The fighting bishop or abbot is a familiar figure to medievalists and much of what is known of the military organization of England in this period is based on ecclesiastical evidence. Unfortunately the fighting cleric has generally been regarded as merely a baron in clerical dress and has consequently fallen into the gap between military and ecclesiastical history. This study addresses three main areas: which clergy engaged in military activity in England, why and when? By what means did they do so? And how did others understand and react to these activities? The book shows that, however vivid such characters as Odo of Bayeux might be in the historical imagination, there was no archetypal militant prelate. There was enormous variation in the character of the clergy that became involved in warfare, their circumstances, the means by which they pursued their military objectives and the way in which they were treated by contemporaries and described by chroniclers. An appreciation of the individual fighting cleric must be both thematically broad and keenly aware of his context. Such individuals cannot therefore be simply slotted into easy categories, even (or perhaps especially) when those categories are informed by contemporary polemic. The implications of this study for our understanding of clerical identity are considerable, as the easy distinction between clerics acting in a secular or ecclesiastical capacity almost entirely breaks down and the legal structures of the period are shown to be almost as equivocal and idiosyncratic as the literary depictions. The implications for military history are equally striking as organisational structures are shown to be more temporary, fluid and 'political' than had previously been understood.

A fresh look at William of Malmesbury which not only demonstrates his real greatness as a historian and his European vision, but also the breadth of his learning across a number of other disciplines. In the past William of Malmesbury (1090-1143) has been seen as first and foremost a historian of England, and little else. This volume reveals not only William's real greatness as a historian and his European vision, but also the breadth and depth of his learning across a number of other fields. Areas that receive particular attention are William's historical writings, his historical vision and interpretation of England's past; William and kingship; William's language; William's medical knowledge; the influence of Bede and other ancient writers on William's historiography; William and chronology; William, Anselm of Canterbury and reform of the English Church; William and the Latin Classics; William and the Jews; and William as hagiographer. Overall, the volume offers a broad coverage of William's learning, wide-ranging interests and significance as revealed in his writings.

A fresh look at William of Malmesbury which not only demonstrates his real greatness as a historian and his European vision, but also the breadth of his learning across a number of other disciplines. In the past William of Malmesbury (1090-1143) has been seen as first and foremost a historian of England, and little else. This volume reveals not only William's real greatness as a historian and his European vision, but also thebreadth and depth of his learning across a number of other fields. Areas that receive particular attention are William's historical writings, his historical vision and interpretation of England's past; William and kingship; William's language; William's medical knowledge; the influence of Bede and other ancient writers on William's historiography; William and chronology; William, Anselm of Canterbury and reform of the English Church; William and the LatinClassics; William and the Jews; and William as hagiographer. Overall, the volume offers a broad coverage of William's learning, wide-ranging interests and significance as revealed in his writings. Rodney M. Thomson is Emeritus Professor of Medieval History at the University of Tasmania; Emily Dolmans is a lecturer in English Literature at Jesus College and Oriel College, University of Oxford; Emily A. Winkler is the John Cowdrey Junior Research Fellow in Medieval History at St Edmund Hall, University of Oxford, and Departmental Lecturer in Medieval History. Contributors: Anne E. Bailey, Emily Dolmans, Daniel Gerrard, John Gillingham, Kati Ihnat, Ryan Kemp, William Kynan-Wilson, Anne Lawrence-Mathers, Stanislav Mereminskiy, Samu Niskanen, Joanna Phillips, Alheydis Plassmann, Sigbjorn Sonnesyn, Rodney M. Thomson, Emily Joan Ward, Emily A. Winkler, Michael Winterbottom.

The fighting bishop or abbot is a familiar figure to medievalists and much of what is known of the military organization of England in this period is based on ecclesiastical evidence. Unfortunately the fighting cleric has generally been regarded as merely a baron in clerical dress and has consequently fallen into the gap between military and ecclesiastical history. This study addresses three main areas: which clergy engaged in military activity in England, why and when? By what means did they do so? And how did others understand and react to these activities? The book shows that, however vivid such characters as Odo of Bayeux might be in the historical imagination, there was no archetypal militant prelate. There was enormous variation in the character of the clergy that became involved in warfare, their circumstances, the means by which they pursued their military objectives and the way in which they were treated by contemporaries and described by chroniclers. An appreciation of the individual fighting cleric must be both thematically broad and keenly aware of his context. Such individuals cannot therefore be simply slotted into easy categories, even (or perhaps especially) when those categories are informed by contemporary polemic. The implications of this study for our understanding of clerical identity are considerable, as the easy distinction between clerics acting in a secular or ecclesiastical capacity almost entirely breaks down and the legal structures of the period are shown to be almost as equivocal and idiosyncratic as the literary depictions. The implications for military history are equally striking as organisational structures are shown to be more temporary, fluid and 'political' than had previously been understood.

The success of the Norman Conquest of Britain turned on one lucky break. For months, William of Normandy waited for an opportunity to cross the Channel and invade. But he needed favourable weather and the wind refused to co-operate. The Anglo Saxon King Harold, meanwhile, waited with his army and might well have defeated him. But only weeks before the wind changed, Harold received shattering news. The King of Norway had invaded Yorkshire with a huge Viking army and 300 ships. Harold had to race north at breakneck speed to defeat him and then, on hearing that William was finally crossing the Channel, race back down the length of England with his exhausted and depleted army to counter the Norman threat. Despite this, the Battle of Hastings was a "close run thing"; Harold's war-weary army very nearly won it. As we know, that didn't happen, and Harold's eventual defeat had the most dramatic effect of any defeat in the high Middle Ages. In a few short months, the ruler of northern France became the master of Britain and within a year or two had made his government effective across the whole country. It was a staggering military success, on a par with the First Crusade which followed it 30 years later. In this short, highly entertaining book, Daniel Gerrard tells the story of Britain before, during and after the Conquest, and explains how the Norman kings built on a highly effective Anglo Saxon framework to lay the foundations of modern Britain.