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.
2.png){kind=link}