SIEGES
| Almeida | 1810 and 1811 |
| Badajos | 1811 and 1812 |
| Burgos | 1812 |
| Calais | 1346-47 |
| Ciudad Rodrigo | 1812 |
| Delhi | 1857 |
| Gloucester | 1643 |
| Harfleur | 1415 |
| Herat | 1838 |
| Lille | 1708 |
| Lucknow | 1857 |
| Mons | 1709 |
| Mooltan | 1848 |
| Orleans | 1428-29 |
| Oxford | 1645 |
| Quebec | 1759 |
| Sebastopol | 1854-55 |
| Stirling | 1314 |
| York | 1644 |
FOOTNOTES:
[1] There was doubtless learning in Northumbria, but it was altogether monastic, and limited to that one kingdom.
[2] The famous story of Harold having sworn unconsciously on all the relics in Normandy, is told by the Norman writers in many different forms, more or less inconsistent with each other, and some of them demonstrably incorrect; and it is impossible to discover the truth. That William accused Harold of perjury all over Europe, and that no answer was attempted, is evidence that something of the sort had happened. As Professor Freeman points out, the absolute silence of all the English chroniclers implies that they did not know how to meet the accusation. Harold must have taken some such oath, under some form of coercion, and so have given his enemy an advantage; but obviously it would have been a greater crime to keep such an oath than to break it. Obviously too, on any version of the story that is not self-refuted, William's conduct was far more dishonourable than Harold's.
[3] Professor Freeman's great History of the Norman Conquest contains a very minute discussion of every point of detail, and a narrative framed by laboriously piecing together the statements which on careful comparison he deems most correct. Much of this is very valuable, though there is at least one important point in which his account cannot be right. Much of it is more or less wasted labour, because it involves giving a precise meaning to expressions in the authorities which were probably used loosely. The main outlines are clear enough, the details are at least partially conjectural, and inferences based on physical facts are a safer guide, so far as they go, than interpretations of the inconsistent and perhaps unmeaning language of monkish writers.