Timeline from Pevensey Castle to the night of the 14th October 1066 revised

From Pevensey to the Aftermath

After spending many hours in study of all available free information (and not so free) I feel that I've done as much as I can before turning it over to the professionals. There are still some loose ends of course but the main thrust of the work is finished.

Right, here we go.

Pevensey

William lands his infantry at Pevensey and refortifies the fort the Romans left behind. His knights however land at Little Standard Hill and while foraging for food and supplies, secure the Port of Hastings.

After a few days, William relocates to the Port of Hastings. The most likely place that he landed is on the site of the old Priory of Hastings which is around the area of ESK, a well known shop in Hastings. This is based on a map showing an ancient boundary between alluvial deposits and head ( see https://www.westsussex.gov.uk/media/1728/hastings_eus_report_maps.pdf page 83 of 90)

which just happens to be where the Priory was located ( shown on page 75 of 90 on the same url ).

Port of Hastings

William builds a lower temporary fort in the area and I think it has been lost to the mists of time. I'd like to think that the ground plan was used to set out the building of the mews for the Priory but there is no guarantee that this is the case. 

William also has a second fort built at the top of the hill towards Battle. The motte is still visible alongside the A2100 and stands there all overgrown. There is a pond nearby called Circle Pond and I'd like to think that the bailey that went with the motte would be somewhere between the motte and the pond. Only time would tell but since we're looking for wooden buildings on farmland, it's a pretty tall ask. 

William now sends out raiding parties for food and to scout for the oncoming English response. According to Nick Austin's site "Secrets of the Norman Invasion " Drigsall and Salehurst are "wasted" in the Doomsday record ( http://www.secretsofthenormaninvasion.com/ parts 8 through and including 11). However since it takes many visits to render a place "wasted" ( see the other manors he mentions) Drigsall and Salehurst must have been visited many times as they were the farthest north one could get without crossing a substantial river ( River Rother). 

Eventually......

King Harold is spotted approaching. 

King Harold camps at Netherfield Down ( triangular camp mentioned by Wace) the night before the battle.  There are reports of the English camping on Caldbec Hill which I have dismissed up til now but given that the "scouts" are actually Huscarls then it makes a bit of sense to have "forward elements" of Harold's army perched on the hill.

The Morning of the Battle

From the Bayeux Tapestry, an English scout Huscarl  spots the Normans at about 8 in the morning assuming the scout Huscarl  is actually shielding his eyes from the sun and has not been posed for dramatic effect. However, this is also assuming that a modern hour is the same as an medieval hour, which I doubt but can find no information about. 

So a scout Huscarl  goes back to King Harold, who is coming away from his overnight camp on Netherfield Down . They meet about where Battle Golf Course is (or was) and the scout Huscarl  relates what he saw to King Harold. The King then orders the Huscarls forward to meet and delay the Normans. King Harold then sets the rest of his troop to building prepared defences ( as seen on plate 65 b) in The Bayeux Tapestry by David M. Wilson). 

The location where the Huscarls were located was Beechdown Wood. By locating the Huscarls there I've been able to identify the route taken to Harold (Wadhurst Lane) and the reason why the Huscarl appears to be shielding his eyes. It also explains why a late Anglo-Saxon stirrup and an Ed the Con coin was found on the route near Beech Farm. Finally, it makes sense of Orderic Vitalis's statement that ALL rode up to the first encounter. (2025) 

Start the clock......

The time is about 9 ( Tierce) in the morning and the Huscarls have just got into position with the horses having just been taken away when the Normans attack.  The Normans surround ( well, attacked from the front and the rear ( see The Chronicle of Battle Abbey)) the Huscarls and kill each and every one of them. Not because the Normans were particularly nasty but because the Huscarls did not and do not run. In order for the number of casualties to be equal, the Norman infantry must have taken a beating here too. Where that beating took place is still surrounded in mystery. All I know is that it wasn't Senlac Ridge or the mini roundabout but somewhere under where the town now stands. There are no clues from the Tapestry.  The ground depicted under the Huscarls is shown as "broken" and Orderic Vitalis calls the place "Senlac" or"beautiful meadow" in Anglo-Saxon. So perhaps the first engagement took place not far from Battle Museum.....

How do I know that it was just the Huscarls getting slaughtered? Have a look at plates 61 and 62 in The Bayeux Tapestry by David M Wilson. All you can see from the English side on those two plates are Housecarls and a single token archer. No Fyrd at all!

Here endeth the first encounter ( 1200 hrs or Sext).....

The first encounter has ended but William still has to check to make sure King Harold wasn't amongst them. The Tapestry records the deaths of Gyrth and Leofwine at this battle and reinforces the Norman idea of hereditary titles ( "We left no surviving family members to inherit the throne")

The clock is still running......

William has now to deal with the rest of King Harold's army. So he relocates to area around Wadhurst Lane and Netherfield Hill Road some 2 km from his first encounter. Although the Huscarls made the journey in 40 minutes first thing this morning it takes the more tired Normans a couple of hours to make the trip. The Normans still have to winkle King Harold out too. 

 The Second or Main Encounter ( 1500 hrs or None)

The Bayeux Tapestry only gives a snapshot of this second encounter. Briefly it says that the Norman knights charged the English line but because of the prepared defences the Norman knights suffered heavy casualties even against the unarmoured men of the Fyrd. 

Perhaps I should describe this battlefield. If you look at the Bayeux Tapestry on plates 66 b) and 67 a) you are looking at the ridge from the north-east and in cross section. This ridge is now on Forestry Commission land and is therefore out of bounds to all. However, the land where the Norman knights came a cropper is open farmland so is accessible with permission.  The Tapestry does not show the ground or the knights charging before the defences but believe me there is a gentle gradient down to the defences taking away control of the horses just that tiny amount so that the outcome is as shown on plate 66. 

Whether or not the knights charged multiple times the outcome recorded by the Tapestry  on plate 67 b) remains the same - routing knights. William had to "expose" himself to rally his knights. 

Meanwhile, not shown on the Tapestry, the Fyrd run after the departing knights to harry them much to their later discomfort. The battle is now lost to the English. The remaining Fyrd scatter but the Norman knights now press home their advantage and  King Harold is killed ( 1800 hrs or Vespers). 

Any Huscarls killed at this point on the Tapestry are either late arriving or part of the Kings Detail and since their King is not leaving the battlefield neither will they. 

The Sun has now set, both on the battlefield and on Saxon England. 

Nine hours have elapsed since the first clash of sword against sword and England has a new master. 

The Malfosse

Norman knights , whose bloodlust had not been satisfied, chase after the retreating English Fyrd through the adjoining wood. In the dark and on unknown paths, they stumble and become unhorsed resulting in a loss of life greater than on the battlefield. 

What's the distance between the second battlefield and the Malfosse? Less than 300 metres. Have you ever tried to outrun a galloping horse with someone on its back intent on killing you? Let's see how far you get....

The Final Reckoning

So, according to me, King Harold was killed about 2 miles from where the monks say he was killed. 

Hopefully, with the assistance of the County Archaeologist, I'll be able to prove my theories unlike others that have gone before me. So watch this space. 

Present Day Contradictions about the Battle of Hastings

Present Day Contradictions about the Battle of Hastings

Even taking present day thinking about the Battle of Hastings there are contradictions in the knowledge that is given out. 

1. Caldbec Hill

The first and foremost is the contradiction of what happened at Caldbec Hill. Many talk of the English scout peering out from between the trees as being on Caldbec Hill. And there are written reports that the English were seen camping on Caldbec Hill. How can we make sense of this?

Since the scout is shielding his eyes perhaps we can assume that it is morning and the sun is shining and that the scout is looking south-ish. Nowhere on the Tapestry does it state that the place is Caldbec Hill. Let us look at the terrain then. 

From Caldbec Hill, the land falls away ( descends) from 103 metres above sea level (m asl) to about 53 metres before rising again to about 62. The land falls away again to 55 metres before rising to 108 metres, dropping to 100 metres before rising again to 141 metres where the Norman lookout post is situated. So Caldbec Hill is next highest point north of the Norman lookout position. 

The scouts only have visibility of the Norman look out post above say 75 metres on the first falling slope. This is only 200 metres from what is supposed to be the main English camp of 7000 soldiers! 

To cap it all however, the Tapestry shows the scout reporting back to Harold, who is sitting astride his horse. This tells me that Harold had to ride to the meeting place with the scout and was therefore newly come to the area. Would Harold go and sit on his horse to listen to a scout that had been 200 metres away from the camp to look at the Normans? Sounds implausible to me. 

So something has to give. 

Could the scout be closer to the Normans than what is thought? I've noticed that on the Tapestry some scenes are framed with trees. Could this be the case here? But as stated previously there is nowhere closer than the top of Caldbec Hill that is better to spy on the Normans. So I think that Caldbec Hill has to stay as the scouts location. 

If the Norman lookouts were wrong, and I believe they were wrong, then Harold must've been in a camp that lay on the same bearing or almost the same bearing as Caldbec Hill. My choice of field for the second engagement lies on that bearing However, if that was the site of the English overnight camp, why Harold is portrayed as being on a horse? It does not make sense.

2. There was only one shield wall

This is regarded as Holy Writ by some especially by the modern day "Housecarls" but this causes untold squirming by modern day scholars. We are forever told that battles of the 1000's lasted no more than 3 hours and that the Battle of Hastings was an exception in that it lasted nine hours. That's 300% longer than normal! 

So what's the story?

Historians and others rely on this single shield wall as a tenet of faith and look no further. So the story they tell is of a scout on Caldbec Hill seeing the Normans and then going to see Harold, who then sets up his troops on Senlac Ridge to meet William coming off Hastings peninsula. Then William wages a war of attrition until such time as he overcomes the defenders. That's it in a nutshell. Okay, it takes 9 hours but what's that?

However , the Bayeux Tapestry tells another story. We still have the narrative of the scout seeing the Normans and reporting back to Harold. Then it says the Norman knights advanced and met the Housecarls and a few archers and gave battle. This could have been where English Heritage now places the battle - under the town itself. Notice that there's no Fyrd or King in the bunch and that the defenders were surrounded. The next scene shows the stragglers being "finished off" and the sons or brothers of Harold being killed. The following scene shows the second engagement which entails unarmoured men ( the Fyrd) killing lots of knights before the Normans overcome this lot of defenders. The King is duly dispatched and the Fyrd heads for the hills. Now 9 hours doesn't seem that long for William to accomplish these feats.  

If anyone thinks that are more contradictions to look into then leave me a message and I'll look into it. 

Regards

Kevin 

Malfosse

Malfosse

After many hours of thought, I came to the conclusion that the location of the Malfosse was unknowable. What everyone is faced with is a report from the Normans that while they were in hot pursuit of rapidly departing Saxons belonging to the Fyrd, they suffered an ambush where the ground disappeared from beneath their horse's feet and the riders were set upon by Saxon fighters.

While the report might have been good enough for their commanders, it does not help us in the future to discover where the clash took place.

The current thinking of English Heritage is, I'm led to believe, is that the battle took place in an area under the monastery and the area under the town with the Malfosse still in Oakwood Gill.

John Grehan also puts the Malfosse incident in Oakwood Gill, explaining it was closer to his choice of battle site than English Heritage's. Unfortunately for him, Time Team put the battle site adjacent to English Heritage's official site because they could find no evidence of the battle ever having taken place on either the official site or John's choice of Caldbec Hill.

I'd stopped looking when I chose my first site at the end of the ridge at Netherfield Down. Nowhere seemed to fit the bill. And there I left it until......

I started to look at the Bayeux Tapestry more closely. On page 192 of David M Wilson's book " The Bayeux Tapestry" he writes " .... Brown ( op cit. in note 113,pp 18ff. Cf. also [G.H. White]'The Battle of Hastings and the death of Harold', The Complete Peerage, xii,i, London 1953, Appendix L, p.42) has convincingly argued that the scene in pls. 65-66 of the tumbling horses represents the so-called Malfosse episode, following William of Malmesbury who may well have been placing his narrative on the tapestry. In this story the Normans were attacking the English, strongly positioned on a hill, and retreating in feigned flight (according to Henry of Huntingdon) into a concealed ditch. A defensive work of sharpened stakes is clearly seen beneath the fallen horses in pl. 65...."

So ask yourself this question. If you're running away on foot from men on horseback determined to hack you to pieces, do you stop, cut down suitable stakes, hammer them into the ground and then turn around to make a stand? No, you keep on running!

Another point to ponder is this. on pl.67 of D.M. Wilson's book " The Bayeux Tapestry ( Scene 54 in standard Bayeux Tapestry form) we have a two cavalryman attacking the back of the hill. Again ask yourself " If this is supposed to represent an ambush what the blue dickens are those cavalryman doing on the wrong side of the main fight?"

The last "frame" of the Tapestry as we have it shows a group of horsemen chasing after a bunch of rapidly departing Saxons. Had the Tapestry continued it could have showed the Malfosse incident and it could have looked something like what I've attempted to draw below.

However since Odo was probably not involved in the incident, it would not have been included. ( "if I didn't see it happen, it didn't happen")

When I realised the above and found my new battle site ( see previous post) I looked at Google Earth and saw a sunken road or pathway not 250 metres away from the Fyrd position. I had my "Malfosse"! Now all that remains is find out who owns the land, find someone with a metal detector and put the two together ( Ugh, Forestry Commission)!

Here is what it looks like in real life in relation to the second and main battlefield. 

Alternative Site for the 1066 Battle of Hastings.

Tying down the actual Battle site?

It's been a long time since I posted anything new on this blog. Partly, this is due to my absolute fascination with the computer game "No Man's Sky" ( I'm more than half way through my third galaxy with over 100,000,000 units in hand) and partly me thinking there was nothing new to add to our understanding of the Battle. How wrong I was!

Between my last post and this one I've been to Bayeux to look at the Tapestry first hand and to find out the received wisdom that was being promulgated. I wish I hadn't bothered. The Tapestry is hung in a very nice setting and one is given a commentary device which once started doesn't stop until you reach the end of the Tapestry - that gives you 20 mins to view the whole thing! One can go around again but if you listen to the commentary you have to move at the pace of the commentary and not at your own pace.

The Bayeux Museum also represents a moment of revelation to me. Never before did I feel able to question what I was being told but this visit revealed the "cracks in the plaster"! For instance, the Museum had a display inviting the viewer to guess who had the strongest claim to the throne of England on the death of Edward. Was it William, Harold or some Scandinavian geezer? It then laid out the bloodlines and posed the question "Who do you think...?" Well since Edward had no offspring etc, etc..... Wrong!!! The Norman idea of inheriting the throne DID NOT OPERATE in England at that time. At the death of the old King, the Witan ( a council of hereditary nobles) met together to decide who would make the best ruler for the Country. Sure, they would heed the "advice" of a previous occupant but not be governed by it ( On the death of Æthelred the Unready, Knut , King of the Danelaw area of England was asked to rule) So the Throne of England worked in the same way as the Roman Catholic papacy operates today - namely the person elected to office was elected for life.

Anyway, I'm getting distracted. Back to the matter in hand.

This is what I wrote in "Where's the Battle Site?" published on 22nd September 2015

"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."


I mentioned the nearby spring because casualties amongst William's cavalry was light and the battle lasted so long that Harold must have found a way to neutralise the effectiveness of these troops. I think the neutralisation  of Williams cavalry is key in determining the actual battle site.

From what I've gleamed from that guy from the TV who is an expert on medieval weaponry is the mounted soldier has the height advantage when facing infantry. So if the ground was not firm beneath the horses hooves then the guy on the horse would have had half a brain figuring out where was safe to manoeuvre his horse while having only half his brain trying to kill the Saxon warrior that was trying to kill him!

Another way of neutralising cavalry is to overcome the height advantage. In other words, raise up the Saxon or make the cavalry unit fight from a lower elevation. The "official" battle site does this by having the Saxons on top of Senlac Ridge. My current choice of battle site does this too.  However neither site is supported by the Bayeux Tapestry...

If we examine the Bayeux Tapestry on plate 55/56 we see William talking to his scouts ascertaining the whereabouts of Harold quite clearly on a "hill". In the next screen we have an English scout spotting the Normans and reporting back to Harold. Notice the depiction of the ground. The artist clearly saw the ground as being a little hilly. Is this an attempt to say that Telham Hill was at a higher elevation than where Harold was? ( As an aside the commentary on page 192  of David Wilson's book, says that Williams troops "saw " the English troops on Battle Ridge. This would only be possible if ALL  obstructions  higher than 7 metres (Approx 17 feet) had been cleared in what was considered to be a sparsely wooded area between Telham Hill Fort and Battle Ridge).

It is not until plate 65 b do we see any depiction in the change of terrain even though we've seen lots of fighting and dying. This change is a depiction of a "horse trap"which kills a number of horses ( and subsequently a number of their riders) being no match for the unarmoured Saxons fighting from ABOVE the incoming cavalry.

On plate 66 b/67 a we have the Saxons themselves on a substantial mound.In the commentary associated with this plate on page 193 ( The Bayeux Tapestry by David M Wilson)  the author assigns this picture to the action that took place in a place known as "Malfosse" after the battle had been won. To my mind this looks suspiciously like a cross section of a prepared defence against the cavalry. Indeed, the defence was so good that it was as this point that the rumour of William's demise took hold and the troops were routing.

So according to the Bayeux Tapestry we are looking for a site where Harold met his scouts, assembled his troops on reasonably flat ground, found a ridge and prepared anti-horse defences in front of it . He also managed to kill most of William's infantry ( not seen in the Tapestry other than as dead bodies in the lower margins).  The site or area that can match these conditions lie in the area surrounding ...... remembering to obey all laws and regulations concerning metal detecting on important national sites of interest ..... is 50 N 55' 57" 0 E 27' 43".

The ridge is approx 130 metres away running on a bearing of 220 deg.

King Edward the poisoner?

Godwin -  Act of Revenge?

So can we believe the Norman cleric that wrote about Godwin choking on a piece of bread after making an oath to Edward regarding Godwin's part in Alfred's death ? According to historians this is just propaganda in order to get Edward recognised as a saint.

Here's what the Abingdon version of the Anglo Saxon Chronicle has to say.

"...

1053: In this year the King was at Winchester at Easter, with him Earl Godwin and Earl Harold, his son and Tostig. When on the second day of Easter he sat at table with the King, he suddenly sank down against the footstool, speechless and helpless: he was carried into the Kings chamber and it was thought it would pass off, but it was not to be: yet he lingered on like this, unable to speak and helpless until the Thursday; and he gave up his life.

..."

The Thursday in question was 15 April 1053

The book "The Life and times of St Edward, King and confessor" ( pages 64 and 65) has it that Edward and Godwin were sitting together when a servant trips but manages to keep his footing. Godwin says something about a "brother helping a brother in trouble" and Edward, thinking of the deceased Alfred, makes a barbed reply. Whereupon, Godwin  makes a plea to the King saying in effect "let God make me choke on this bread if I've done you wrong". Godwin puts the bread in his mouth, swallows and chokes to death.

Godwin was 52.

Means

 Both reports has the King and Godwin eating together but the Anglo Saxon Chronicle actually time stamps the event. 

Now, Edward must have picked up some herb lore during the time of his exile. No one seems particularly amazed it his "healing" powers and the saying in the "Return of the King" p 842 ( JRR Tolkien) "The hands of the King are the hands of a healer" could have it's roots in this time. 

Motive

Edward seems to have a couple of motives for wanting Godwin dead. 

First and foremost in my mind is the death of his elder brother, Alfred. 

Alfred came to England with 25 ships with plans to seize the English throne. It's not clear to me when this took place but what is crystal clear is that Godwin was put in charge of getting rid of this challenge. Godwin did what he was told to by the present King of England and therefore it could not have been  traitorous as has been intimated by the book "The Life and times of St Edward, King and confessor" ( pages 64 and 65).  

The second motive surrounds Edward's mother Emma of Normandy. She was accused jointly by Godwin and Robert, Archbishop of Canterbury of having "unchaste"conversations with Alwin, Bishop of Winchester amongst other "crimes".  Once Emma had "proved " her innocence no doubt Edward really wanted to "get back" at, at least, one of her accusers.

Previous Form?

Edward returns to England in 1041 at the behest of someone  probably Emma working through Godwin. There is some confusion as to whether or not he was made regent. However, at a wedding banquet held in Lambeth, London, Harthacnut apparently was hale and hearty ( according to John of Worcester) until he took a drink - at which point Harthacnut drops down dead. The death reads as being very suspicious and who should be there too? Yes Edward.

Opportunity

Emma dies in 1052.  Godwin,  et al returns in 1052 at the head of impressive forces which forces Edward to re-instate the Earldoms etc. So Easter 1053 probably represents the first opportunity at a religious festival the Edward has to meet his troublesome Earl. It's interesting to note that Robert Former Archbishop of Canterbury is reputed to have died in the same year. ( Loyn English Church p. 59)

Personal Thoughts

The more I dig into Edward's life story the more I seem to find fault with his rule. He seemed to have forgotten his English roots in favour of his French ones. I have no problems with him being gay but in my mind he was not an "English " King. I think the title of the last English King should rest with Harold or even Æthelred but certainly not with Edward.

Emma of Normandy: Her part in the pre-1066 shenanigans?

Emma of Normandy

This woman seems to have lived though much of the late early medieval history of England. Born in 985 to the then Duke of Normandy and his second wife, Gunnora. She was married to Æthelred the Unready in 1002. Her first born, Alfred, according to the chronicler of  Life and Times of King Edward, was passed over by the Witan in favour of his unborn brother Edward. This suggests to me that the time between Alfred's birth and the marriage ceremony was less than 9 months rather than "the Witan being moved by the Holy Spirit". So at age 17 she was already pregnant, probably why her Father so easily agreed to her becoming Æthelred's second wife. 

Year of Our Lord 1005

Ecgberht, one of the five sons of Æthelred, dies. But Emma gives birth?

Year of Our Lord 1008

Eadgar, another of the five sons of Æthelred dies. But Emma gives birth again?

Year of our Lord 1014

This is supposed to be the year that Æthelstan, the oldest of Æthelred's male offspring dies (3 down and two to go). I haven't found out the cause of death but there is an interesting story. Apparently, Æthelstan made a new will on the day of his death and in it he makes NO MENTION of his second family. So all his worldly goods are distributed to his full surviving brothers, Edmund and Eadwig, and others including the church.

Year of Our Lord 1016

This is a momentous year.

Æthelred dies aged 48. The Witan decides that neither Edmund nor Eadwig are suitable candidates for the throne of England and instead selects Cnut to become King. Emma and her children are forced into exile as is Eadwig. Edmund, with the backing of the London burghs, disputes the decision and stages a rebellion. After about 5 months of on and off fighting, someone slips a blade into Edmund and he is no more. And then there was one.

Cnut the Great was the first Danish king of England. He had inherited the Danelaw area of England from his father Sven Forkbeard. So from 1016 until 1035 Canute (English spelling) ruled England.

Birth of Canute's first son Harold, who was illegitimate.

Year of Our Lord 1017

So Eadwig, sole surviving son of Æthelred, is now made an outlaw by Canute. From memory, isn't it the case that an outlaw was outside the law and therefore could be killed with impunity? However, Eadwig manages to make peace with Canute, only to be murdered later on in the year. 1017 also sees Canute marry Emma. Not knowing the exact dates involved could the timeline look something like this...

Canute marries Emma.

Emma conceives. 

Emma persuades Canute to make Eadwig an outlaw.

Eadwig bypasses Emma and becomes respectable again. 

Eadwig lets his guard down and is murdered on Emma's orders.

And the last son of Æthelred makes an exit, stage right. 

Year of Our Lord 1018

Birth of Harthacnut - mother, Emma of Normandy, -  father, Canute the Great.


Year of Our Lord 1035

Canute dies, Harold elected king. Emma aged 50, now has the role of "Dowager Queen"

Year of Our Lord 1036

Alfred makes a bid on the throne of England with an "army" contained on 25 ships. Alfred is subsequently killed by Earl Godwin. According the chronicler of "The life and times of St Edward, King and Confessor" this is when Prince Edward laments " .... and my own Mother, careless of my safety, is given in marriage to the only envy-er and destroyer of my Glory...."

Year of Our Lord 1040

Harold dies and Harthacnut is elected King

Year of Our Lord 1042

Harthacnut dies and the Witan decides to return to the House of Wessex for the next King.
Now aged 57, Emma could have persuaded the Witan to elect her "second" son to take up the throne of England.

Year of Our Lord 1052

Emma dies aged about 67.

My Thoughts

I have grown to dislike this woman intensely over the past few months as I have researched her life and times. Given she was "Queen" of England from 1002 until 1016 and from 1017 until 1035, (that makes about 39 years in total) shows she was a born survivor. She also had two offspring take up the crown of England  ( both having different fathers) which shows she was an expert manipulator too.
No doubt the accomplishments of this woman in those very male dominated times rank up there with the best. No one can take that away from her but she put someone on the throne who decidedly put England on a collision course with disaster. 

Battle of Hastings Site - Experimental Entry

Experimental Entry

I've had 256 views and no comments! So I don't know if you people out there in internetspace agree or disagree with my theory of where the "Battle of Hastings" was fought. This entry I hope will change this. 

In coming to my decision as where the battle took place I laid down a few criteria in the hope that it would lead to the actual site and not one solely based on the site of Battle Abbey. What I would like you, yes you, to do is send me one criterion ( in English if possible) you think is relevant. If you like, this is a thought shower and you're providing the rain or at least a droplet!

To start the ball rolling then .....

1. The battle took place on what is still a "green"field site. This means that the site has not been developed with houses or roads. Otherwise some or a lot of stuff from the 11th century would have come to life and folk would know where the bloody battle took place and I wouldn't be doing this. This criterion does rule out Time Teams preferred option of the mini- roundabout but not the English Heritage site "next door". 

2. The battle took place between Harold's overnight camp and Williams lookout position on Telham Hill. This criterion  rules out Crowhurst as the battle site because would any sane commander give up the high ground on Telham Hill (142 m above sea level) to fight a pitched battle from Crowhurst Church (20 m above sea level). 

3.... 

Over to you.

2nd July 2016

3. The place that Harold drew up his troops must have been very defendable by 7000 or so foot troops. This is because some reports mention the battle went on for 9 hours ( most battles of that time only lasted about a couple (2) hours. 

One thing that bothers me is the lack of casualties amongst the cavalry. We are told that the cavalry charged several times only to be repulsed by the Saxon line but the number of casualties was about the same overall initially and that most of the nobles fighting for the Normans survived. This leads me to think that the cavalry was neutralised rather than engaged. 

4. Harold had time on the morning of the battle to prepare defenses against the Norman cavalry.