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. 

Bayeux Tapestry

*** This post will be subject to addition and amendment ***

Bayeux Tapestry

I think this tapestry has been over thought by historians  throughout the ages. I've been thinking about its purpose and have come to the conclusion that it is a record of the glorious conquest made by the Duke of Normandy in the name of the people of Normandy. And wasn't he a clever boy! It was never intended to be an accurate historical record of the battle - the old adage that History is written by the victors is so true here.

I'm going to be using the excellent "The Bayeux Tapestry" book by David M. Wilson to comment on the scenes depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry and using the plate numbers as references.

1. Plate 1 Saxon Harold has an audience with King Edward

King Edward is bearded but Harold and his retainer are moustachioed. Throughout the Tapestry the majority, if not all Saxons are so adorned

2. Plate 5 First depiction of Saxons with a Norman shield

Despite the depiction of  Saxons in a boat, they are shown with a "Normanesque"  teardrop shaped shields lining the gunwale of the boat they are travelling in.  How the hell could any Saxon born or Englishwoman of the time not know that the true shape of a Saxon shield is circular? According to the "experts", the tapestry was worked on by Englishwomen in the employ of a Norman master. Did they not say " Hold on a minute, my Fred had a round shield the day he died at Hastings. Why do you want me to give him a different shield?" "Well," the answer might have came back, "they're all wearing mustaches, that's how you can tell that they are Saxon"

After attending the 950th anniversary re-enactment I have learnt that there was a switch over from round shields to "teardrop" ones happening during the period.

3. Plate 9 First depiction of a Norman

On the extreme right of the plate we have someone wearing one of the most ridiculous haircuts of all time! It looks as ridiculous in a book as it does in real life. ( I've seen "Norman Knights" sporting the same haircut at a battle re-enactment at Senlac Ridge)

4. Plates 43 and 44  Horses disembark from the boats

In this scene we see horses running away from the boats after landing on "terra firma". Interestingly we never see the horses again until the battle scenes. This suggests that the horses were offloaded the once and made their own way to Hastings.

3. Plate 45 Horses run to Hastings for Food

All I can say to this description is "Picasso's cubes"! The cavalry was going to secure the landing place at the Port of Hastings. On the way the cavalry did do some damage as evidenced by Nick Austin ( and this plate) but secure the landing place they did. Any damage they did on the Hastings peninsula  would have been hidden by later pillaging.

4. Plate 47 Pevensey?

The fortification in the centre of this plate does look like the stone keep on the centre of Pevensey Castle nowadays. 

5. Plate 49/50 Castle at Hastings.  

Here the so called castle is being built under what seems to be the direction of William. The bands suggests that the motte was a substantial undertaking and built on a natural height. On plate 50 there is a tower placed in front of and only slightly overlapping the fort behind. The mound that the tower is built on is substantially less than the fort behind and is not raised up off the foot of the Tapestry. 

Taking on board what Nick Austin said about perspective and depiction, I could well believe what is shown here are the two forts erected at Hastings by William.

6. Plate 51 Hastings

The central scene is reputed to be a depiction of the town of Hastings. Notice the roofs of these building :- they seem to be made up of fish scale type shingles common here in Norway until quite recently. Even the house being set on fire on Plate 50 has these shingles. Given the different depiction of the roofs on the towers adjacent to the Higher fort and what is supposed to be the town of Hastings, one is left with the conclusion that the two towers must have been built by the Normans.

7.Plates 54/55 Norman Scout reports to William

There's a lot of pointing going on here. William ( on plate 54) is pointing at an identified Vital ( on plate 55) who has his arm raised indicating that Harold is near. Notice however that Vital's arm is not so raised as the scout's as seen on plate 50. This indicates that Harold is closer than in the time frame of plate 50. There's another pointing man on plate 55 but he happens to be on top of a big mound and pointing nearly horizontal. This could be indicating that Harold has been spotted at the summit of  Darwell Woods (Telham Hill 141m asl and Darwell Woods 162m asl).

8. Plate 56 Scout spots Normans and reports back to King Harold

I love the way that the hill the scout is on has been identified as being Caldbec Hill and that the scout travels across broken ground to report back to King Harold. As you may have seen from my "slice" , Caldbec Hill is part of quite a sharp ridge that runs into Battle village. Also if you look closely the scout is perched on the top of a triangle perhaps signifying that he was at the top of a hill. Then he has to go down the back of the hill and up another triangle to get to Harold. So Harold could not possibly be on Caldbec Hill  As the Normans were on Telham hill ( as depicted in Plate 55), yes it could be that the scout was on Caldbec Hill looking up at the Normans but it could have been the top of Darwell Wood or anywhere in the vicinity as long as there was line of sight. 

As an aside, John Grehan says in his book "The Battle of Hastings : The uncomfortable Truth"page 118 "... turn to websites with extreme caution ... enable those with no academic training and limited resources to express their opinions, ,,,, to offer alternative views to those of the mainstream." My response to that is each person has the right to look at any evidence and make up their own mind and add their opinion to the melee. It's not as if the "professional " historians have got it right over the Battle of Hastings. I doubt that I have got it "right" but I'm giving it my best with what's available to me. Only when the true site of the battle has been established will  conjecture be irrelevant. 

9. Plates 57 through to 66 Depiction of Terrain

Throughout these battle scenes there is really no depiction of terrain suggesting it did not play an important part in the battle. Howevere there are written accounts that suggest that the Normans attacked uphill. So what are to make of this anomaly?

 10. Plate 63 Dead Saxon with Saxon Shield

On the bottom fringe we have our first depiction of a Saxon shield covering a dead Saxon warrior.

11 . Plate 64 Battle (cont'd)

We now have the first sighting of a live Saxon fighting with a round shield. As the guy is in full armour, I suppose we could call him a Housecarl.

12. Plates 66/67  The Battle continues

What we have here is un-armoured men perched atop a mound fighting off mounted Norman cavalry and making a good show of it.  In this scene we see a Norman knight(?) spearing a defender. I'm in two minds about my interpretation of this scene. Firstly, is this a depiction of a reported last stand by the Fyrd separated from the main body or could it be the Malfosse defence in the wrong chronological order? I think the answer lies on 65b. What is depicted here looks like prepared anti-cavalry defences which makes the mound depicted on the following plates a cross-section of where the Fyrd were stationed.

13. Plate 73 Another 2 Arrows in the Eye!

On the far right of this plate we have two fleeing Saxons trying to pull an arrow out their eyes. No one has ever told me that these figures existed but this puts a different slant on our 'arold. While it is told that Harold was killed by an arrow in the eye it is quite plainly recorded here that being hit by an arrow is survivable.

Was King Edward the Confessor gay or just very innocent?

King Edward : Gay or just very innocent?

I've been studying the book " The Life of St. Edward, King and Confessor" R.F Jerome Porter is credited as author but I think it's an old translation [1710] of Matthew Paris's book of the 1230's or 1240's. 

I've only got as far as page 18 and what I've read so far makes me wonder if this celebrated King was in fact gay. On page 4 we are told  "He was always observed to refrain those vices which youth are commonly addicted to. He was of a chaste mind, sparing of speech, plain in his actions and pure in his affections". And from page 4 to 5 we have "... and to create strict Leagues    [page 5] of friendship with such monks as were most worthy of esteem for their singular piety and holiness of life." What is more telling however is the first anecdote told after he becomes king . The King is alone in his bed and money is deposited in the "treasury" ( the chest at the bottom of bed). The chest is left open ( allegedly) and a groom takes two "helpings" of money and comes back for a third when Edward says "you've got enough". Edward does not lay the blame at the chamberlains feet and dismisses the whole incident. Immediately afterwards, the Witan implores the king to marry and he does so under duress. King Edward, having taken a secret vow of chastity, never consummates the marriage.  ( Pages 16 to 18). 

I would have thought that it was a duty of a king to ensure that he had a male heir to carry on his line but since the throne was not hereditary perhaps we can forgive him his secret vow. However I think at that time he was probably thinking that his nephews might take over the throne but really the seeds of 1066 was sown by Edward much earlier.