{
    "system": "GoGuides Verified Text",
    "api_version": "verified-text-v1",
    "status": "ok",
    "response_type": "verified_text_record",
    "source_key": "britannica_1911",
    "source_title": "Encyclopaedia Britannica (1911)",
    "license_code": "public_domain",
    "attribution": null,
    "license_url": null,
    "chunk_id": "1911:battle:f92bde406435",
    "title": "BATTLE",
    "section": null,
    "hash_alg": "sha256",
    "hash_sha256": "cf7cbeb691230d89cde9581ef7390f91be6c8c2ed255e76156b21a36271b64c1",
    "normalizer": {
        "name": "ggnorm",
        "version": "1.0"
    },
    "verified_text": "battle, a general engagement between the armed forces, naval or military, of enemies. the word is derived from the fr. _bataille_, and this, like the ital. _battaglia_, and span. _batalla_, comes from the popular lat. _battalia_ for _battualia_. cassiodorus senator (480-?575) says: _battualia quae vulgo batalia dicuntur ... exercitationes militum vel gladiatorum significant_ (see du cange, _glossarium_, s.v. _batalia_). the verb _battuere_, cognate with \"beat,\" is a rare word, found in pliny, used of beating in a mortar or of meat before cooking. suetonius (_caligula_, 54-32) uses it of fencing, _battuebat pugnatoriis armis_, i.e. not with blunted weapons or foils. _battalia_ or _batalia_ was used for the array of troops for battle, and hence was applied to the body of troops so arranged, or to a division of an army, whence the use of the word \"battalion\" (q.v.). a \"pitched battle,\" loosely used as meaning almost a decisive engagement, is strictly, as the words imply, one that is fought on ground previously selected (\"pitched\" meaning arranged in a fixed order) and in accordance with the intentions of the commanders of both sides; the french equivalent is _bataille arrangee_, opposed to _bataille manoeuvree_, which is prearranged but may come off on any ground. with \"battle,\" in its usual meaning of a general engagement of hostile forces, are contrasted \"skirmish,\"[1] a fight between small bodies (\"skirmishing\" technically means fighting by troops in extended or irregular order), and \"action,\" a more or less similar engagement between large bodies of troops. (see also tactics and strategy.) footnote: [1] this is the same word as \"scrimmage,\" and is derived from the anglo-french _eskrimir_, modern _escrimer_, properly to fight behind cover, now to fence. the origin of this is the old high german _scirman_, to fight behind a shield, _scirm_. modern german _schirm_. battle abbey roll. this is popularly supposed to have been a list of william the conqueror's companions preserved at battle abbey, on the site of his great victory over harold. it is known to us only from 16th century versions of it published by leland, holinshed and duchesne, all more or less imperfect and corrupt. holinshed's is much the fullest, but of its 629 names several are duplicates. the versions of leland and duchesne, though much shorter, each contain many names found in neither of the other lists. it was so obvious that several of the names had no right to figure on the roll, that camden, as did dugdale after him, held them to have been interpolated at various times by the monks, \"not without their own advantage.\" modern writers have gone further, sir egerton brydges denouncing the roll as \"a disgusting forgery,\" and e.a. freeman dismissing it as \"a transparent fiction.\" an attempt to vindicate the roll was made by the last duchess of cleveland, whose _battle abbey roll_ (3 vols., 1889) is the best guide to its contents. it is probable that the character of the roll has been quite misunderstood. it is not a list of individuals, but only of family surnames, and it seems to have been intended to show which families had \"come over with the conqueror,\" and to have been compiled about the 14th century. the compiler appears to have been influenced by the french sound of names, and to have included many families of later settlement, such as that of grandson, which did not come to england from savoy till two centuries after the conquest. the roll itself appears to be unheard of before and after the 16th century, but other lists were current at least as early as the 15th century, as the duchess of cleveland has shown. in 1866 a list of the conqueror's followers, compiled from domesday and other authentic records, was set up in dives church by m. leopold delisle, and is printed in the duchess' work. its contents are naturally sufficient to show that the battle roll is worthless. see leland, _collectanea_; holinshed, _chronicles of england_; duchesne, _historia norm. scriptores_; brydges, _censura literaria_; thierry, _conquete de l'angleterre_, vol. ii. (1829); burke, _the roll of battle abbey_ (annotated, 1848); planche, _the conqueror and his companions_ (1874); duchess of cleveland, _the battle abbey roll_ (1889); round, \"the companions of the conqueror\" (_monthly review_, 1901, iii. pp. 91-111). (j. h. r.)",
    "source_url": "https://archive.org/details/EB1911WMF",
    "observed_at": "2026-02-08 18:42:43",
    "integrity": {
        "hash_check": "match",
        "hash_scope": "full_normalized_text",
        "computed_sha256": "cf7cbeb691230d89cde9581ef7390f91be6c8c2ed255e76156b21a36271b64c1"
    },
    "machine_use": {
        "read": true,
        "cite": true,
        "decision": "verified_public_domain_text"
    },
    "goguides_data_license": "https://www.goguides.com/data-license",
    "goguides_data_license_version": "2.0",
    "documentation": {
        "white_paper_url": "https://www.goguides.com/white-paper.php",
        "pdf_url": "https://www.goguides.com/whitepapers/goguides-ai-source-clearance-white-paper.pdf"
    }
}