Battle of Hastings - Non Historical Musing

Non Historical Musing 

I've been told that anything I write from a historical viewpoint can be reliably be ignored but what about things that are not historical but operate on a practical level? 

Take for instance William's landing in the Port of Hastings a few days after landing at Pevensey. I've not been able to work out from the official narrative exactly where William did land and of course there are those who fervently believe that William didn't land at Hastings at all. Let's take the sources at their word in that William came ashore at the Port of Hastings and that where the town centre is today was the Port of Hastings.

Figure 1 Hastings Shore to Upper Fort

 The above figure shows the elevation of the various routes from the Shore +20 m to the Upper Fort situated alongside the A2100. The routes are:-

A:        Base of Castle

B:        Old Town

C:        1. Viaduct    via Mount Pleasant

            2. Viaduct    via Elphinstone Lane

D:        Cornwallis Gardens

Route A  Proposed Fort location to roundabout A2100/A2100/B2159 ( Battle Road). Roundabout to Junction of Elphinstone road and the Ridge ( Hastings Cemetery). The Ridge to Old London Road. Old London Road to Priory Road. Priory Road to Castle Hill Road. junction of Castle Hill Road and Albert Road delivers you to within 20m above sea level (a.s.l) Total distance 9.8 km

Route B  Proposed Fort location to roundabout A2100/A2100/B2159 ( Battle Road).  Roundabout to Junction of Elphinstone road and the Ridge ( Hastings Cemetery). The Ridge to Old London Road. Old London Road to the Bourne delivers you to within 20m a.s.l Total distance 9.2 km

Route C1* Proposed Fort location to roundabout A2100/A2100/B2159 ( Battle Road).Roundabout to Junction of Elphinstone road and the Ridge ( Hastings Cemetery). The roundabout at the end of Elphinstone road and A2101 delivers you to within  20m a.s.l Total distance 7.4 km

Route C2 * Proposed Fort location to roundabout A2100/A2100/B2159 ( Battle Road).Roundabout to Junction of Elphinstone road and the Ridge ( Hastings Cemetery). Elphinstone Road.  The Ridge to Old London Road. Old London Road to Priory Road. Priory Road to Mount Pleasant Road. Mount Pleasant road to Elphinstone Road. The roundabout at the end of Elphinstone road and A2101 delivers you to within  20m a.s.l  Total distance 9.4 km

Route D  Proposed Fort location to roundabout A2100/A2100/B2159 ( Battle Road).  Battle Road to Bohemia Road. Bohemia Road to Cambridge Road. Cambridge Road to Cornwallis Gardens delivers you to within 20m a.s.l. Total distance 6.4 km

* The Same finishing point - Bottom of Alexandria Park

Methodology

Using Google Earth I noted the stated elevation at every 200 metres until I was within 20 metres in elevation of the shore. So, the tolerances for height on Google Earth was 50cm ( 18 inches).20 metres ( or approximately 65 ft) is approximately where the highest tide would have reached in 1066.

Argument 

The above methodology gave me both distance and gradient from the fort alongside the A2100 to 20 m a.s.l. As can be seen from the graph even though the route C2 has the steepest gradient it is not the shortest route. 

The shortest route belongs to route D which is where Hastings Priory was built in the last few years of the following century. So for me, it brings into question as to why the Priory was planted there on top of the inlet drying up. 

The "powers that be" insist that the landing took place on the other side of the inlet ( those who think William landed in the Port of Hastings) by the castle. Again from the above graph, route A is the longest route to the Upper Fort and immediately enforces a steep climb to gain the Ridge. 

Welcome to the Blog!

 Welcome to my Blog!

Hi, 

Just a quick entry to welcome you to the blog and reassure you that it is still active despite the last post being last year (2024). 

As you can see from the landing page this blog goes back intermittently to 2015. In it you can trace my thinking from when I had only a copy of the Bayeux Tapestry right through to when I have authoritative translations of most 11th and 12th cent. sources. 

The article that Nick ( of Hastings Online Times fame) wrote is based on a paper ( with minor adjustments) that can be read on Academia. A version of that paper appears on this blog in four parts dated 18/19 July 2024. 

In between looking at the Battle of Hastings I have researched Edward the Confessor's life and that of his Mum, Emma of Normandy and come up with five after adding two plus two (Edward had been swapped out in 1025 and his Mum was a conniving but strong  so and so). 

I shall continue to post bits and pieces but most of what I can say has already been said but one final thing before I sign off. 

I am just one one of many people that have carried out research into the battle and each of us has come to a different conclusion with the same lack of physical evidence. Each thinks that he/she is correct come Hell or high water. But each one of us are worthy of some respect. Even though Nick of Hastings Online Times got me to give reasons to doubt Caldbec Hill and Crowhurst without Nick Austin's work on the state of manors in the Domesday Book, John Grehan's insight about how the Normans travelled from Pevensey to Hastings and Kathleen Tyson's old thought about William being at the Fecamp Abbey's manor out towards Guestling the night before the battle, I wouldn't have made the progress I have made. So hats off to them in particular. 

Right, there's 48 other entries for you to peruse, I won't keep you any longer. 

Regards 

Kevin 

Norway 6/11/25

P.S If you see this little chappie in your travels on YouTube 

it's me and the decision has been made to expand onto a permanent website - more about that later. 

Historians - Bah Humbug!

The Closed Shop (and Minds) of "Professional" Historians 

This is not one of my normal posts on the Battle of Hastings but rather a rant about the interactions I've had with "professional" historians. That is not to say that the dealings have been anything but courteous but at the same time totally dismissive. 

Let's start with English Heritage. Wace's tome, Roman de Rou runs to 11419 lines in Glyn S Burgess's translation. From lines 7699 to 8920 it details events surrounding the battle give or take a couple of lines.  Now in line 7947/8 it states " The priests and the ordained climbed up to the top of a hill to pray God, say their prayers and watch the battle" . Applying this to the official site at Battle Abbey one finds a mound about a kilometre away that could be the hill in question. Question is what level of detail can be seen at that distance?

English Heritage had a very snazzy answer Well, they wrote, Wace got confused between the Battle of Hastings ( 1066) and the Battle of Tinchebrai in 1124. So, Wace had a memory lapse nearly 300 lines into his description of the Battle of Hastings to describe events nearly 60 years later. I'm not buying it.  

Next in line is the Bayeux Tapestry Museum. At least with the Museum I've had multiple interactions. But here is the background. I was asked by the then County Archaeologist if I would contribute to a symposium on 1066 if he could organise it. I accepted and got to work on a Powerpoint presentation based around the Bayeux Tapestry. I had already seen that the scenes from 51 to 58 could be split into four "frames" and I gave a preview to my family. My stepdaughter asked if I was going to allow questions "on the fly" or answer them all at the end. When I said at the end she replied that I had to reference the slides so the audience could refer back to them. I knew that the battle started at "the third hour" and ended at vespers. Applying that to my interpretation of the Tapestry I came up with tierce, sext, none and vespers as being the times being represented on the Tapestry. I contacted the museum with my interpretation of the Tapestry and was summarily dismissed. Eventually I got a copy of Wace's Roman de Rou and found the quotation above. Wow, I thought, confirmation that someone with a religious bent recorded what went down and when. Off I trotted to the Museum again pointing out that the monks in Wace's account recorded the battle for posterity and therefore the Tapestry reflected that. Well, the response came back, you can't rely on anything that Wace records but it is known that the practice of recording the battle fell to the clergy. I got the impression from the geezer that he considered the Bayeux Tapestry of no value beyond being a survivor from a long time ago. 

Now comes the individuals I've had dealings with in no particular order. First off they don't answer the question asked if it means going against the official narrative. I asked one historian about the contradiction in the Chronicle of Battle Abbey. You know, the then King wants to mark the spot where Harold was killed and then just 20 lines afterwards the monks confess ( in writing!) that they built the High Altar where they saw a standard fall to the ground. So the official narrative has the King having his rant but ignores what the monks go on and writes. I pointed out to the historian that if the account was written in 1154 as suspected, then a different dynasty was in charge of the throne and the monks felt safe confessing. The response came back that the Chronicle was written long after the Battle and therefore of questionable quality. I asked a similar question to another historian and I got the response that there was a battle fought in the environs of the Abbey according to "their" colleagues. I responded rather sharply that I hadn't dismissed the fact, I just wanted to know how to work it into my narrative. 

Another thing historians warn amateurs like me about is coming to a conclusion on a single source. I can see two in the standard narrative. The first one is pretty obvious, "Senlac". Introduced by Orderic Vitalis in his tome he says its "early" name was Senlac but everyone tries to translate it via Norman Latin and adds "ridge", Someone has tried translating it from Anglo-Saxon and came up with "beautiful meadow" and the Bayeux Tapestry shows "broken ground" under the first encounter. 

The second single source is a bit surprising. It is about Harold and where he died. The only source that details where Harold was killed is William of Malmesbury's account and even he adds a rider to the fact. I challenge anybody to find another 12th century reference - even the monks confess they didn't follow the King's rant. 

Yet if one steps outside the accepted narrative with three sources one gets stamped on very hard. Take Scene 51 of the Bayeux Tapestry, Gesta Guillelmi by William of Poitiers Part ii para 18 and 19 and Song of the Norman Conquest  line 363 and 364. What's shown in these three places is the initial skirmish between Huscarls and the Norman army. William says all were killed ( thus indicating the Normans were facing Huscarls) and the Bayeux Tapestry shows the remnants being put to the sword. 

So, if you are a historian reading this can you drop a comment as to why historians in general act in this manner?

Let me wipe the foam from my mouth and calm down before returning to the human race. 

Battle of Hastings - Review of "The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis" Vol II Books III and IV"

 

The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis

 by kind permission via PCsclear

I am using the translation by Marjorie Chibnall from the Oxford Medieval Texts. ( ISBN 0-19-820220-2). The page number of the English translation and the quotation are presented in bold.

 

Page 173         “Several men of religion had come with the warriors from Normandy”

Until I read this, I had no idea that Odo was not the only bishop to have come over with William. Orderic names the other bishop as Geoffrey of Coutances. This backs up what Wace wrote in his Roman de Rou. It further solidifies in my mind that the final Scenes of the Bayeux Tapestry from Scene 51 onwards are linked to specific times of the day. It may be that the group working on the Tapestry were working from notes made at the time of the battle(s) by observing clergy

Page 173         “Battle was joined on 14 October at the third hour and was bitterly contended all day long with heavy slaughter on both sides. “

Orderic here is thought to be parroting William of Jumièges whose Gesta Normannorum Ducum Orderic edited between the dates 1109 and 1113. Again, we are left in the dilemma of what is exactly meant by “all day long”. No indication is given if Orderic meant a continual or continuous fight throughout the day.

Page 173         “To oppose him a great multitude of English flocked together from all sides to the place whose early name was Senlac,³”.

The present day estimate of the armies’ strengths gives us about 7000 personnel on each side. I’m in no position to doubt that figure. There does seem to be a discussion to be had around the name “Senlac”. As Orderic details that the name was “early”, it could mean that the name was of Saxon origin. Therefore, anyone trying to turn it into an Anglo-Norman place name is being misguided. M Chibnall, whose translation I am working from, put in the footnote 3 that it was derived from “Sandlacu” meaning sand stream. There doesn’t seem to be a stream at any of the places thought to be the alternate battlefield.

 

Another translator, S Charnock (n.d.), indicated in the journal “On Certain Geographical Names in the County of Sussex. Report of the 42nd Meeting British Association for the Advancement of Science, p. 177.” That Senlac could be a corruption of “Scan- leag”. This alters the translation to “beautiful meadow”. If one checks with the Bayeux Tapestry Scenes 51 and 52 and part of Scene 53, all the action takes place on  flat “broken ground”.

Another point to ponder is the closeness to Mount Joy in Battle or Mountjoie. Instead of commemorating a victory at the top of Caldbec Hill it commemorates a victory over the advanced guard of the English Army admittedly the best troops Harold had.

Now this is just for the initial encounter and furthermore Orderic goes on to write :

Page 173         “Reaching the spot they all dismounted from their horses and stood close together in a dense formation on foot”.

So now we have a scene unfolding before our eyes namely, that fighting took place from the third hour at a place called Senlac. And all the English combatants got off their horses and formed a shield wall. That word “all” should tell us that that we are dealing with Huscarls not the lowly levies or Fyrd. So, are we are witnessing what has been drawn on the Bayeux Tapestry in Scenes 51 and 52?  Then, is it only logical to assume that the King and the lowly Fyrd are missing from this encounter on the Tapestry because they are not there? In my opinion Orderic is confirming what has been hinted at in the Bayeux Tapestry, Gesta Guillelmi and the Carmen in that this was a skirmish of sorts. I say that because a skirmish is usually fought by a small number of troops on one side and the lead elements of the opposing side. However, the word “skirmish” does not appear in the English language until the 13th century as a verb as in “to skirmish” ( 14^th Cent as a noun) according to the Online Etymology Dictionary, so, perhaps the monks didn’t have a broad enough vocabulary to describe what was happening.

 

Page 177         “So the battle raged from the third hour, and Harold the king was slain in the first assault.”

Now this is the controversial part of Orderic’s account. I’m inclined to go along with the official narrative considering that Orderic heavily edited William of Jumièges “Gesta Normannorum Ducum”. Again, Orderic emphasises that the battle started at the third hour and this time adds the rider that we find in William of Jumièges’ opus that Harold was killed in the first assault. Interestingly, the Chronicle of Battle Abbey has a Standard of Harold’s falling to the ground where the High Altar was set up. Could it be that the eye witness was confused as to what the Standard signified? The other 11^th century sources put Harold’s death later ( Vespers – Carmen, past None – William of Poitiers and about Vespers – Bayeux Tapestry).

Page 177         “For by chance long grasses concealed an ancient rampart, …” Seeing that they could be sheltered by the broken rampart they reformed their ranks and unexpectedly made a stand, …”

I have problems understanding the terrain when the 12^th century writer mentions “ramparts”. Having grown up in the era of Hollywood films, my imagination places big stone walls with crenellations on top into the landscape. However, the landscape feature that present itself at my chosen location for the Malfosse is a cleft. So, the “ramparts” are the steep sides of the footpath going through Ashes Wood. Even places that have been nominated as potential Malfosse sites do not have such a thing that I have imagined. But all sites do have very steep sides to a cleft in the ground. So, perhaps I need to redefine the medieval word “rampart” in my mind to mean a steep sided cleft in the ground.

Page 179         “Meanwhile the duke had finally routed the enemy and returned to the battlefield, “

Again, Orderic might have picked this up from William of Jumièges as William states that Duke William returned to the battlefield at midnight after slaughtering his enemies. In my opinion this fact is not confirmation of the Duke’s action but just a repeat of William of Jumièges assertion.

Page 191         “… he built the abbey of the Holy Trinity at Senlac, the site of the battle, and endowed it with wealth and possessions … “

This seems like confirmation that the Abbey was built on the battlefield of Senlac and the monks were justified in building the Abbey where they did. Let’s remind ourselves of the conditions that Orderic relates in conjunction with Senlac. He relates that ALL of the English combatants RODE up to the battle (Huscarls only) and using three 11^th century sources ( Bayeux Tapestry, Gesta Guillelmi and the Carmen) we can surmise that this encounter was a skirmish as was common in that time but perhaps the observers having a limited understanding of war just saw this as the start of hostilities.

Battle of Hastings - The Narrative I Derive From the Bayeux Tapestry - Final Summary

 The Narrative I Derive From the Bayeux Tapestry -

 Final Summary

Summation 

Over the past three posts I have tried to convey my idea of what the Bayeux Tapestry is trying to say about the fateful day. I have tried to show that the scenes from 51 onwards can be grouped into four time stamped events - Initial contact, success at wiping out the Huscarls, initial contact with the main body and the subsequent victory on the field of battle. 

I have brought in rarely corroborating evidence from other early reports because I needed to let my audience know that my ideas were not just flights of fancy but based on things that are out there. 

There's a few things to point out. Scene 50 which contains just three people King Harold and the two "scouts" must be either a fanciful idea on the part of the Norman clergy or recorded by the English clergy accompanying Harold to the battle. No matter what, the three of them were not around at the end of the battle to question! I honestly did have a problem with the ground portrayed in Scenes 48 and 49 as that certainly did not match reality. It wasn't until Kathleen Tyson, in the first edition of her book, suggested that William was at the manor belonging to Fecamp Abbey that the terrain matched reality. Finally, no matter how I try to locate the the first encounter away from the centre of Battle , I get drawn back to the location by other sources and local place names. 

One other thing to add. You might be asking yourself the question " if I know the location of the battle why hasn't there been anything in the Press? Well, the owners of the land where the main body drew up is owned by the Forestry Commission and no metal detecting is allowed by the general public on their property. End of. Although they promised action in 2018, I think Covid intervened and the archaeologist moved on or retired and the whole thing has been forgotten. Never to see the light of day again.  The farmland adjacent to  Ashes Wood where the Normans formed up and charged the English line as per Scene 53/54 is owned by someone. No response to either a letter or email. So, I'm left with a "Schrodinger battle site" Nobody can prove it isn't and I can't prove it is

I do hope you've enjoyed what I've committed to the blog. As I have authoritative translations of the other three 11th cent. sources  - William of Jumeiges ( Oxford Medieval Texts) , William of Poitiers ( Oxford Medieval Texts) and Kathleen Tyson's translation of the "Song of the Norman Conquest" by Guy d'Amiens I hope to pluck out relevant sentences that reinforce what is shown  on the Bayeux Tapestry. That is if I'm allowed to by the copyright owners. I also have translations of 12th cent, reports bar Roger of Worcester. Henry of Huntingdon and William of Malmesbury tomes are translations that were done in the 19th cent and thus are copyright free ( I hope)  Of the four other sources, two are Oxford Medieval Texts ( The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis and The Chronicle of Battle Abbey) and one is Wace's Roman de Rou ( translated by Glyn Burgess) and the final source is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles translated and edited by Micheal Swanton. 

Keep your fingers crossed for me...

Regards 

Battle of Hastings - The Narrative I Derive From the Bayeux Tapestry Part 3

  The Narrative I Derive From the Bayeux Tapestry 

 Introduction

The first book I was given on the Battle of Hastings was D. M. Wilson's " The Bayeux Tapestry". It's a book that shows the Bayeux Tapestry on a 1:1 scale so it's very good at showing what is actually depicted on the Tapestry rather than what you are told it depicts. However, for the purposes of this article I will be using public domain images of the Tapestry ( from Images on web site of Ulrich Harsh. - http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lspost11/Bayeux/bay_tama.html via Wikipedia_ tituli ) to illustrate my argument. 

The Tapestry sits in a weird place in the scheme of things. It is not allowed to sit wholly in the Art scene as there seems to be only one interpretation allowed of it. But the Tapestry is also mistrusted as a source of historical record. A classic case of 'Heads you lose, tails I win'.

Frame “None” (about 3 p.m.)

Scene 53

Scene 54

Scene 55

This runs from beneath the black horse facing left in Scene 53 to whomever is pointing out William in Scene 55 (Scene 56a seems to be identical). This frame depicts, in my opinion, the initial assault on the English Fyrd line, the subsequent rout of the knights and the following rallying of said knights by William.

The official narrative for these couple of scenes is split between an insertion of the later 'Malfosse' incident and some of the Fyrd gaining a prominence during the battle. Both of which I reject. The main reason I reject them is timing. Now we are told from many sources that the battle started at the third hour (09:00) and lasted until Vespers ( 18:00) (Carmen). So that times the scene 51 et al to 09:00 and the scene 52b/bit of scene 53 to 12:00 or sext and here we have another of those time dislocations that occur throughout the days events - the ending of one encounter and the start of another. 

My view of this frame is that it represents a new attack on troops that had been given time to prepare stout defences against the Norman knights. We know from earlier in the Bayeux Tapestry that Harold had spent time as William’s “guest” in Normandy and so Harold would have been familiar with the tactics of the Norman knights. Harold, earlier in the day had sacrificed about 2500 Huscarls in order to give himself time to prepare the defences to protect his lesser able troops and late arriving Huscarls. And it very nearly worked. 

In my view, this is the start of the main event with William and Harold both in attendance. And given that these sort of battles lasted two to three hours and the excess Norman clergy were doing the recording  then this opening sequence could be any time between 15:00 and 16:00. 

I also believe that scenes 53/54 holds clues as to where this battle took place.  In Scene 54 we see two figures standing at the same level as the Norman knights which suggests that we are looking at the end of a small  ridge. Behind these figures we have a thick brown line which denotes the actual ground - that means that behind these men the ground slopes steeply to an apex and that the ridge is orientated " into" the Tapestry. But there's an added twist. The three men depicted on top of the ridge are shown truncated at the knees as if the ground on the other side of the apex is gently falling away.

So I looked for such a ridge in the landscape and found Ashes Wood and the ridge just inside the wood. The ridge abuts the, what was then, the main Hastings to London road and rises 20 odd metres quickly before gently lowering along the spine of the ridge to about 30 metres lower than the apex. The ridge peters out in about a couple of hundred metres meaning it would have been cosy for the English Army to stand there. 

Frame “Vespers” (about 6 p.m.)

Scene 56b

Scene 57

Scene 58

This runs from Scene 56 to just left of the centre of Scene 58. This frame shows the English line being overrun, death of King Harold and the subsequent death of the remaining Huscarls.

 This is, maybe, the penultimate frame on the Tapestry. The narrative has a gap from the Norman knights being rallied to essentially the extermination of the English Army. There is nothing controversial in this frame other than the “arrow in the eye” incident. It looks like King Harold is trying to pull the arrow out but is not shown to be in distress. The next cameo shows King Harold being slain by a knight. I think the arrow in the eye is very much a disabling injury and not a fatal one as evidenced by two members of the rapidly departing Fyrd in Scene 58.

 One may notice Huscarls being amongst the combatants in this frame and start to wonder why they hadn’t joined their fellows in the first engagement in the morning. The reason could be one of two. Firstly, these are late arriving Huscarls who arrived after the lead elements had set off to halt the Normans. Secondly, these Huscarls depicted could be the personal bodyguard of King Harold II.

 

speculation?

Frame “Compline”? (about 9 p.m.?)

 

Again, this runs from a black horse just to the left of centre in Scene 58 to the end. This frame could just be part of the previous frame showing how the different parts of the English Army dealt with defeat (Huscarls fought to the last man while the Fyrd ran) or it could be portraying the early stages of the Malfosse incident as a separate frame. 

Battle of Hastings - The Narrative I Derive From the Bayeux Tapestry Part 2

 The Narrative I Derive From the Bayeux Tapestry 

 Introduction

The first book I was given on the Battle of Hastings was D. M. Wilson's " The Bayeux Tapestry". It's a book that shows the Bayeux Tapestry on a 1:1 scale so it's very good at showing what is actually depicted on the Tapestry rather than what you are told it depicts. However, for the purposes of this article I will be using public domain images of the Tapestry ( from Images on web site of Ulrich Harsh. - http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lspost11/Bayeux/bay_tama.html via Wikipedia_ tituli ) to illustrate my argument. 

The Tapestry sits in a weird place in the scheme of things. It is not allowed to sit wholly in the Art scene as there seems to be only one interpretation allowed of it. But the Tapestry is also mistrusted as a source of historical record. A classic case of 'Heads you lose, tails I win'.

Frame “Tierce” (about 9 a.m.)

This includes Scenes 51a, 51b and 52 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/BayeuxTapestryScene51a.jpg

Scene 51a

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/BayeuxTapestryScene51b.jpg

Scene 51b

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/BayeuxTapestryScene52a.jpg

Scene 52a

 

We are now shown the Normans charging the English shield wall on Scenes 51a and 51b. On Scene 52a we see the English drawn up behind their shields forming their famous shield wall. This frame continues on scene 52a where we see the Normans attacking from the opposite direction. I interpret this as saying that the Normans advanced until they made contact with the English and subsequently surrounded them. However, in the Chronicle of Battle Abbey, the monks assert that Eustace attacked the Huscarls from the rear. Whatever the truth,  and I think the monks may be right, it seems that the problem was dealt with by the last rank just turning around and forming another shield wall. 

Notice that all bar one person is wearing armour- the mark of a Huscarl, the other person is depicted as being an archer. So, the narrative here, in my opinion, is “The Normans attacked the Huscarls from all sides …”  I estimate that Harold sent about 2500 Huscarls forward to delay the Norman approach long enough to allow the Fyrd[1] to dig in and to allow late coming Huscarls time to catch their breath.  There is a body of men missing from this frame, namely the Norman infantry. I think there are two reasons for this.

 Reason 1: The Norman infantry did not acquit themselves well in the first engagement. Each year there is a re-enactment on the “Official” battlefield and each year the public outcome is the same. However, in the evening after the public have gone home the re-enactors have a “private” battle in which the superior strength and tactics of the Huscarls always win out. So, it is conceivable that if William had had fewer knights in his army then perhaps the invasion could have been stopped here.

 Reason 2: The Tapestry was produced as a piece of propaganda to show the inhabitants of Normandy the prowess of their leaders. Rather like a politically biased newspaper of modern times, the Bayeux Tapestry only tells the story that the “owners” want to be told.

Looking at the Tapestry and reading some other sources fills out the picture. The Carmen describes an ambush sort of scenario while Orderic Vitalis tells us that all rode up to the fight making it a Huscarl only event. William of Poitiers also tells us that all were killed before the main body was sighted. For me, this a cross between a skirmish and a minor battle even if the word 'skirmish' didn't enter the English language until the 12th cent. 

 That brings me to the question of where this engagement took place. The Bayeux Tapestry offers no clues as to where because this was not the main event. It could be that the Huscarls formed up at the roundabout at the top of Battle High Street or to the northeast of Catsfield, we may never know for certain. Orderic Vitalis calls the place where this engagement took place “Senlac”. It has been suggested that this name comes from the Saxon “Scen-leag” meaning “beautiful meadow” (Charnock S).

[1] The Fyrd are the Light infantry of Saxon England being made up of less able troops

Frame “Sext” (about 12:00 noon)

Scene 52b

Scene 53

This runs from Scene 52b until the black horse facing left in Scene 53 and depicts the “mopping up” operations after the shield wall collapses.

 

The Tapestry makes a point in saying the kin of Harold - Gyrth and Leofwine, are killed during this engagement as if to make the point there was no one left to “inherit” the throne of England.

 What makes me think that this is 3 hours on from the first encounter is that the horses are in the same orientation as the horses in the previous frame ( See 51b-52a and compare with 52b). The only difference being the state of the Huscarls between the horses. In the Tierce frame the Huscarls are depicted being steadfast in their shield wall. Now, in this frame, only a few stragglers are seen. This also ties in with "battles " being two to three hours long and it was the excess clergy taking notes according to Wace.

Here endeth the first encounter that lasted from the third hour to the sixth. and because it was the Huscarls taking part, all the English died where they fought ( according to William of Poitiers!)

.