Bayeux Tapestry

*** This post will be subject to addition and amendment ***

Bayeux Tapestry

I think this tapestry has been over thought by historians  throughout the ages. I've been thinking about its purpose and have come to the conclusion that it is a record of the glorious conquest made by the Duke of Normandy in the name of the people of Normandy. And wasn't he a clever boy! It was never intended to be an accurate historical record of the battle - the old adage that History is written by the victors is so true here.

I'm going to be using the excellent "The Bayeux Tapestry" book by David M. Wilson to comment on the scenes depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry and using the plate numbers as references.

1. Plate 1 Saxon Harold has an audience with King Edward

King Edward is bearded but Harold and his retainer are moustachioed. Throughout the Tapestry the majority, if not all Saxons are so adorned

2. Plate 5 First depiction of Saxons with a Norman shield

Despite the depiction of  Saxons in a boat, they are shown with a "Normanesque"  teardrop shaped shields lining the gunwale of the boat they are travelling in.  How the hell could any Saxon born or Englishwoman of the time not know that the true shape of a Saxon shield is circular? According to the "experts", the tapestry was worked on by Englishwomen in the employ of a Norman master. Did they not say " Hold on a minute, my Fred had a round shield the day he died at Hastings. Why do you want me to give him a different shield?" "Well," the answer might have came back, "they're all wearing mustaches, that's how you can tell that they are Saxon"

After attending the 950th anniversary re-enactment I have learnt that there was a switch over from round shields to "teardrop" ones happening during the period.

3. Plate 9 First depiction of a Norman

On the extreme right of the plate we have someone wearing one of the most ridiculous haircuts of all time! It looks as ridiculous in a book as it does in real life. ( I've seen "Norman Knights" sporting the same haircut at a battle re-enactment at Senlac Ridge)

4. Plates 43 and 44  Horses disembark from the boats

In this scene we see horses running away from the boats after landing on "terra firma". Interestingly we never see the horses again until the battle scenes. This suggests that the horses were offloaded the once and made their own way to Hastings.

3. Plate 45 Horses run to Hastings for Food

All I can say to this description is "Picasso's cubes"! The cavalry was going to secure the landing place at the Port of Hastings. On the way the cavalry did do some damage as evidenced by Nick Austin ( and this plate) but secure the landing place they did. Any damage they did on the Hastings peninsula  would have been hidden by later pillaging.

4. Plate 47 Pevensey?

The fortification in the centre of this plate does look like the stone keep on the centre of Pevensey Castle nowadays. 

5. Plate 49/50 Castle at Hastings.  

Here the so called castle is being built under what seems to be the direction of William. The bands suggests that the motte was a substantial undertaking and built on a natural height. On plate 50 there is a tower placed in front of and only slightly overlapping the fort behind. The mound that the tower is built on is substantially less than the fort behind and is not raised up off the foot of the Tapestry. 

Taking on board what Nick Austin said about perspective and depiction, I could well believe what is shown here are the two forts erected at Hastings by William.

6. Plate 51 Hastings

The central scene is reputed to be a depiction of the town of Hastings. Notice the roofs of these building :- they seem to be made up of fish scale type shingles common here in Norway until quite recently. Even the house being set on fire on Plate 50 has these shingles. Given the different depiction of the roofs on the towers adjacent to the Higher fort and what is supposed to be the town of Hastings, one is left with the conclusion that the two towers must have been built by the Normans.

7.Plates 54/55 Norman Scout reports to William

There's a lot of pointing going on here. William ( on plate 54) is pointing at an identified Vital ( on plate 55) who has his arm raised indicating that Harold is near. Notice however that Vital's arm is not so raised as the scout's as seen on plate 50. This indicates that Harold is closer than in the time frame of plate 50. There's another pointing man on plate 55 but he happens to be on top of a big mound and pointing nearly horizontal. This could be indicating that Harold has been spotted at the summit of  Darwell Woods (Telham Hill 141m asl and Darwell Woods 162m asl).

8. Plate 56 Scout spots Normans and reports back to King Harold

I love the way that the hill the scout is on has been identified as being Caldbec Hill and that the scout travels across broken ground to report back to King Harold. As you may have seen from my "slice" , Caldbec Hill is part of quite a sharp ridge that runs into Battle village. Also if you look closely the scout is perched on the top of a triangle perhaps signifying that he was at the top of a hill. Then he has to go down the back of the hill and up another triangle to get to Harold. So Harold could not possibly be on Caldbec Hill  As the Normans were on Telham hill ( as depicted in Plate 55), yes it could be that the scout was on Caldbec Hill looking up at the Normans but it could have been the top of Darwell Wood or anywhere in the vicinity as long as there was line of sight. 

As an aside, John Grehan says in his book "The Battle of Hastings : The uncomfortable Truth"page 118 "... turn to websites with extreme caution ... enable those with no academic training and limited resources to express their opinions, ,,,, to offer alternative views to those of the mainstream." My response to that is each person has the right to look at any evidence and make up their own mind and add their opinion to the melee. It's not as if the "professional " historians have got it right over the Battle of Hastings. I doubt that I have got it "right" but I'm giving it my best with what's available to me. Only when the true site of the battle has been established will  conjecture be irrelevant. 

9. Plates 57 through to 66 Depiction of Terrain

Throughout these battle scenes there is really no depiction of terrain suggesting it did not play an important part in the battle. Howevere there are written accounts that suggest that the Normans attacked uphill. So what are to make of this anomaly?

 10. Plate 63 Dead Saxon with Saxon Shield

On the bottom fringe we have our first depiction of a Saxon shield covering a dead Saxon warrior.

11 . Plate 64 Battle (cont'd)

We now have the first sighting of a live Saxon fighting with a round shield. As the guy is in full armour, I suppose we could call him a Housecarl.

12. Plates 66/67  The Battle continues

What we have here is un-armoured men perched atop a mound fighting off mounted Norman cavalry and making a good show of it.  In this scene we see a Norman knight(?) spearing a defender. I'm in two minds about my interpretation of this scene. Firstly, is this a depiction of a reported last stand by the Fyrd separated from the main body or could it be the Malfosse defence in the wrong chronological order? I think the answer lies on 65b. What is depicted here looks like prepared anti-cavalry defences which makes the mound depicted on the following plates a cross-section of where the Fyrd were stationed.

13. Plate 73 Another 2 Arrows in the Eye!

On the far right of this plate we have two fleeing Saxons trying to pull an arrow out their eyes. No one has ever told me that these figures existed but this puts a different slant on our 'arold. While it is told that Harold was killed by an arrow in the eye it is quite plainly recorded here that being hit by an arrow is survivable.

Was King Edward the Confessor gay or just very innocent?

King Edward : Gay or just very innocent?

I've been studying the book " The Life of St. Edward, King and Confessor" R.F Jerome Porter is credited as author but I think it's an old translation [1710] of Matthew Paris's book of the 1230's or 1240's. 

I've only got as far as page 18 and what I've read so far makes me wonder if this celebrated King was in fact gay. On page 4 we are told  "He was always observed to refrain those vices which youth are commonly addicted to. He was of a chaste mind, sparing of speech, plain in his actions and pure in his affections". And from page 4 to 5 we have "... and to create strict Leagues    [page 5] of friendship with such monks as were most worthy of esteem for their singular piety and holiness of life." What is more telling however is the first anecdote told after he becomes king . The King is alone in his bed and money is deposited in the "treasury" ( the chest at the bottom of bed). The chest is left open ( allegedly) and a groom takes two "helpings" of money and comes back for a third when Edward says "you've got enough". Edward does not lay the blame at the chamberlains feet and dismisses the whole incident. Immediately afterwards, the Witan implores the king to marry and he does so under duress. King Edward, having taken a secret vow of chastity, never consummates the marriage.  ( Pages 16 to 18). 

I would have thought that it was a duty of a king to ensure that he had a male heir to carry on his line but since the throne was not hereditary perhaps we can forgive him his secret vow. However I think at that time he was probably thinking that his nephews might take over the throne but really the seeds of 1066 was sown by Edward much earlier.  

Why Crowhurst is probably not the Site of the Battle of Hastings

Why Crowhurst is probably not the Site of the Battle of Hastings

Initially I was quite taken with the idea that the Battle of Hastings (BoH) could have taken place at Crowhurst even as far as thinking that Nick Austin (NA) had chosen the adjacent field in error. However, the more I delved, the more I found flaws in his logic. In this blog I will try and convince the reader why I think Nick Austin is wrong. 

Landing at Bulverhythe

There are records which clearly state that the Normans landed at Pevensey and re-fortified the old Roman fort still standing. Physical evidence is also evident on the surface of the possibly later stone keep. 

The name Pevensey suggest that the stone curtain wall marked the extent of the ISLAND of Peven. The giveaway is the suffix "-sey". "Sey" or "Sea"denotes an island in one of the Germanic languages ( Angle, Saxon, Jute or Scandinavian) hence Wallasey, Southsea, Anglesey to name three. ( there's bound to be more). In the present day language of Norway the tradition of using a suffix to denote an island still continues as Hufterøy demonstrates ( "øy" being the Norwegian for island). 

So the island of Peven sits at the mouth of a large sheltered bay suitable for the mooring of boats. 

Let's look at the geography of "Crowhurst Creek" (CC). 

Firstly, let's examine how we can identify where CC is from the sea. CC sits between Harley Shute ( highest point 35 m asl) and the shopping development at the junction of the A259 and A2036. This is about 2 km in distance. The local high spot is Galley Hill, about 20 m asl. So the distance one can see from the land is given by the formula:-

Distance to the Horizon = sq rt of ((radius of the earth + observation height)2 - (radius of the Earth)2)

Using this formula, Galley Hill can be seen 10 miles out and Harley Shute, 13 miles out. (Beachy Head being 151 m asl could have been seen 27 miles out)

So in order to navigate to CC which landmarks would Williams fleet have used? 

Using the North-eastern route i.e navigating via Fairlight (162 m asl) would have resulted in trying to sail against the prevailing wind (South westerlies) or the South-western route i.e via Beachy Head (151 m asl) which would have resulted in sailing past the defensible island of Peven. I am now wondering about the general sense of direction of one colour blind sea captain if the order was "go north to England, once you find the white cliffs turn right and follow the coast until you find a sheltered bay". The said captain found the sandy coloured cliffs of Hastings and Fairlight and turned right and came ashore only to find the hostile local folk. Anyway they didn't turn up until years later...... Mind you the order could have been  "go north to England, once you find the sandy coloured cliffs  turn left and follow the coast until you find a sheltered bay". The said sea captain turned right......  Anyway, on paper it seems more likely that the south western route was taken by the majority of the fleet.

Where is the shore line?

The amazing thing about this stretch of coastline is that the land is rising faster than the sea is rising. It's generally accepted that what is now Pevensey Levels once was a bay area. Also look at Hastings Castle and the church in the Old Town - both built on the 20 m present day contour. Even Crowhurst Church is built on the same contour. What needs to happen, I think, is a survey needs to be undertaken to determine the shoreline in 1066. This will either confirm anything lower than 12 m asl would have been under water at low tide. ( we have 8 metre spring tides in the area) or not. It will also define the limit of where NA needs to investigate to see his fleet landing in CC. 

By the way, if the shoreline was at the present day 12 m contour then the fleet could have moored there without the need of William to declare "we've burnt most of our boats now fight you bast!"#ds.

Crowhurst Church

The present Crowhurst Church lies on the 20 metre contour. Back in the day this would have been quite close to the high water mark. See Hastings Castle and  the church in the Old Town ( what would have been the "New Town" in the 1080's). So to get to the Crowhurst Church, William would've had to find a route from Hastings and/or Telham Hill fort good enough to stream his troops down to the shoreline. Also it means giving up the high ground which no sane commander would do.

Another point to consider is the Bayeux Tapestry. This shows in Section 49 William receiving news of the English at the top of a ridge and in Section 50 shows Harold getting news of the Bastard. The next Section, I think, shows fighting. Obviously the seamstresses  either weren't told of a meeting between Harold and William or it was commonplace for the two leaders about to have a battle to have a parley in order to give the other a chance to back down and avoid unnecessary bloodshed.

Alternative solution?

Just as Nick's claim that Hastings Port was in "Crowhurst Creek" is possible due to the possible fragmented nature of Manors it is also possible part of the Manor of Crowhurst could be located near the present day Crowhurst Farm and Crowhurst Wood ( to the North-east of my chosen battlefield site). 

Battle of Hastings - Routes from the Shore to Hill Fort

Routes from Port of Hastings to Second Fort ( 53'53.66"N 31'30.23E )

There are several routes up from the Port of Hastings. 

1. The Western Route

The graph below shows the profile of the route up from the western side of the Port of Hastings inlet near the reputed site of  Hastings Priory ( 51'20.75"N 34'38.33"E) to the Hill Fort. 

So the maximum gradient is just under 5 degree for 200 metres at around 4.4 km from the shore (the shore being on the left). This is the quickest route from the Port area and therefore the route which dictates which side of the inlet the Bastard landed on. 

2. The "Middle" Routes

There are two routes from the inside of the inlet. They join at
51' 54.53"N 34'58.53"E and at 40 m a.s.l. I think these are modern routes out of the new town centre but I've included them for completeness. 

A. Elphinstone Road Route

This route is only a kilometre longer than the "western route" but is quite punishing as the incline starts off at 2 degrees but steadily steepens to over 6 degrees towards the top.  The profile from 2.2 km is shared with the remaining routes. 

B. Mount Pleasant Road Route

This route is longer than the other route starting from the same place but does not have any gradients steeper than 4.5 degrees. The shared height profile with the Elphinstone Road route starts at 4 km.

3. The Eastern Route

The graph shown below is the height profile of the route from the Castle (51'22.09"N 34'38.35"E) to the Hill Fort.

This route is nearly 10 km in length  as opposed to  6.4 km for the western route. Also the maximum gradient on this route is nearly 6 degrees which comes immediately at the shore.  The height profile is the same as the Mount Pleasant route from 1.6 km and the Elphinstone route from 4.6 km.

The Old Manor of Hastings

As an aside, isn't there some debate about the Manor of Hastings prior to 1066? It's like saying that the Old Town was in fact the New Town in 1066 after the Normans completely flattened the existing Manor. How about the area of Hastings known as "Blacklands". Could the name suggest that the area was burnt out at some time? The area sits on the 20 metre contour, so it would have had access to the inlet, and is south facing in parts but protected from the dominant south-westerly winds. Also a fairly faint path leads to the Ridge. 

The route to the Ridge is interesting because it starts in St Helen's Park Road and then goes along the bottom of the lower houses on Shining Cliff as a feature in the landscape. It then seems to become a footpath before emerging onto the Ridge as St Helen's Park Road. There does seem to be a fork in the path which leads to St Helen's Church as an alternative. 

When the route reaches 125 m a.s.l it merges with the last 4 routes. 

Battle of Hastings - Comparison Tables for 1066 Battle and Camp sites

Comparison Tables

TABLE 1

Suspected Battle Site            Distance from Hastings*      Suspected location of English Camp

Senlec Ridge                            5.98 miles                               Caldbec Hill

Caldbec Hill                             6.49 miles                                Caldbec Hill

Netherfield Hill                       7.6 miles                                    Netherfield Hill

Netherfield Hill                       7.6 miles                                    Netherfield Church

Netherfield Church                  8.45 miles                                  Netherfield Church

Netherfield Church                  8.45 miles                                  Darwell Wood

Darwell Wood                        approx 9 miles                            Darwell Wood


* That is Hastings Old Town and distance measured "as the crow flies".

Red Highlight - Already proved to be wrong ( at least "no evidence to support a battle took place here").

Amber Highlight - Doubtful but not impossible.

Green Highlight - My solution.

TABLE 2

Suspected Camp site              Bearing from Telham Hill Fort

Caldbec Hill                            313 deg

Netherfield Hill                       313 deg

Netherfield Church                  312 deg

Darwell Wood                        309 deg

So from the table above, a light on Netherfield Hill or from the Netherfield Church area could be confused with light coming from Caldbec Hill but Darwell Wood is some 5 degrees off. 

TABLE 3

Suspected Camp site             Line of Sight angle**

Caldbec Hill                              -0.511 deg
                   
Netherfield Hill                         -0.380 deg

Netherfield Church                   +0,040 deg 


Darwell Wood                            +0.156 deg   

** Flat Earth calculation

Taken with Table 2 above the results show that there could be confusion between the Caldbec Hill site and the Netherfield Hill site but not with the other sites. Since it is reported that "lights were seen on Caldbec Hill" by the Norman lookouts, you have to wonder what the lookouts were drinking!


                 

Battle of Hastings - The Battle Site?

The Battle Site?

I took a very old fashioned "slice" through the Earth from Telham Hill fort (53' 53.90"N 31' 30.20"E) to the Netherfield Church area (56' 29.35"N  26' 53.11"E), a distance of about 7.2 km, and plotted the result. It revealed a very interesting profile. We start off at 141 m a.s.l and descend to 100 m at the 1 km mark before rising again to 108 m after a further 400 m. So from 1.4 km from the hill fort to 2.6 km the ground descends from 108 m to 55 m. Then the ground rises to 64 m at about 2.9 km before dipping back down to 53 m at 3.2 km. The ground then rises to 103 m in 600 m and this is the summit of Caldbec Hill. After the summit of Caldbec Hill, the ground descends to 41 m a.s.l at 4.6 km from the hill fort. From here the ground rises to 109 m at a distance of 5.9 km before dipping slightly to 103 m after a further 500 m. From this point until the Netherfield end of the cross section the ground rises to 144 m and 7.2 km from the fort on Telham hill.

There are two slight rises in the profile before Caldbec Hill is reached. the first occurs at 1.4 km from the hill fort and the second is at the base of Caldbec Hill in the area of the railway line and Norman Close. The first rise has an additional slope at right angle to the cross section and I think unsuitable as a battle site. The second looks more promising in that the terrain looks favourable but this area has the main London to Hastings railway line cutting though it and a modern development on its south facing slope. So if the battle took place here then hopefully someone would have noticed all the battle debris and done something about it.

According to research by Nick Austin, all  manors were "wasted" in the area but how did the monks at Senlec Ridge get the money to build such a magnificent Abbey?  And didn't the late Mick Aston of Time Team fame suggest that the Doomsday Book was not accurate when it came to ecclesiastical manors?  I think that the manors within one and a half miles of the Abbey site were not so damaged thus the manors were able to contribute to the building works in labour, material and money.

Since Time Team  found no evidence of fighting on either Senlec Ridge or Caldbec Hill, one has to assume that Caldbec Hill is not the site of the English camp the night before the battle as there are no further suitable battle sites between the Normans on Telham Hill and Caldbec Hill.

I also want to dismiss my chosen camp site at Darwell Wood for the site of the battle. Although it's a good lookout position, given the battle didn't start until around 9, I would have thought Harold would have wanted to ensure William actually fought him on ground that was unsuitable for William's cavalry. This means that there has to be some very wet ground in the vicinity of the battlefield.

My preferred site for the battle is the end of the slice taken above at 56' 29.35"N  26' 53.11"E. This area seems to be on the old London Road, Also it is situated on the end of a east- west ridge which makes sense of Williams decision to split his force into three. The site is more or less undeveloped so there has been not so many unreported finds. A nearby spring could well have supplied the wet ground and remember hadn't there been a big storm within the last 3 weeks? The site also has a steep incline and a not so steep incline to take account of the many different reports we have of the battle.

Not so far from this site ( to the Northeast) lies an odd collection of place names. We have Crowhurst Farm and Crowhurst Wood, Goldspur and Burnthouse Woods. Then even further northeast we have Battle Wood and Duke's Wood. A kilometre south of Battle Wood there is Archer Wood. Slightly to the north of Battle Wood we have the manor of Mountfield. Also to the west of Mountfield we have the closest earthwork ( for the reported last stand). I haven't done any research into these names but I suspect that they are 18th or 19th century romantic ideas.

Well, that's the end of my "Thoughts on the 1066 Battle" blog. I will continue my research into the place names above to see if there is any significance in them but I doubt there will be but I'll let you know.

P.S If I can get this thing to play I will post a picture or two.

Important Sites

Important Sites

PLEASE REMEMBER TO GET ALL THE NECESSARY PERMISSIONS BEFORE DOING ANYTHING ON THESE SITES. I'M POSTING FROM NORWAY SO I DO NOT KNOW THE NATIONAL AND LOCAL REGULATIONS REGARDING ACCESS TO THE SITES. 

Looking at my stats, I see that I have no readers in the UK. So using UK National Grid References to denote the locations I've looked at is nonsensical. 

I have put together a short list of the locations I have mentioned in my blog posts so those with access to Google Earth can follow the action as it where.

Williams's first Fort at Pevensey

 49' 09.32" N  20' 02.56"E

 ( All sites start with 50deg N and 0deg E)

Base of Standard Hill - Approximate landing place for William's Cavalry

52' 35.49" N  24' 21.05"E

Hastings Castle - Built in the 1080's on eastern side of inlet

51' 22.09"N  35' 05.09"E

Hastings Priory - Suspected site of William's 2nd landing

51' 20.75"N  34' 38.33"E

Second Fort Site - Shore fort in the vicinity of Cambridge Road

51' 18.64"N  34' 26.27"E

Third Fort site - Hill fort on top of Telham Hill

53' 53.66"N  31' 30.23"E

Where Harold Fell - According to monks and English Heritage

54' 52.22"N  29' 15.67"E

Caldbec Hill - Suspected English camp site of John Grehan

55' 16.18"N  29' 03.21"E

Netherfield Hill -  One of my suspected English camp sites

55' 56.33"N  27' 59.18"E

Wood near Netherfield Church - My suspected battle site

56' 29.44"N  26' 52.85"E

Opposite the Entrance to Battle Golf Club - Another suspected battle site 

55'56.59" N 27' 42.96"E

Darwell Wood - My suspected site for the English camp

56' 54.99"N  25' 43.26"E

PLEASE REMEMBER TO GET ALL THE NECESSARY PERMISSIONS BEFORE DOING ANYTHING ON THESE SITES. I'M POSTING FROM NORWAY SO I DO NOT KNOW THE NATIONAL AND LOCAL REGULATIONS REGARDING ACCESS TO THE SITES. 

New Site for English Camp

New Site for English Camp

PLEASE REMEMBER TO GET ALL THE NECESSARY PERMISSIONS BEFORE DOING ANYTHING ON THESE SITES. I'M POSTING FROM NORWAY SO I DO NOT KNOW THE NATIONAL AND LOCAL REGULATIONS REGARDING ACCESS TO THE SITES. 

Previous location for the English Camp

Caldbec Hill has been cited as the site for Harold's last night before the Battle but there is a major problem with it, namely no evidence of the battle has been discovered either at Caldbec Hill or at the official site at Senlec Ridge. This leads me to suspect that the site of the last camp is further north.

Also look at the Bayeux Tapestry panel 50. This has been interpreted as a scout looking south from Caldbec Hill and then going to tell King Harold. Now if King Harold was on Caldbec Hill why would the scout have to go to the next hilltop to speak with Harold? 

Three possible new sites

I've considered three possible sites along the suspected route to London. They are Netherfield Hill, just outside the entrance to Battle Golf Club, Netherfield Church/ Netherfield Down area and Darwell Wood. 

My Preferred Site

Darwell Wood is my preferred choice as from there one can see most of the area being occupied by the Bastard. Also as the area from Robertsbridge to Etchingham ( River Rother inlet ) was under several metres of water it would have been difficult for William to sneak past or outflank Harold. However saying that, it is at an angle of 309 degrees from Telham Hill fort and not the 313 degrees that Netherfield Down, Netherfield Hill and Caldbec Hill all lie on. 

It's interesting to note that later the hill in question was used as a triangulation point for the Ordinance Survey. 

According to some website I looked at, I think it was a site linked to the Darwell family, the family took possession of the manor in the 1100's from one of the Henrys as a sweetener for moving to East Sussex from his native Normandy. Hmmm, could the manor have been lying fallow up to that point due to excessive damage?

Netherfield Hill site 

This site has an advantage over the other sites considered in that the bearing is very close to that of Caldbec Hill and given it's elevation a camp set up here could be confused with a camp set up on Caldbec Hill. 

I'm a bit worried however about where that leaves the battle site. Given the long list of requirements for a good defensible position it's very hard to come up with a suitable candidate. There is a hillock at TQ 730 173 which could serve but I remain unconvinced. 

Netherfield Down / Netherfield Church site

This site is again on the same bearing as Caldbec Hill but slightly higher elevation so more difficult to confuse the two sites I would have thought. Again if Harold had camped here, where could the battle site be? Somehow I don't think the English would have wanted to fight so close to their own campsite.  However this site looks a good candidate to being the actual battle site - more on that in a later post. 

PLEASE REMEMBER TO GET ALL THE NECESSARY PERMISSIONS BEFORE DOING ANYTHING ON THESE SITES. I'M POSTING FROM NORWAY SO I DO NOT KNOW THE NATIONAL AND LOCAL REGULATIONS REGARDING ACCESS TO THE SITES. 

Onward!

Welcome to a new post on 1066 events.

Right, we left the Norman infantry at Pevensey and the cavalry en route to Port of Hastings.

Before I advance my story forward a word about sea levels. Currently Pevensey Castle is about 7 to 9 metres a.s.l (above sea level) while Hastings Castle and the church built roughly at the same time ( circa 1080 -1090) are built on the current 20 metre contour. The later Hastings Priory is built on the 12 metre contour. I believe this shows that the sea level has changed considerably since 1066 times and what was on the coast then may not be now.

So to sum up.
The high water mark could not have been greater than say 19 metres thus making the datum in 1066 about 11 metres higher than today. The explaination of the heights around Pevensey being that the land has shrunk down as the water has receded.

Main body movement

When the Bastard thought it prudent, he transferred to the Port of Hastings and set up operations there. According to the Bayeaux Tappestry(BT), he built two forts, one higher up than the other. Nick Austin has interpreted this to mean that the forts where in line of sight of each other. I prefer a simpler explaination - one was at the top of the hill and the other was at the bottom. So where are the forts?

East or West?

The opening of the inlet where most believe the Port of Hastings was, is  deeper on the eastern side than on the western side and yes the Castle is on the deeper eastern side of the entrance. However, this does not tally with the BT, which shows the classic Norman hill fort behind and elevated with respect to the shore fort.

Another clue as to which side they landed concerns the route to the second hill fort ( on top of Telham Hill). The route from the western side is some 3km shorter than from the eastern side and is easier to negotiate with respect to gradients. If they landed on the eastern side they would have to climb to 143 metres a.s.l before descending to 126 m at the roundabout of Battle Road and the A2100 before climbing again to approx 139 m for the fort. On the western side, there is only a need to get to 126m at the roundabout and consequently 139 m to reach the fort.

A point to ponder is that the later Hastings Priory ( built in the reign of Richard the Lionheart)was located on the western side of the inlet - was this a nod to his triumphant ancestor?

The Shore Fort

I haven't pinned down the exact location of the Shore fort, however I think it is in the region of Cambridge Road. My reasoning is that most of his supplies would have been landed on the shoreline near where the Priory was built and he would have wanted a secure location to protect himself and his cronies from the locals. This makes more sense than building a fort on the other side of the inlet away from his troops and supplies. Also easy access to the track leading up and away from the shore would be needed too.

The Hill Fort

This, for me, was the easiest bit of the puzzle as the mound upon which the fort was built still exists.
It's the mound at the side of the A2100 going towards Battle. It conforms to known tactics of the Normans so therefore ideally located for their purposes.

General

I think it was a clever move by the Bastard to destroy so many ships/boats once they landed at Hastings. On the one hand it encouraged the troops and on the other, it cleared up the inlet to allow other boats to moor up.

Additionally, the BT shows that ships timbers were used to construct them. So, I think that there were were a few ships lost during the storm when they set off. Maybe no important people were lost but supplies were.

P.S

 I'm working to create a few graphics to show 1. the lopsided inlet channel to explain the siting of the later Castle and 2. the height profiles of routes from the hill fort to the the east and west sides of the inlet.

The Battle of Hastings - The Final Crossing

Hi!

I promised something about The Bastards trip from Dives to Pevensey, so here it is.

Dives to St Valery Sur Somme

The Bastard left Dives and I would expect took off in a generally northerly direction. This is because the coast from Fecamp to Dives generally goes north/south.Another little factor is that the Normans had to wait for a southerly to blow the ships/boats clear of the mouth of the River Dives. 

There has been some discussion in academia about whether it was an actual delay as opposed to a political one. Some historians don't accept an actual delay for the weather but I think they're wrong. Let's look at the geography of the coast at Dives or it's modern equivalent Ouistreham. The coast changes direction from North/South at le Harve to East/West at Ouistreham, making onshore breezes at Ouistreham a straight northerly. Since the Normans had to take out the rowing benches for the horses then they were totally reliant on a southerly wind.

One of the consequences of a southerly wind is that it is usually followed by a wind that veers to the west and strengthens. This is what happened due to the guiding Low pressure system. Fortunately the Norman fleet had passed Fecamp  and turning west to flee the strengthening westerly winds meant that the fleet were strung out along the coast from Dieppe to St Valery Sur Somme. So, the real delay, in my opinion, occurred while the fleet was at anchor in the Somme so as to allow any stragglers from the minor storm to regain the fleet. 

    but as in the board game known as "The War of the Roses", storm at sea, all ships take refuge in nearest port. Well, for the Bastard, this meant St Valery Sur Somme in neighbouring Piccardy. According to reports no ships were lost but more of that later. 

St Valery Sur Somme to Pevensey

According to reports the men ROWED for most of the night before hoisting sail and TURNING for England. To me this means that they did not take a direct route which would have been a heading of about 320 degrees but they rowed back along the coast of Normandy until they spotted Fecamp and then "hung a right"! As the distance from St Valery to Fecamp is about  135 km , one assumes it would have taken most of the night if they left St Valery in the early evening as reported. 

Also in the reports the writer mentions stopping mid channel to regroup. This tends to support he idea that the Normans needed to land somewhere where they could regroup - this rules out a landing in the vicinity of Bulverhythe. 

If the Normans navigation was good ( and as was the visibility ), they would have been able to see Beachy Head some 32 km out to sea. 

9 miles out and Pevensey Fort would have been spotted and navigated towards. 

At Pevensey

Reports suggest that the Bastard refortified Pevensey Castle left by the Romans and stayed there a few days to accomplish that task. As there is no need for the "nobs" to supervise or to ride their horses around looking pretty, I suggest that the local tradition of the Normans landing at Standard Hill is true in as much as the Bastard's cavalry could have landed there with the orders to "Proceed to the Port of Hastings and secure the required landing zone and like Time Team in 1000 years time - you've got just three days to do it"

Right, let's end it here on the shores of East Sussex and next time I'll go into the landing at the Port of Hastings. Maybe I'll go into where I think the temporary forts where set up. 

Battle of Hastings - The start of a Journey of Discovery

The Battle of Hastings

Hi, let me introduce myself. I'm Kevin and I've just spent the last 14 years looking into the Battle of Hastings.

Over that time I've managed to acquire copies of the 4 early reports on the Battle namely 

The Bayeux Tapestry, - Coffee table book showing the Bayeux Tapestry in a 1:1 ratio

Gesta Guillelmi  by William of Poitiers Translation by Chibnall and Davis Oxford Medieval Texts

Gesta Normannorum Ducum by William of Jumièges Translated by E.M.T Van Houts Oxford Medieval Texts ( Vols I and II)

Carmen de Triumpho Normannico by Bishop Guy d'Amiens Translation by Kathleen Tyson

I've also obtained 12th century sources such as 

The Chronicle of Battle Abbey Translated by E Searle Oxford Medieval Texts

The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis ( Vol II - Books III and IV) by Orderic Vitalis Translated by  Chibnall Oxford Medieval Texts

The Chronicle of Henry of Huntingdon Translated by Thomas Forester A.M Copyright free

Chronicle of the Kings of England by William of Malmesbury Translated by J.A Giles D.C.L Copyright Free

Roman de Rou by Wace Translated by Glyn S Burgess The Boydell Press

A copy of Michael Swanton's "The Anglo Saxon Chronicles" is hanging around. 

Information on King Edward the Confessor has been gleaned from 

Edward The Confessor by Frank Barlow

Edward The Confessor: Last of the Royal Blood by Tom Licence

Life of St Edward the Confessor by St Ælred of Rievaulx Translated by Fr F.J Bertram, RSA

The Life of St Edward, King and Confessor by R.F J Porter

My own background includes a training in Electronics and about 25 years as a civil servant. I have an Open University degree, predominantly in the Sciences. I would like to point out that I have no training as a historian other than watching Time Team for nigh on 20 years! So all feedback is welcome even if negative but please be gentle with me. 

I have yet to have definitive proof that the site I think is the site of the "Battle" but I am hopeful that in the fullness of time someone with a metal detector will investigate. Also, I have identified the site of the Malfosse and have some idea where another part of the battle took place.

Existing named "Battle" sites

1. The Official English Heritage site

Due to Time Team I think English Heritage have preceded on a course of digs across their site to find evidence of the battle. To date I have not heard of any discoveries. In the words of a prominent historian " the absence of evidence is not evidence that the battle did not take place there". 

I watched the Time Team special and how they carefully removed the modern remnants of all the re-enacting to find...... nothing and scoffed at the collective red faces of English Heritage but then I got to thinking. What if the stories were true that the monks "flattened" out the top of Senlec Ridge and dumped the spoil on the slope of the hill thus covering up the remains of the battle? I don't know the "range" of a metal detecting device but it's pretty short.  You would have a layer of topsoil containing modern artefacts with a layer of subsoil underneath, which would be from the top of Senlac Ridge. Underneath that could be the original 1066 surface containing battle debris. Or I could be wrong and the whole thing could be the normal topsoil, subsoil and bedrock layers but have they checked?

2. Caldbec Hill

Nothing found by Time Team. I have nothing but the highest respect for John Grehan and his analysis. 

3. Crowhurst

Nothing definitively proved for this site. However, I do have respect for Nick Austin and his analysis because he has turned up some useful facts. When I started my research, I found what Nick wrote very interesting even though I disagreed with his analysis and that's what got me digging a little deeper. 

4. Mini roundabout at junction of A2100 and Marley Lane (Time Team)

Based on the finding of one axe head (one axe head more than the official site) and the limited scope given to their military expert. Despite both sides of the road having been developed for housing no finds other than the axe head has been found. Also they quite clearly state that William was marching towards London whereas Williams troops had already spotted Harold II and was heading into battle with his troops split into three wings. So for me, this site lacks any room for manoeuvre for Williams cavalry.  

Proposed “Battle” Sites  

5. Beech Farm

This site has been proposed by Simon Coleman. I have his thoughts on paper, but I’ve been unable to figure out his reasoning.

6. Beechdown Wood

This is located just to the north of the junction of the B2096 with the A271 and is one of two sites nominated by Simon Mansfield. I have no details of how he has come to this conclusion.

7. Junction of B2096 with Netherfield Hill Road

This is the second location proposed by Simon Mansfield. Again, I have no information as to why he has chosen this site.

8. North of Bodiham

This rather vague location is given by Kathleen Tyson in her translation of the “Song of the Norman Invasion”

9. Two battle sites that together form the Battle of Hastings

This is my choice as to what happened on 14^th October 1066. The first encounter occurred at a place called “Scen-leag” and was an encounter between the English professional soldier called Huscarls and the Normans. This is either at the top of Battle High Street by the Fire Station or just to the North-east of Catsfield.  The second encounter, which was the main encounter, occurred in the vicinity of Battle Golf Course.  

Next Post:-

There are a further 45 posts on various aspects of he Battle including some post on Edward and Emma for you to enjoy! 

You tube video - https://youtu.be/_vjAJ_xk20k