American Medical Association, 255 (11), pp. 1455–1463.

Habermas, G., Kopel, J., & Shaw, B.C.F., (2021), ‘Medical views on the death by crucifixion of Jesus Christ’, Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, 34 (6), pp. 748–52.

Granger Cook, J., (2014), “Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World”, Mohr Siebeck.

Gualdi-Russo, E., Thun Hohenstein, U., Onisto, N. et al., (2019), ‘A multidisciplinary study of calcaneal trauma in Roman Italy: a possible case of crucifixion?’, Archaeol Anthropol Sci 11, 1783–1791, available online (accessed July 13th, 2022).

Haas, N., (1970), ‘Anthropological observations on the skeletal remains from Giv'at ha-Mivtar’, Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 20, No. 1/2, pp. 38-59, available online (accessed June 23rd, 2023).

Ingham D., Duhig C., (2022), ‘Crucifixion in the Fens: life & death in Roman Fenstanton’. British Archaeology, January-February 2022, available online (accessed July 13th, 2022).

Maslen, M. & Piers D.M., (2006), ‘Medical theories on the cause of death in crucifixion’, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99 (4), pp. 185–188.

McGovern, T.W., Kaminskas, D.A. & Fernandes, E.S., (2023), ‘Did Jesus Die by Suffocation? An Appraisal of the Evidence’, Linacre Quarterly, 90 (1), pp. 64–79.

Retief, F.P. & Cilliers, L., (2003), ‘The history and pathology of crucifixion’, South African Medical Journal, 93 (12), pp. 938–941.

Smith W., D.C.L., LL.D., (1875), A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, “Crux”, London: John Murray, available online at “LacusCurtius” (accessed April 15th, 2024).

Tzaferis, V., (1970), ‘Jewish Tombs at and near Giv'at ha-Mivtar’, Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 20, No. 1/2, pp. 18-32, available online (accessed June 23rd, 2023).

Tzaferis, V., (1985), ‘Crucifixion - The Archaeological Evidence’, Biblical Archaeology Review 11, Available online (accessed June 23rd, 2023).

Wijffels, F., (2000), ‘Death on the cross: did the Turin Shroud once envelop a crucified body?’, Br Soc Turin Shroud Newsletter, 52 (3).

Zias, J. and Sekeles, E., (1985), ‘The Crucified Man from Giv'at Ha-Mivtar: A Reappraisal’, Israel Exploration Journal 35 (1), pp. 22-27, Available online (accessed June 23rd, 2023).

Zias, J., (2004), ‘Crucifixion in Antiquity - The Anthropological Evidence’, COJS.org, Available online (accessed July 13th, 2022).

Zugibe, F.T., (2005), ‘The Crucifixion Of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry’, New York: M. Evans and Company.

Endnotes:

1. Lucius Annaeus Seneca [the Younger] (c. 4 BC – AD 65) was a Stoic philosopher of ancient Rome, a statesman, dramatist, and in one work, satirist, from the post-Augustan age of Latin literature.

2. The crucifixion of Jesus occurred in 1st century Judaea, most likely in AD 30 or AD 33. It is described in the four canonical gospels, referred to in the New Testament epistles, and is attested to by other ancient sources. Consequently, it is considered an established historical event, although there is no consensus among historians on the details.

3. Michelangelo Merisi (or Amerighi) da Caravaggio (more popularly known simply as Caravaggio) was born on September 29th, 1571 in Milan, Italy. He died aged 38 on July 18th, 1610 in Porto Ercole in Tuscany, Italy.

4. BBC History Magazine (February 2022), ‘History in the News: Evidence of Roman crucifixion found in UK’, p. 8.

5. The most common punishment for a Roman citizen was a fine (damnum). Thieves would have to pay compensation many times higher than the value of the stolen item(s) and would be deemed infamous (ignominia). Citizens might deny lawbreakers access to fire and water, and anyone legally banished from Roman society (exilium) forfeited all their privileges and property. While citizens could be condemned to a life of slavery (servitus), Roman law determined the death penalty only applied if they had committed treason or patricide. Roman citizens were thus very rarely sentenced to death, and in all instances a citizen could not be crucified. Wealthier persons and the Roman elite guilty of capital crimes were most likely to be executed by the sword, either self-inflicted (suicide) or beheaded by an executioner.

6. Sepsis, sometimes called septicaemia or blood poisoning, is a life-threatening overreaction by the immune system to an infection that starts to damage your body's own tissues and organs. You cannot catch sepsis from another person.

A Brief History of Food: Fish ‘n’ Chips

Recently the BBC broadcast an episode of “Rick Stein’s Food Stories” that stated the origin of fish and chips lay with the Portuguese who first fried fish in the 15th-century. While the fried fish claim might have a historical basis, as we will see, the connection with chips is more problematic as potatoes did not appear in Britain until the late 16th-century or early 17th-century. So, was Mr Stein correct? We set out to find out and it seems that, while now a quintessential part of British life, the origin story of fish ‘n’ chips is not entirely clear. We begin our story with exploring who introduced the idea of frying fish to Britain and when.

A fishy tale  “Pescado frito” (literally “fried fish” in Spanish) is a traditional dish from the Southern coast of Spain, typically found in Andalusia, but also in Catalonia, Valencia, the Canary Islands and the Balearic Islands. It is made by coating the fish (usually a white fish) in flour and deep-frying in olive oil. Seasoned only with salt, pescado frito is usually served hot, freshly fried, to be eaten as an appetizer or as the main course. The deep-frying of the fish in olive or vegetable oil makes it crisp and light even when eaten cold. It became a traditional Shabbat fish dish eaten by 16th-century Andalusian Jews in Spain and Portugal as a late breakfast or lunch after synagogue services on Saturday morning. Although there is little in the way of proof, it is thought that this Jewish fish dish was the inspiration for what would become fish and chips. The argument runs that pescado frito was brought to England by Jewish migrants from the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal). Named for where they came from, Sephardim or Sephardic Jews began to settle in England in small numbers in the mid 17th-century.

The Jewish communities in Spain and Portugal had prospered for centuries under the Muslim reign of Al-Andalus in the aftermath of the Umayyad conquest of Hispania. Their fortunes began to decline, however, with the Christian campaign of Reconquista to seize back control of Spain from the Muslims. In 1492, the Alhambra Decree by the Catholic Monarchs of Spain called for the expulsion of Jews, and in 1496, King Manuel I of Portugal issued a similar edict for the expulsion of both Jews and Muslims. These decrees led to a combination of internal and external migrations, mass conversions, and also executions. By the late 15th-century, Sephardic Jews had been largely expelled from Spain and scattered across North Africa, Western Asia, Southern and Southeastern Europe, either settling near existing Jewish communities or as the first in new frontiers, such as along the Silk Road. Their widescale expulsion from the Iberian Peninsula was certainly not the first time Jews had experienced such persecution, however.

On July 18th, 1290 - a date chosen for its significance as a Jewish holy day – King Edward I issued “The Edict of Expulsion”, a royal decree expelling all Jews from England, the first time a European state is known to have permanently banned their presence. The expulsion edict remained in force for the rest of the Middle Ages. Yet, in the wake of the Spanish Inquisition, from the beginning of the 16th-century some Jews began to return to England. Those who did had to conceal their religion for fear of reprisal, but they seemingly did not have to do so with much vigour. In a case of “turning a blind eye” many of the Jews in England, although well known as such, were largely ignored. Many of these “hidden Jews” made names for themselves while in England.

The Edict of Expulsion of 1290 was eventually overturned more than 365 years later in the 17th-century. During Oliver Cromwell’s Protectorate, in 1656, Jews were informally permitted to resettle in England from the Netherlands. If these Sephardic Jewish immigrants continued to prepare fried fish in their traditional manner, then it is possible that the practice caught the imagination of the English and led to one half of today’s meal of fish and chips. A valuable connection to the Jewish immigrant origin story is corroborated in Alexis Soyer’s 1845 cookbook “A Shilling Cookery for the People”. In his first edition Soyer records the following recipe:

“75. Fried Fish, Jewish Fashion.

This is another excellent way of frying fish, which is constantly is use by the children of Israel, and I cannot recommend it too highly; so much so, that various kinds of fish which many people despise, are excellent cooked by this process; in eating them many persons are deceived, and would suppose them to be the most expensive of fish. The process is at once simple, effective, and economical; not that I would recommend it for invalids, as the process imbibes some of the fat, which, however palatable, would not do for the dyspeptic or invalid.

76. Proceed thus: - Cut one or two pounds of halibut in one piece, lay it in a dish, cover the top with a little salt, put some water in the dish, but not to cover the fish; let it remain thus for one hour. The water being below, causes the salt to penetrate into the fish. Take it out and dry it; cut out the bone, and the fins off; it is then in two pieces. Lay the pieces on the side, and divide them into slices half an inch thick; put into a frying pan, with a quarter of a pound of fat, lard, or dripping (the Jews use oil); then put two ounces of flour into a soup-plate, or basin, which mix with water, to form a smooth batter, not too thick. Dip the fish in it, that the pieces are well covered; then have the fat, not too hot, put the pieces in it, and fry till a nice colour, turning them over. When done, take it out with a slice, let it drain, dish up, and serve. Any kind of sauce that is liked may be used with it; but plain, with a little salt and lemon, is excellent. This fish is often only threepence to fourpence per pound; it containing but little bone renders it very economical. It is excellent cold, and can be eaten with oil, vinegar, and cucumbers, in summer time, and is exceedingly cooling. An egg is an improvement in the batter.

The same fish as before mentioned as fit for frying, may be fried in this manner. Eels are excellent done so; the batter absorbs the oil which is in them.

Flounders may also be done in this way. A little salt should be sprinkled over before serving.

77. In some Jewish families all this kind of fish is fried in oil, and dipped in batter, as described above. In some families they dip the fish first in flour, and then in egg, and fry in oil. This plan is superior to that fried in fat or dripping, but more expensive.”

(Hughes, 2022)

From Soyer we can firmly establish that the frying of fish was well known in Britain by the middle of the 19th-century. The first element of the classic fish ‘n’ chips meal is resolved, but what of the chips themselves and who, when and where were the two combined?

The humble potato  According to “The Cambridge World History of Food” (Messer, 2000, 187-201) it was Spanish explorers in the 16th-century who first encountered the potato as they explored what would become the countries of Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, and Ecuador. While comparing the unfamiliar tubers to truffles, the Spanish apparently adopted the Quechua name “papa” for this new (to them) discovery. Returning from the Andes laden with silver destined for the Spanish government, it is thought that sailors also carried with them maize and potatoes as food for the journey home. It is speculated, therefore, that the first potato specimens probably reached Spain around AD 1570. It is further reasoned that leftover tubers (and maize) were taken ashore, planted and cultivated. From then on, the potato spread via herbalists and farmers to Italy, the Low Countries, and England. Uniquely for England there was likely a second introduction of the tuber sometime in the subsequent twenty years. Nonetheless, despite folklore crediting Sir Francis Drake with introducing the potato to Britain, this could not have been the case. During his round-the-world voyage between 1577 and 1580, Drake recorded his first encounter with potatoes off the Chilean coast in 1578. It would take him a further two years to return home, so it is highly unlikely that the tubers would have survived such a long period at sea.

The potato first spread across Europe for non-food purposes. Being a member of the nightshade family, the potato was regarded with suspicion and fear so, at first, it was mostly used as livestock fodder or to feed the starving. This was confirmed in 1601 when botanist Carolus Clusius reported that potatoes were in common use in northern Italy for animal fodder and for human consumption. The tuber’s widescale cultivation remained stymied across much of Northern Europe by agricultural practices that favoured the customary growing of grain in open fields and the grazing of animals on fallow land. Potatoes were thus confined to small garden plots and excluded from large-scale cultivation, until the early 1770s. The colder years of the Little Ice Age in late 18th-century Europe caused many traditional crops to fail resulting in famines in several countries. At those times and places when and where most other crops had failed, potatoes could still be relied upon to contribute adequately to food supplies. Consequently, the humble potato eventually became widely accepted as a cheap, reliable foodstuff.

Ireland in the early 17th-century was probably the first country in Europe to cultivate potatoes on a widescale. When, by the 18th-century, the Irish population exploded, its people subsisted almost entirely on the crop. The potato had spread to England soon after it reached Ireland. On top of imports from the latter, potatoes were widely cultivated in Lancashire and around London to become a staple foodstuff by the 18th-century. By 1715 the potato was widely grown in the Low Countries, the Rhineland, Southwestern Germany, and Eastern France, and by the mid 18th-century had also been firmly established in the Kingdom of Prussia in northern and eastern Germany. Northern and western France took longer than eastern France, but there too it became common later that same century. From humble beginnings the potato rose to power the industrial revolution in 19th-century Europe, cementing its dominance into the 20th-century as a versatile food used in so many different dishes. All of which leads us neatly to consider chips.

Chips  Ignoring the ongoing dispute between France and Belgium as to who invented “fries”, fried potatoes have long been popular in England. The earliest known recipe for something resembling today's chips appears in William Kitchiner's cookbook “The Cook's Oracle” published in 1817. Amongst a raft of recipes for potatoes, No. 104 probably best describes the cooking of “chips”:

“Peel large Potatoes, slice them about a quarter of an inch thick, or cut them in shavings round and round as you would peel a lemon; dry them well in a clean cloth, and fry them in lard or dripping. Take care that your fat and frying-pan are quite clean; put it on a quick fire, watch it, and as soon as the lard boils, and is still, put in the slices of potatoes, and keep moving them till they are crisp; take them up and lay them to drain on a sieve; send them up with a very little salt sprinkled over them.”

By the second half of the 19th-century deep-fried chips (slices or pieces of potato) may have first appeared in England as a recognizable dish. The Oxford English Dictionary notes as its earliest usage of “chips” in this sense the mention in Charles Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities (1859) of “husky chips of potato, fried with some reluctant drops of oil”. Dickens had earlier also mentioned a “fried fish warehouse” in Oliver Twist first published in 1838.

Apparently chips first became popular in Lancashire and Yorkshire, but we may never know who was the first to combine them with the fried fish first introduced and sold by Jews in London’s East End. By the 1860s, however, the first combined fish-and-chip shops had appeared. The earliest known were opened in Bow, East London by Jewish immigrant Joseph Malin circa 1860 and, at about the same time, by John Lees in Mossley, Lancashire (1863). 

Quite quickly fish and chips became a relatively cheap, staple meal among the working classes in England. Apart from their affordability, this popularity was fuelled by the rapid development of trawl fishing in the North Sea and the expansion of the railways during the second half of the 19th-century meaning fresh fish could be rapidly transported from the ports to the heavily populated areas and major industrial cities. By 1910 there were over 25,000 fish-and-chip shops across the UK, rising over the next two decades to over 35,000 shops. Since then, numbers have steadily declined until, according to the National Federation of Fish Friers, there are currently in the region of 10,500 specialist fish-and-chip shops in the UK. One amazing survivor is the Rock & Sole Plaice in Covent Garden, which started trading in 1871 and is London's oldest fish-and-chip shop (or “chippy”) still in operation.

Chippies  The earliest chippies used only very basic facilities, usually a large cauldron of cooking fat, heated by a coal fire. Over time the modern fish-and-chip shop settled on a common layout where the food is still served to queuing customers over a counter in front of the fryers. Until the late 20th-century British fish and chips were often served wrapped in old newspapers, or with an inner layer of white paper (for hygiene) and an outer layer of newspaper or blank newsprint for insulation and to absorb grease. The practice of using old newspaper as a cost-saving exercise survived as late as the 1980s when it was ruled unsafe for food to come into contact with newspaper ink without a hygiene boundary layer of grease-proof paper. Newspaper has given way to fish and chips being wrapping in plain paper or served in recyclable cardboard or other biodegradable cartons.

Cooking  Beef dripping or lard were traditionally used for frying imparting a different flavour compared to vegetable oils which now dominate. Frying in lard can still be experienced in some living industrial history museums, such as the Black Country Living Museum or Blists Hill Victorian Town. Most fish-and-chip shops use vegetable oils, such as palm oil, rapeseed or peanut oil, as these make fried chips suitable for vegetarians and for adherents of certain faiths.

In Britain and Ireland, cod and haddock are most commonly used for fish and chips, but it is not unusual for vendors to offer many other kinds of fish, especially other white fish, such as pollock, hake or coley, plaice, skate, ray, and huss or rock salmon (a term covering several species of dogfish and similar fish). Legislation introduced in 2003, however, requires fish must be sold with the particular commercial name or species named. This means in today’s chippies customers are more likely to be offered “haddock and chips” or “cod and chips” rather than the more vague “fish and chips”.

The fish is routinely filleted, so no bones should be found, before being coated and fried in a simple water and flour batter. To create a lighter, crispier batter, a little sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) and vinegar is often added to produce bubbles in the batter. The water can also be substituted for milk or beer. Carbon dioxide in the latter gives a lighter texture to the batter, adds flavour and produces a more orange-brown colour. 

And finally…  So, although the origin of the classic dish of the British Isles, fish and chips, is far from clear-cut. It is believed that the fried fish component was introduced by Sephardic Jewish immigrants to England who arrived in the late 1400s and early 1500s. Their tradition of eating battered fried fish as a Sabbath meal found favour as a popular street food first in London. As for chips, our earliest evidence dates to 1817 within the pages of William Kitchiner's cookbook “The Cook's Oracle”. In the UK, chips are not “French fries”, the former being more thickly cut than the latter. As to which came first, it remains the case of discovering the earliest dateable reference to the frying of potatoes. Once again, this origin story is far from certain. Regardless, the combination of fish and chips has long been considered a working-class food; its rise in popularity coinciding with the apogee of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-1800s. Over the intervening decades the dish has remained a firm favourite enjoyed by millions every year. Bon appétit!

References:

Dickens, C. (1859), “A Tale of Two Cities, Chapter V: The Wine Shop”, Project Gutenberg, available online (accessed March 13th, 2024).

Hughes, G., (2022), “A Shilling Cookery for The People, 1845”, available online (accessed March 13th, 2024).

Kitchiner, W., (1817), “The Cook's Oracle, Vegetables: Sixteen ways of Dressing Potatoes”, pp. 167 – 172, available online (accessed March 15th, 2024).

Messer E. (2000), “Potatoes (White)”, in Kiple K.F. & Ornelas K.C., (eds.), “The Cambridge World History of Food”, Cambridge University Press, pp. 187-201.

Royal Museums Greenwich website, “The history of fish and chips”, available online (accessed March 10th, 2024).

Zaino, C., (2013), “Chipping away at the history of fish and chips”, BBC Travel website, available online (accessed March 15th, 2024).

About History: Named after a Battle

In an earlier article we explored the origin of the French dish Chicken à la Marengo which was named, according to a popular myth, after the battle of the same name where the French army of Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte defeated an Austrian army in June 1800. While researching and writing that article we also came across some other familiar things also reputedly named after famous battles. What follows, therefore, is a brief exploration of their origin stories starting with the earliest, the marathon running race.

Marathon, and a battle

Some readers might be aware of the origins of the long-distance foot race known as a ‘marathon’ but for those who are not, it is named after the bay of Marathon (Greek: Μαραθώνιος) located about 27 kilometres (17 mi) northeast of Athens [1]. In August, or possibly September, 490 BC this was the scene of a battle between the armies of ancient Greece and Persia.

The Greco-Persian Wars  The Battle of Marathon was the culmination of the first Persian invasion of Greece which had its roots in the Ionian Revolt, the earliest phase of the Greco-Persian Wars. The revolt itself began when Aristagoras, the tyrant of Miletus [2], operating with support from, and in the name of the Persian Empire of Darius the Great, launched an unsuccessful military expedition against the island of Naxos. In the aftermath, the Persian king’s attempt to remove Aristagoras from power was thwarted when the latter suddenly abdicated and declared the city-state (poleis) of Miletus a democracy. The other cities of ancient Ionia [3] followed suit, ejecting their Persian-appointed tyrants, and declaring themselves democracies. Aristagoras then appealed to the states of mainland Greece for support, but only Athens and Eretria offered to send troops. The Ionian revolt was finally crushed by the Persian victory at the Battle of Lade in 494 BC, and King Darius I began plans to subjugate Greece.

First Persian invasion  In 490 BC, King Darius sent a naval task force commanded by Datis, a Median noble and admiral, and Artaphernes, the king’s brother, to subjugate the Cyclades, an island group in the Aegean Sea, and then to make punitive attacks on Athens and Eretria. Reaching Euboea in mid-summer after a successful campaign in the Aegean, the Persians proceeded to besiege and capture Eretria. The Persian force then sailed for Attica, landing in the bay near the town of Marathon. 

Help needed  Under the guidance of Miltiades, the Athenian general with the greatest experience of fighting the Persians, the Athenian army marched quickly to block the two exits from the plain of Marathon, and prevent the Persians moving inland. Concurrently, a message requesting the Spartan army march to the aid of Athens was carried to Sparta by Pheidippides, Athens's greatest runner, as he was named in Herodutus’ history of the Greco-Persian wars [4]. He ran a distance of over 225 kilometres (140 miles), arriving in Sparta the following day only to discover the Spartans were celebrating their festival of Karneia, a sacrosanct period of peace. Pheidippides (or Philippides) [4] was informed that the Spartan army could not march to war until the full moon rose. Athens therefore could not expect reinforcement for at least ten days and would have to hold out at Marathon [5]. As it was, they were reinforced by the full muster of 1,000 hoplites from the small city of Plataea, which steadied the nerves of the Athenians and won the Plataeans their unending gratitude.

Having everything to lose by attacking, and much to gain by waiting, the Athenians remained on the defensive in the prelude to the battle. The numerically inferior Greeks could not hope to overwhelm the Persian host. Moreover, the well-armoured Greek hoplites were vulnerable to attacks by cavalry, of which the Persians had substantial numbers. So, any offensive manoeuvre by the Athenians would potentially leave them at even more at risk. In contrast, the Persian infantry was evidently lightly armoured, and no match for hoplites in a face-to-face confrontation as would be demonstrated at the later battles of Thermopylae and Plataea. With the Athenians in a strong defensive position, the Persians were reluctant to attack them head-on. A stalemate ensued and for approximately five days the two armies simply confronted each other across the plain of Marathon. Yet, as each day brought the arrival of the Spartans ever closer, the delay worked in favour of the Athenians.

The battle  Finally, battle was joined. We cannot be certain why, but the Greek hoplites attacked. Perhaps the Persian cavalry left Marathon for an unspecified reason, and the Greeks moved to take the offensive advantage. This theory is largely based on the absence of any mention of cavalry in Herodotus' account of the battle. It also surmises the possibility that, while the infantry fixed the Greeks in place, the cavalry was being re-embarked on their ships, the Persian objective being to move by sea and attack (undefended) Athens. However, the removal of the biggest threat to the hoplite phalanx may well have initiated the battle. Yet it is equally possible that after five days of stalemate the Persians took the initiative and seeing them advancing, the Athenians went on the offensive and attacked. Either way, both theories imply some kind of Persian activity occurred on or about the fifth day which triggered the battle.

Perhaps both theories are correct such that when the Persians sent the cavalry by ship to attack Athens, they simultaneously sent their infantry to attack at Marathon, triggering the Greek counterattack. Whatever happened the Greek army inflicted a crushing defeat on the numerically superior Persians which marked a turning point in the Greco-Persian Wars. In the immediate aftermath, Herodotus says that the Persian fleet sailed around Cape Sounion to attack Athens directly. Realising their city was still threatened, the Athenians marched as quickly as possible the 25 miles (40 km) or so back to Athens. They arrived in the late afternoon in time to see the Persian ships turn away from Athens, thus completing the Athenian victory.

The myth  So why is the long-distance running race known as a ‘marathon’? Remember Pheidippides (aka Philippides) who ran from Athens to Sparta and back again to ask for assistance before the battle? Well, his feat was later conflated with the Athenian army’s forced march from Marathon to Athens as recorded by Herodotus. He makes no mention of a messenger, but the resulting popular myth has Pheidippides running from Marathon to Athens after the battle to convey word of the Greek’s victory. Moreover, on arrival, with the word “nenikēkamen!” (Attic: νενικήκαμεν; “We've won!”), Pheidippides promptly dies of exhaustion. Scroll forward half a millennium and this version of the story first appears in Plutarch's 1st-century AD work “On the Glory of Athens”. But it seems Plutarch was quoting a lost work by Heracleides of Pontus from which he, puzzlingly, records the runner's name as either Thersipus of Erchius or Eucles. Even later, in the 2nd-century AD, when Lucian of Samosata repeats the same story, he names the runner “Philippides” not Pheidippides. To be fair, in some copies of Herodotus’ manuscripts (presumably the versions Lucian and Pausanias had access to) the name of the runner between Athens and Sparta is given as Philippides.

Whichever name you prefer (the author’s preference is for Pheidippides), Lucian is the only classical source containing all the elements of this evocative story: a messenger running from the fields of Marathon to announce victory, then dying on completion of his mission. It was this tale that inspired Robert Browning’s 1879 poem “Pheidippides” (see above) which in turn motivated Baron Pierre de Coubertin and other founders of the modern Olympic Games to invent a running race recalling the ancient glory of Greece. It was one Michel Bréal who had the idea of organising a "marathon race" for the first modern Olympic Games in Athens in 1896. Echoing the legendary version of events, competitors were to run from Marathon to Athens, an approximate distance of 25 miles (40 km). The length of the race varied for the first few years until in 1921 when the International Amateur Athletics Federation (IAAF; now World Athletics) standardised the distance at 26 miles 385 yards (42.195 km) first run at the 1908 Summer Olympic Games in London (refer to the InfoBox above).

Battle Abbey and its town

Battle Abbey, and the town, Battle, in East Sussex, are so named because they are situated on the presumed site of the battle of Hastings in 1066. That year, a year of three kings of England, is particular important for this country’s history. What started as Anglo-Saxon England would, 12 months later, end as Norman England.

1066 and all that  Edward the Confessor, who was crowned King of England in 1042 with Norman support, dies on January 5th, 1066. The most powerful man in the country, Harold Godwinson Earl of Wessex, claims the vacant throne. In what appears to be unseemly haste, his coronation tales place one day after Edward’s death on January 6th. Perhaps the new king, Harold II, was fully aware of the threat posed by an alternative claimant to the throne, namely Duke William II of Normandy. The latter contended that the old king Edward had agreed to William’s succession during Edward’s lengthy, 25-year exile mainly in Normandy up to AD 1042. On hearing of Harold's coronation in January 1066, William set in motion plans to invade England, building 700 warships and transports at Dives-sur-Mer on the Normandy coast. Support for William’s cause was slow to materialise, however, until he claimed Harold had broken an oath sworn on sacred relics. Whether true or not, this, and an embassy from William seeking papal blessing, prompted the Pope Alexander II to formally declare William the rightful heir to the throne of England. The nobles flocked to William’s cause. 

A brother’s rebellion  At about the same time things take an unexpected direction when, early in 1066, Harold’s brother, Tostig returnd from exile to raid the coast of SE England as far as Sandwich. He is forced to retreat in the face of King Harold’s navy and his land forces, the Fyrd, and heads north. After an unsuccessful attempt to get his brother Gyrth to join him, Tostig raided Norfolk and Lincolnshire whereupon the Earls Edwin and Morcar brought him to battle and defeated him decisively. Deserted by his men, Tostig fled to his ally, King Malcolm III of Scotland where he spent the summer of 1066.

While across the Channel, Harold assembled his troops on the Isle of Wight but, having spent nine months preparing and being ready to set sail on August 12th, poor weather or unfavourable winds delayed the Norman fleet’s departure. With provisions running out, and after waiting all summer on the South coast for William’s expected invasion, on September 8th Harold was forced to stand down the Fyrd and his fleet in time for his men to return home to gather that year’s harvest. Harold meanwhile returned to London. On the same day, the invasion force of King Harald III Hardrada of Norway (“harðráði” in Old Norse, meaning “hard ruler”), landed at the mouth of the River Tyne, arriving with a reported fleet of 300 ships and accompanied by Tostig. 

Viking defeat  On September 20th, 1066, the northern Anglo-Saxon Earls Edwin and Morcar attack the invaders but are defeated at the Battle of Fulford just south of York. The victorious Viking army seizes York, formerly the old Viking town of Jorvik, taking hostages after a peaceful surrender, and acquiring provisions. The defeat at Fulford provoked King Harold II to force-march his troops 190 miles (310 km), from London to York. Covering the distance within a week King Harold II managed to surprise the Viking army and defeat them at the Battle of Stamford Bridge on September 25th. Harald Hardrada, Tostig and many of their men were killed. Reputedly only 24 of the original 300 ships are needed to ferry the surviving Vikings home.

William lands  Two days after the victory at Stamford Bridge, the Norman fleet set sail for England on September 27th, arriving the following day at Pevensey on the coast of East Sussex. Harold left much of his forces in the north, including 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. Harold stopped in London for about a week before facing William and the perhaps 7,000 men who had landed with him in Sussex. It is likely that the English army spent about a week on a forced-march south, averaging about 27 miles (43 km) per day, for the approximately 200 miles (320 km). 

The night before battle  Harold camped at Caldbec Hill on the night of October 13th, near a "hoar-apple tree", about 8 miles (13 km) from the castle William had established at Hastings. It is probable that Harold's intention had been to repeat his success at Stamford Bridge by catching Duke William unawares, but Norman scouts reported the English arrival to the duke. The exact events preceding the battle are obscure, with contradictory accounts in the sources, but all agree that William's army advanced the 6 miles (9.7 km) from his castle at Hastings towards the enemy who had taken a defensive position at the top of Senlac Hill (present-day Battle, East Sussex). The two armies clashed on October 14th, 1066. 

Battle is joined  Battle is joined at about 9 am on Saturday October 14th, 1066; it will last until dusk just before 5 pm. Harold's forces deployed in a small, dense formation at the top of a 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. Sources differ on the exact site that the English fought on: some sources state the site of the abbey, but some newer sources suggest it was Caldbec Hill. With English defending the higher ground, William’s archers are forced to shoot uphill. Arrows will have dropped short, passed over the English shield wall, or were stopped by said shields held edge-to-edge or overlapping. With his cavalry in support, William’s spear-armed infantry were met with a barrage of thrown spears, axes and stones. The English shield wall remained unbroken.

The failure of the infantry and cavalry to make headway began a general retreat, blamed on the Breton division on William's left. A rumour had started that the duke had been killed, only adding to the confusion. The English 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 whom rallied on a hillock before being overwhelmed. It is not known who if anyone ordered the pursuit, but the Bayeux Tapestry depicts the death of Harold's brothers Gyrth and Leofwine (above) occurring just before the fight around the hillock. This may mean that the two brothers may have responsible.

A lull probably occurred early in the afternoon, and a break for rest and food would probably have been needed. It is possible that William used the time to devise a new strategy inspired by the pursuit of the English and their subsequent rout by the Normans. If he could send his cavalry against the shield wall, feign a retreat and draw the English into more pursuits further breaks in the English line might form.

Although the feigned flights did not break the lines, they probably thinned out the housecarls in the English shield wall. The housecarls were replaced with members of the fyrd, however, and the shield wall held. Archers appear to have been used again before and during an assault by the Norman cavalry and infantry led by the duke. 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.

Death of a King  Harold appears to have died late in the battle, after perhaps nine hours of hard fighting, although accounts in the various sources are contradictory. The Bayeux Tapestry is not helpful, as it shows a figure holding an arrow sticking out of his eye next to a falling fighter being struck by a sword (right). Over both figures is an inscription that reads “hic harold rex interfectus est” meaning “Here King Harold has been killed”. The name “harold” is written above the warrior with an arrow in his eye, but the words “interfectus est” (has been killed) appear to refer to the second warrior being hacked down by the mounted Norman swordsman. It is not clear therefore which figure is meant to be Harold, or if both are meant to be. Nevertheless, Harold's death, and those of his brothers Gyrth and Leofwine, left the English forces leaderless, and they began to collapse. Many fled pursued by the Normans, but the soldiers of the royal household gathered around Harold's body and fought to the end.

Aftermath  The day after the battle, Harold's body was identified, either by his armour or by marks on his body. His personal standard was presented to William, and later sent to the papacy. The bodies of the English dead, including those of Harold's brothers and housecarls, were left on the battlefield, some were later recovered by relatives. The Norman dead were buried in a large communal grave, which has still not been found. Exact casualty figures are unknown, but of the English known to be at the battle, the number of dead implies a death rate of about 50% (although this figure may be too high). Of the named Normans who fought at Hastings, one in seven are recorded as dying. Significantly, these were all noblemen, so it is probable that the death rate among the common soldiers was much higher. One source speculates that perhaps 2,000 Normans and 4,000 Englishmen were killed during the battle; some reports even claimed that the English dead were still being found on the hillside years later.

If the victorious Duke William thought he would receive the submission of the surviving English leaders, he was sadly mistaken. Instead, with the support of Earls Edwin and Morcar, Stigand the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Ealdred the Archbishop of York, Edgar the Ætheling (‘royal prince’) was proclaimed king by his council, the Witenagemot [6]. To counter this turn of events, William advanced on London via a circuitous route, in order to cross the river Thames unopposed, during which he fought further engagements against English forces from the city. William’s continued military success eventually forced the English leaders to surrender to him at Berkhamsted in Hertfordshire. William was acclaimed King of England and crowned by Ealdred, the Archbishop of York on December 25th, 1066, in Westminster Abbey.

The eponymous Battle Abbey was founded by William at the site of this historic encounter. Later 12th-century sources claim William had vowed to build the abbey, with its high altar marking where Harold supposedly died, but it is more likely, bearing in mind William’s enterprise was backed by the papacy, that the foundation was imposed on the king by papal legates in 1070. Either way, the construction of the abbey altered the topography of the battle site. The top of the ridge was built up and levelled and today the slope defended by the English is much less steep than it was at the time. The town that grew around the abbey is also named Battle being as, unsurprisingly, it is adjoins the battle site.

Yet the name traditionally given to the battlefield seemingly makes little sense as there were several settlements closer to it than Hastings. While the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle called it the battle “at the hoary apple tree”, within 40 years the Anglo-Norman chronicler Orderic Vitalis described it as “Senlac”. This is a Norman-French adaptation of the Old English word “Sandlacu” meaning “sandy water”, which may have been the name of the stream crossing the battlefield. In 1086 the Domesday Book referred to “bellum Haestingas” or “Battle of Hastings”. So, despite the battle being fought some 6 miles from Hastings itself, this most decisive encounter that changed the course of Anglo-Saxon England is known popularly as the Battle of Hastings.

Blenheim Orange

Unlike its name suggests the Blenheim Orange is a variety of apple first identified sometime around 1740 in Woodstock, Oxfordshire. The parents of this apple variety are unknown, but it is named after the nearby Blenheim Palace, ancestral home of the Churchill family. Blenheim Orange apples are slightly larger than the other, similar varieties, albeit with a rather flattened shape. The skin has a green and yellow to orange colour with some rather feint red streaking to produce a moderate russeting. For cooking purposes, the Blenheim Orange is great in apple pies as it cooks to a stiff purée, but the apples should be used from early October. If left to ripen for a month or so longer, the fruits develop a sweeter flavour and make good eating as a dessert apple.

Namesakes  Blenheim Palace near Woodstock, Oxfordshire, England, was the seat of John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough, one of England’s greatest generals. His father, Sir Winston Churchill [7], a member of Parliament possessing only a moderate property, was sufficiently influential at the court of King Charles II to be able to provide for his sons as courtiers and in the armed forces. John, the eldest, advanced rapidly both at court and in the army but, marrying for love, remained throughout his life dependent upon his career in the public service for financial support. When Queen Anne came to throne in 1702, Churchill as Earl of Marlborough secured his fame and fortune. His marriage to the quick-tempered Sarah Jennings – Anne's close friend – certainly helped his rise, becoming first the Captain-Generalcy of British forces, then securing promotion to duke. Later, he became the richest of all Anne's subjects. During the War of the Spanish Succession, Marlborough led British and allied armies to important victories over the armies of King Louis XIV of France, notably at Blenheim (1704), Ramillies (1706), and Oudenaarde (1708). While he never succeeded in crushing his detractors, Marlborough’s victories enabled Britain’s rise to very great power and riches through the 18th-century.

On behalf of a grateful nation, parliament presented Churchill a gift of land upon which the construction of Blenheim Palace began in 1705; it was completed in 1724. Designed by Sir John Vanbrugh, it is regarded as the finest example of truly Baroque architecture in Great Britain. Although initially Queen Anne had provided some financial support, the project soon became the subject of political infighting. The Crown cancelled further financial support in 1712, Marlborough found himself voluntarily exiled to the Continent for three years, Sarah, the Duchess of Marlborough fell from influence at court, and lasting damage was caused to the reputation of Vanbrugh, the architect.

Today little remains of the original landscaping designed by Queen Anne’s gardener, Henry Wise. In keeping with changing fashions, the Palace grounds were redesigned by Lancelot (Capability) Brown in the pastoral style of informal or seemingly natural landscapes of woods, lawns, and waterways. In 1987 the palace and its surrounding property were inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage site. The 2,100-acre (850-hectare) estate, which has remained in the Churchill family, is now open to the public.

Famous son  Significantly, 150 years after its completion, possibly Blenheim Palace’s most famous son was born to Lord Randolph Churchill, a younger son of the 7th Duke of Marlborough, and Jenny Jerome. Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill KG OM CH TD FRS PC (b. November 30th, 1874; d. January 24th, 1965) was to become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom twice, once during World War II, and again in the early 1950s. Sir Winston was the only person to have been a member of the British Government during both World Wars, and the last commoner (non-royal) to be granted a state funeral. In his long life he been a soldier, journalist, Minister of State, artist, historian, and writer winning the Nobel Prize in literature in 1953.

Balaclava

Most people are probably familiar with a form of cloth headgear known as a “balaclava” typically worn over the head exposing only part of the face, usually the eyes and mouth. The garment’s name, however, is derived from Balaklava, a settlement on the Crimean Peninsula (and part of the city of Sevastopol), which became the Anglo-French base during the Crimean War. This 19th-century conflict was fought from October 1853 to February 1856 between the Russian Empire and an ultimately victorious alliance of the Ottoman Empire, France, the United kingdom, and Sardinia-Piedmont.

Winters in this area can be harsh and British troops were ill-prepared for the bitterly cold weather. Logistical failures meant that supplies of warm clothing, weatherproof quarters, and food were woefully delayed. Volunteers in Britain hand-knitted woollen headgear which were duly sent to the British troops to help keep them warm, and thus the name balaclava was born. Interestingly, however, in his History of Handknitting, Richard Rutt notes that the term “balaclava helmet” was not used during the war but appears much later, in 1881 (Rutt, 1987, 134-5).

Magenta

On June 4th, 1859 a battle took place near the town of Magenta in the Kingdom of Lombardy–Venetia, a crown land of the Austrian Empire, during the Second Italian War of Independence. It resulted in a French-Sardinian victory under Napoleon III against an Austrian force commanded by Marshal Ferencz Gyulai. In the same year, two British chemists, Edward Chambers Nicholson and George Maule, working at the laboratory of the paint manufacturer George Simpson, located in Walworth, south of London, made another aniline dye with a similar red-purple colour, which they began to manufacture in 1860 under the name “roseine”. In 1860 they changed the name to “magenta”, in honour of the Battle of Magenta, as was the Boulevard de Magenta in Paris.

The Kop

The Kop end at Liverpool Football Club’s Anfield ground, built in 1906, was so named after the Battle of Spion Kop during the Second Boer War in which the Lancashire Fusiliers fought, many of whom were from Liverpool. It is claimed survivors from the battle christened the new stand at Anfield “Spion Kop” in memory of their fallen comrades. Although possibly the most famous, it is not the only single-tier terrace or stand at sporting venues in the UK that once bore or still bear the name. The steep nature of these stands are said to resemble Spioenkop, a hill near Ladysmith, South Africa [8], the scene of the battle in January 1900. 

As part of the British plan to relieve the siege of Ladysmith, General Sir Charles Warren, Royal Engineers, decided to capture Spioenkop with a surprise night attack. A force of 1,700 men under Major General Edward Woodgate departed in the pitch dark in drizzling rain at 2100 hrs on January 23rd, 1900. They climbed the spur from the south-west until, by 0200 hrs, they had reached the last plateaux leading to the hill’s summit. Fixing bayonets and forming into lines, the men advanced once more. Out of the darkness came a loud, shouted challenge from the Boers followed by gunfire. Surprised the small Boer piquet was quickly driven from the summit by the British. Consolidating their gains, in the dark the soldiers dug a shallow trench in the unforgiving stoney ground and built a low stone rampart on what they considered the best position. 

The British had no direct knowledge of the topography of the summit and the darkness and fog had not helped their situational awareness. As dawn broke, they discovered that they in fact only held the smaller and lower part of Spioenkop, while the Boers occupied higher ground on three sides of the British position. To compound their problems, the British trenches were wholly inadequate for all defensive purposes. Because the summit of was mostly hard rock, the British trenches were at most 40 cm (16 in) deep offering exceptionally poor protection. While the British infantry in the trenches could not see over the crest of the plateau, the Boers were able to fire down the length of the crescent-shaped trench from the adjacent peaks. Boer artillery began to bombard the British position, firing shells from the adjacent plateau of Tabanyama at a rate of ten rounds per minute. Uncharacteristically for a guerilla force, hundreds of Boers swarmed to attack the British positions much to the surprise of the British. The massed attack quickly deteriorated into a vicious, close-quarters combat. It is often said that the Boers excelled in marksmanship, but the British Lee–Metford and Lee–Enfield rifles were no less effective than the Boer Mauser rifles. What the British excelled in, however, was close combat so, after an exchange of rifle fire at close range, both sides engaged in hand-to-hand combat, the British wielding fixed bayonets and the Boers brandishing hunting knives and using their own rifles as cudgels. The initial Boer assault carried the crest line but after several minutes of brutal hand-to-hand fighting resulting in serious losses, they could advance no further.

For the next several hours a kind of stalemate settled over Spioenkop. Although the Boers had failed to drive the British from the hill, they still held a firing line on Aloe Knoll from where they could enfilade the British position, which was now under sustained bombardment from the Boer artillery. The British had failed to exploit their initial success, and the initiative now passed to the Boers. Morale began to sag on both sides as the extreme heat, exhaustion and thirst took its toll. 

An inconclusive series of engagements continued throughout the day resulting in several of the senior British officers killed or badly wounded. The surviving officers and men from the different units were intermingled, and the British were now effectively leaderless, confused and pinned down by the heavy Boer artillery and rifle fire. As darkness fell, the Boers who had fought bravely on Spioenkop since morning had had enough and abandoned their positions. Unknown to Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Thorneycroft, now de facto commander of the British force, the battle was as good as won, but his nerve was shattered. After sixteen hours performing the duties expected of a Brigadier-General, two ranks higher than his Lieutenant Colonelcy, and lacking any instructions from General Warren, Thorneycroft ordered a withdrawal from Spioenkop. His decision is wholly understandable: the soldiers had no water, ammunition was running short, and the British were without effective artillery support to counter the heavy Boer artillery fire. Furthermore, the extreme difficulty of digging trenches on the summit of Spioenkop had left the British soldiers completely exposed and there was little to no possibility of defending the position against a determined attack.

When morning came, the Boer generals were astonished to see two burghers [9] on the top of Spioenkop, waving their slouch-hats in triumph. The only British on the hill were either dead or dying. In the end the British suffered 243 fatalities during the battle, with approximately 1,250 either wounded or captured. Many of the dead were simply buried in the trenches where they fell. The Boers suffered 335 casualties of which 68 were killed. In the aftermath, the British retreated back over the Tugela River, which they had crossed a mere six days earlier. The Boers were too exhausted to pursue and follow up their success so once across the river, General Sir Redvers Buller VC managed to rally his troops. After three failed attempts to break the siege, Ladysmith would be relieved by Buller’s force four weeks later.

Although perhaps an ignominious defeat, the action on Spioenkop clearly captured the British imagination. Many football grounds in England have one terrace or stand in their stadia named “Kop” or “Spioen Kop”, an allusion to the aforementioned steep nature of the terracing. A village near Mansfield in Nottinghamshire was named “Spioen Kop” after the battle, as was a hill outside Llanwrtyd Wells in Powys, and several golf courses in Britain and those former countries of the British Empire now in the wider Commonwealth. Indeed, not only villages but individual houses and cottages were christened “Spioen Kop” in the early 1900s, and many hills reminiscent of the steep Kop are so named, one in Norway and several again in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Ireland. It seems the sacrifice of the men of Lancashire and further afield have not been forgotten.

References:

Gardenfocused.co.uk, ‘Blenheim Orange Apple Tree’ Available online (accessed February 28th, 2024).

Rutt, R., (1987), ‘A History of Handknitting’, Loveland:Interweave Press.

This is Anfield website, (2022), ‘The history of the Spion Kop – How Anfield’s famous stand got its name’, Available online (accessed February 28th, 2024).

Endnotes:

1. Marathon is so named after the fields of wild fennel (Greek: μάραθο “ arathon”) that grew in the area; hence Robert Browning’s reference to “Fennel-field” in his 1879 poem “Pheidippides”.

2. Miletus was an ancient Greek city situated on the western coast of Anatolia near the mouth of the Maeander River in ancient Ionia. Before being ruled by Persia from the 6th-century BC onward, Miletus was considered among the greatest and wealthiest of Greek cities. Today its ruins are located near the modern village of Balat in Aydın Province, Turkey.

3. Ionia was an ancient region on the western coast of Anatolia, to the south of present-day İzmir, Turkey. It consisted of the northernmost territories of the Ionian League of Greek settlements. Never a unified state, it was named after the Ionians who had settled in the region before the Archaic period (c. 800 BC to 450 BC).

4. Herodotus (c. 484 – c. 425 BC) was a Greek historian and geographer from the Greek city of Halicarnassus, part of the Persian Empire (now Bodrum, Turkey) and a later citizen of Thurii in modern Calabria, Italy. He is known for having written the Histories – a detailed account of the Greco-Persian Wars. Herodotus was the first writer to perform systematic investigation of historical events for which the ancient Roman orator Cicero described him as “The Father of History”. Confusingly, having read Herodotus’ account naming Pheidippides (530–490 BC) as the Athenian herald, or hemerodrome (which roughly translates as “professional-running courier”), the later writers Pausanias, Plutarch, and Lucian all use the alternative name Philippides in their histories.

5. The Spartan army arrived at Marathon the day after the battle having covered the 140 miles (225 km) in just two days.

6. The Witan (lit. ‘wise men’) was the king’s council in the Anglo-Saxon government of England from before the 7th-century until the 11th-century. It was composed of the leading men, both ecclesiastic and secular, and meetings of the council were sometimes called the Witenagemot.

7. Sir Winston Churchill (April 18th, 1620 to March 26th, 1688), a Fellow of the Royal Society and known as the Cavalier Colonel, was an English soldier, historian, and politician. He was a direct ancestor and namesake of Winston, who served as British prime minister during the Second World War in the mid 20th-century.

8. Ladysmith is a city in the Uthukela District of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. It lies 230 km (140 mi) north-west of Durban and 365 km (227 mi) south-east of Johannesburg. During the Second Boer War the town was besieged by Boer forces on November 2nd, 1899. After three British attempts to relieve the defenders and one Boer attempt to take the town all failed, the siege was eventually broken on February 28th, 1900.

9. In the Boer Republics of 19th-century South Africa, a burgher was a fully enfranchised citizen. Burgher rights, however, were restricted to white men, specifically Boers.