Battle of Hastings - Pevensey to Hastings

 Pevensey to Hastings

I acknowledge the work done by John Grehan and Nick Austin  in doing some of the background work that has made my life and research easier. 

John Grehan/ Martin Mace  - Use of Ships to get from Pevensey to Hastings

Nick Austin - State of Selected Manors post October 1066

Use of Boat on Roman Fort

In my previous post we had got Wiliam to Pevensey and in this post I will take my narrative up to the the establishment of Hastings as a centre of operations.

Today Pevensey is some miles inland but back in 1066 the island of Pevensey was on the edge of "Pevensey Bay" and the island itself was just big enough for the Roman fort that was built there in the 400's plus a little bit. More historic information can be obtained on  https://www.westsussex.gov.uk/media/1740/pevensey_eus_report_maps.pdf

I'm not going to get into whether or not William stumbled when he waded ashore at Pevensey as the incident is immaterial in my view to the narrative. 

Most of our knowledge comes from the Bayeux Tapestry. Indeed, it details what went on at Pevensey over 6 scenes. 

Scene 39 

In this scene the horses are being shown as they are offloaded onto dry land. Notice that the horses are shown to be offloaded just the once. This ties into a local legend from Ninfield that the Normans landed nearby. What helps is that there is a channel of water that leads from what would have been Pevensey Bay, between Wartling and Hooe, to the south east of Boreham Street and north west of Hooe Common eventually arriving at Boreham Bridge (now called Waller's Haven). A couple of years ago a mass metal detecting exercise was held by Sussex Seekers along the edge of this stretch of water and copious amounts of nails were found. I'm hoping that some of these nails could be investigated further.** 

** I'm now investigating the possibility of the Normans dis-embarking at Ashburnham and that the nails represent burning ships floating down stream to Boreham Bridge and sinking there. Thus depositing nails at the site of sinking and not where they were set ablaze.

Scene 40 

The Tapestry now records that the knights raided Hastings for food. I think that there was a lot more going on for the knights other than "collecting" food. I'm sure that the knights would have gone to Hastings to secure William's landing place in the Harbour as well. This is where Nick's work with the manors comes in. He shows that all manors in the district were not pillaged equally (the ones furthest from Hastings were more lightly "touched").

Scene 41

This scene, for me, records the diligent work of the knights in securing food for William's army of infantry on Pevensey. 

Scene 42 

Two thirds of this scene is taken up with "domestic activity" i.e cooking. The last third shows the Roman fort after it had been "refurbished" by William's troops.. If you look closely you'll see that the roof consists of a boat turned upside down. Nick uses this to assert that a ship carrying a flat pack fort had foundered during the crossing at some point making the Normans use whatever to hand to improve the fort. I disagree with this thought. Much easier would be to use whatever was to hand to create a temporary shelter. 

Scenes 43 a and b

We're back to domestic activity in the Scenes. 

Scene 44 

This scene looks like a council of war is taking place between William, Odo and Robert. 

Scene 45 

This scene seems to be a transition scene between Pevensey and Hastings. Shown towards the right hand side of the scene is a part of a bailey on top of a hill with a tower placed at the bottom of the hill. Most historians equate the bailey that is shown with Hastings Castle perched on West Hill. Imo they're wrong. Hastings Castle extends to 20 metres above the current sea level at the mouth of what would have been a river outlet. Back in 1066 the sea level was about 19 metres higher and the deepest part of the inlet was adjacent to the bank that the castle was built on. We also know that the stone castle was built in the 1080's to prevent somebody doing a "William".  I can't remember where I read it but the Normans built fortifications at high points along any campaign route. To me, the Tapestry is saying that the Normans reverted to form and built a temporary motte and bailey between Hastings and what is now Battle. 

The Tapestry also shows a tower located at the bottom of the hill. Again most historians agree that this is another fort built by the Normans.But let us take a closer look it. 

My bad drawing of the "fort"

The cupola at the top of the building seems to indicate that this was a temporary building built by the Normans. However, on closer inspection the cupola and the inscription " HIC NUNTIATUM EST W are done in the same colour thread. This could be a later "improvement" or restoration in my view as without the cupola the item looks like the left hand half of a gable end. This changes the story for me to " The Normans requisitioned an existing building to use as a headquarters". I'm investigating the history of Trinity Mews in Hastings to see if it existed  in 1066 as the building is strategically situated to overlook both the ( now dry) inlet and the approach to the former inlet. 

 No comment is made about how the foot soldiers got from Pevensey to Hastings. The official narrative calls for the soldiers on Pevensey island to make their way to Hastings via Westham /Hailsham/ Herstmoncuex /  Ninfield and Crowhurst. John Greghan speculates that since the soldiers had to embark on their ships to get from Pevensey to the mainland why not just go direct to Hastings on board a ship that was going with the dominant wind?

What comes next? In my next blog I'll explore William's time in Hastings and the surrounds. 

King and Conqueror - Initial blog setup

King and Conqueror - The continuing story of William and Harold 

Hi, 

This blog will be about the content of the television programme " King and Conqueror" not its participants. I'll let you decide whose acting is best/worst/indifferent, you don't need me for that. 

Let me introduce myself. I'm Kevin and I've been researching the Battle of Hastings for about 10 years. I'm a electronics engineer by training and education having walked the route from avionic repair technician to licensing of Satellite Ground Stations and other such duties in the Radiocommunications Agency. My interest in the battle of Hastings started when Nick Austin and John Grehan published books on alternative sites for the battle. Mix in my favourite Sunday night programme, Time Team and you've piqued my interest. So, starting with D.M Wilson's excellent book on the Bayeux Tapestry I started my own research. I have since acquired authoritative translations of the other three 11th century reports of the Battle ( EMC Van Houts, Davis and Chibnall and K Tyson). Now, my collection of 12th century reports is a bit mixed. While Orderic's missive and the Chronicle of Battle Abbey are authoritative translations ( Chibnall and Searle), The Chronicle of Henry of Huntingdon and Chronicle of the Kings of England by William of Malmesbury are translations made by reverends in the 19th century. The final two reports, Wace's Roman de Rou and Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, are translations by G.S. Burgess and M. Swanton respectively. 

I have a few contemporary books on the Battle which include R Allen Brown's book " The Norman Conquest of England" and "The Battle of Hastings" by Stephen Morillo. Let's finish with my least favourite author, Marc Morris and his book " The Norman Conquest".

I've also spent some time researching Edward, Harold's predecessor and his role in the story of England. So, for him, I scoured Frank Barlow's tome and that of Tom Licence. Also included in my quest for the man that was Edward, I delved into two books that don't get a mention in polite society, namely the puff piece written by St Ælred of Rievaulx and "The Life of St. Edward, King and Confessor" by R.F. Jerome Porter - another puff piece. 

King and Conqueror

I'm not holding out much hope for this series as this is what we read in the promotional material from the BBC :- 

King and Conqueror is the story of a clash that defined the future of a country – and a continent – for a thousand years, the roots of which stretch back decades and extend out through a pair of interconnected family dynasties, struggling for power across two countries and a raging sea. Harold of Wessex and William of Normandy were two men destined to meet at the Battle of Hastings in 1066; two allies with no design on the British throne, who found themselves forced by circumstance and personal obsession into a war for possession of its crown.

Nothing that I've read gives a hint that Harold and William were allies. The story as I understand it is :- 

Back in the day, Æthelred was concerned with Viking raids carrying off his population as slaves to be sold at market in Normandy. He was advised  to marry the offspring of Richard I, Duke of Normandy in the hope that he could persuade Richard to stop the Vikings selling English slaves.  Now Æthelred had five sons so any offspring from the union with Emma had little chance of progressing to the top job. Emma however, had two boys and a girl.  By the time Æthelred popped his clogs only two of the original sons were still alive ( Edmund and Eadwig). Edmund was considered unsuitable as King and Eadwig  was too. The job went to Canute, who outlawed Eadwig only to pardon him later ( only for Eadwig to be murdered!). In the meantime, after waiting for a year to pass, Emma married Canute and had another son, Harthacnut. The Danish interregnum lasted from 1016 to 1042 when it reverted back to "English" control. Even then it was meddling by Emma that caused it. She had Harthacnut declare Edward co-regent so that when Harthacnut died  ( unexpectedly!) Edward didn't have to face selection by the Witan to get the top job. 

Fast forward to 1051-ish, William visits his erstwhile cousin once removed ( Emma was his grandfather's sister) and goes away convinced he's been promised the throne. Now, it's time for the tin foil hat! In France at this time all titles were hereditary including the top job of King. So what convinced William he was in line for the English throne when a different procedure was used?  Using consanguinity from Roman times William was five whereas Eadgar was four but if it was determined by  the closest common ancestor then William was three as was Eadgar. Because of the contemporary records from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles and and William of Jumièges, using words like underfang ( vassal - Marc Morris) and dominus ( Head of the Family) I suggest that Edward was not who he said he was and was Duke William's supposedly dead uncle William. 

The second mistake in the blurb from the BBC is "British" Such a simple mistake that any school child would be quick to correct. We are in fact talking about the English throne. The British throne wouldn't come into existence for another 600 years or so. 

So when King and Conqueror comes to Norway I'll give you chapter and verse on any deviations from the sources. You can make your own mind up as to whether the said deviances were plot holes or devices!