Battle of Hastings - My reasoning for the battlefield location

 My reasoning for the battlefield location

I don't think that I have given my full reasoning as to why I think the main battle happened to the North west of Battle near the golf course by Ashes Wood. In this post I'm trying to bring together the different strands of evidence ( well, I regard the facts as evidence). 

I shall start with the only pictorial evidence I believe exists :- the Bayeux Tapestry (1077).  From my other posts the reader must be aware that I believe that the Tapestry shows four "hours" from Scene 51 onwards - Tierce, Sext, None and Vespers. The Fyrd only show up from None ( Scene 53) perched on a ridge beating off armoured knights. 

Here's an overview of the battlefield :- 

The English are formed up inside the turquoise ring facing slightly south of east. 

Here's a cross section of the Battlefield from Wadhurst Lane to just over the first ridge inside Ashes Wood. The English would have been located at about 270 metres from the reference point and extending back to over the top of the ridge to about 360 metres. 

Here's how it looks like on the Bayeux Tapestry:-

Scène de la Tapisserie de Bayeux, aussi connue sous le nom de Tapisserie de la reine Mathilde, et plus anciennement « Telle du Conquest » (pour « toile de la Conquête ») est une broderie du XIe siècle inscrite depuis 2007 au registre Mémoire du monde par l'UNESCO

Many years ago I had superimposed the picture from the Tapestry over the cross section and found that the Tapestry was steeper in slope than the cross section. But given the number of years difference in  data it was understandable. 

Now for the written sources. Let's start with the earliest - The Song of the Norman Conquest (1067). 

I have Kathleen Tyson's translation first published in 2014. I find the story of that fateful day a bit confusing. Lines 364 and 365 seem to indicate some sort of skirmish whereas lines 365, 366 and 367 talk about " ... a wooded hill, neighbouring the valley, its terrain was rugged and uncultivated. The English ... ... advancing crowded together," I take this to mean that the skirmish took place at a different location to the main battle. So the main battle took place on a wooded hill that was rugged and uncultivated. For some reason back in the day land over 300 feet or about 100 metres was not farmed and so was naturally wooded. Look back now to the cross section. All of the land is above 103 metres so the landscape would look similar to that of Ashdown Forest does today 

View of Ashdown Forest

Copyright Flynn Robinson via Pexels.com

The text goes on to state that the King went up to the top with his nobles and planted all of the battle standards. The description in bold above can hardly be describing Battle Abbey. 

What has William of Jumièges ( 1070 revised later) have to say on the location of the battle? Nothing, but Orderic Vitalis made an addition saying in effect that the Malfosse incident happened close by. Is 1.6 km close by? Or is 150 metres better?

To complete the 11th century sources we have William of Poitiers (1071). He doesn't specify a location either only that after engaging the English once ( presumably at Tierce) the Normans saw another bunch of English to attack. 

Now we come to the twelfth century sources. First up is Orderic Vitalis ( 1110 - 1115). He only recalls "Senlac"  as the place where the encounter at Tierce happened. 

Next is Henry Huntingdon ( circa 1123). Rather like the Bayeux Tapestry ( Scene 53), Henry describes a trench "treacherously covered into which numbers fell and perished." On the cross section above there seems to be a trench at 230 to 260 metres( only about 50 centimetres or so in depth) running the whole length of the English line. However he goes on, "King William afterwards founded a noble abbey on the spot, which obtained the name of Battle Abbey".  

Next up is William of Malmesbury (1125). He reports that the "... principal church stands on the very spot, where as they report, Harold was found in the thickest heaps of the slain". So, again we have the main battle taking place at Battle Abbey but see the caveat William puts into his account " as they report".

Now we have 'Florence' of Worcester (circa 1140). At this point I have admit to not having an authoritative copy of Chronicon ex Chronicis and I have to rely on R. Allen Brown to have included in his " The Norman Conquest of England" ( Sources and documents) the appropriate words. The only reference to the battle location I found was "...the English were drawn up in a confined position,"

The penultimate entry is Wace (1160). Wace is very clear in stating that Harold planted his 'pennon' at the very spot where Battle Abbey was built. Wace also confirms Henry of Huntingdon's observation that there was horse traps set up in front of the English line. This makes three 12th cent sources marking Battle Abbey as the spot where the battle took place. 

The last source I am considering is from the Monks of Battle Abbey (1180). They tell a convoluted story regarding the battlesite. They confirm that the High Altar was " ... built on the very place where Harold's emblem, which they call a 'standard', was seen to have fallen" - written in 1154. The story seems to have shifted slightly from 1125 to 1154 from Harold died at the Abbey's location to the place where Harold's standard fell to the ground. 

So, on a plain reading of the sources, one has to say that it seems there was a battle at the Abbey's location. But the monks also recorded some other things which brings into question what was going on. 

Firstly, the monks recorded that "... they studied the battlefield and decided that it seemed hardly suitable for so outstanding building" "... chose a fit place for settling, a site located not far off, but somewhat lower down, towards the western slope of the ridge" Refer back to the cross section diagram and Google map. The land was above 300 ft and the slope was going northwesterly hardly land suitable for farming and settling in the late 11th cent. Secondly, in the same vein, an abbey built in such a location would not be visible from very far. Thirdly, the monks argued that there was no water and when argument was dismissed they complained that because the area was wooded, stone for building would not be found. Again King William promised to supply their every want. 

Although it is hard for me to admit that Battle Abbey was in the vicinity of fighting, I have to. Thankfully other sources reference the whole battle that could not have been at the Abbey.