Battle of Hastings

Fifteen primary, literary sources were studied when the project, whose aim was to locate the battlesite of Fulford, began. These sources provided the basis for the early archaeological research by seeking matches between the text and the landscape although over 20 recent writings, which suggested battle locations, were used to define the scope of the search area. The literature was then employed to understand the actions described but now set in the context of the landscape from the time of the battle that had been revealed by archaeology. This paper sets out how early literature was employed as another archaeological resource. It was the iterative way that the landscape and literature were tested and how, subsequently, the actions described and the physical finds were consistent with the literature that allowed the battlesite to be confidently identified. This paper describes the rigorous tests applied to the written words. A 'good' fit is not enough since many landscapes can matched to the limited words therefore all the revealed evidence must be effectively a perfect match. Selecting from among the sources is also not acceptable and this discipline ensured that the work did not stop with a 'satisfactory' or approximate solution. Current scholarship of ancient Norse literature is focused on assembling and comparing the translated ancient, fragmentary text and advises against taking the actions or the landscape descriptions literally. Historians are similarly equivocal and seek relevance in the discrepancies between written records, preferring to focus on the personalities and consequences of battle. So historians are in agreement with literary scholars in suggesting that descriptions cannot be taken literally. This assumption is challenged just as, in the second half of the 19 th century, Heinrich Schliemann was guided by ancient texts to identify mythic sites, such as Troy. The excellent correspondence found between the English, Norse or French writing and the physical evidence at Fulford argues that, taken together, ancient scribes and historians provide a reliable description of the landscape and course of events. In this context the words 'taken together' does not imply some averaging but that the various sources interlock so they can help clarify each other like a sequence of clues. One key to an archaeological approach to literature is that words and their meanings can be interpreted in the light of physical evidence as it brings us closer to understanding what the writer was trying to record. Such re-interpretation does not imply a licence to change any text but only to explore what the writer might have meant by providing a physical context. This is not to suggest that translators must familiarise themselves with the landscape but advocates that a full understanding of what is meant will benefit from studying the context where the words are applied. Texts, ancient and modern, are however not without errors. The challenge of assessing accuracy of early literature is addressed with reference to the various archaeological projects. The context in which ancient authors were writing is relevant as it can assist our understanding of what they chose, or were able, to record and modern scholarship continues to illuminate this issue. Fortunately for this research, the inconsistencies, inaccuracies and errors in the various accounts relate to names and dates rather than the events or the landscape of the battle. Locating the site of an ephemeral event represents a considerable archaeological challenge where the prevailing techniques are better suited to excavating graves, middens, structures and settlements. The work required to identify this battlefield called for the deployment of a full range of investigative techniques. But it was the data, provided by the early writing about the battle, that defined the search area which was matched using landscape research to understand how the area would have looked at the time of the battle. This research is reported elsewhere with only their conclusions noted in this paper with a few images provided to give the story some context. The outcome of conflict is often determined by marginal, and sometimes, random factors which can only be appreciated when the landscape is identified and scientifically examined. Studies that are confined to what

Beeches had a variety of uses in medieval times. The wood was a source of fuel and the woodlands were used to turn out pigs. Beech nuts were a food, collected for winter use from beech orchards. The wood was too soft to use as a building material, but was used for writing on – hence the Anglo-Saxon word 'boc' (beech/book). 1 There are 37 trees or groups of trees on the tapestry and it has been widely noticed that trees are used as scene endings. 2 Beeches favour free draining soils such as chalk, limestone, or light loams, which is why they have grown naturally in England below the line that stretches from the Wash to the Severn. This also predisposes the trees to grow on banks or ramparts. In her analysis of the tapestry trees, ancient tree specialist Jill Butler has written that 'the buds on the trees vary, differentiating at least oak and ash trees, the compartmentalisation of the trunks seems to be emphasised by the coloured stripes and even the hollowing of the trunks has been captured.' As far as I am aware no one has yet identified any of the trees on the tapestry as beeches. This article attempts to identify a number of beech trees in the tapestry, which might lend support for Simon Coleman's site at Beech Farm as the proposed battlefield site. I will also discuss the last scene of the tapestry in relation to Malfosse. Malfosse and the Forest The last scene of the Bayeux Tapestry (above) depicts what happened after Harold died and the battle was over. One version of events is that the chase led the remaining soldiers into nearby forest and probably to Malfosse. The scene features a large tree that divides the action on the left of the scene from that on the right. Lucien Musset has commented that 'the tree which separates the hunters from the hunted looks nothing like the rest of the trees on the tapestry'. 3 Musset has a point – the tree is distinctive – but I would disagree that there is no resemblance to other trees, and I will return to this later. The terrain changes (from left to right in the scene above) from bumpy uneven ground (the battlefield) to what looks like a woodland floor (suggested by the brown wavy line) where there is a large tree. The position of the tree three quarters of the way along the scene suggests that it symbolises the entry 1

This book makes a careful examination of occult mysteries hidden in plain sight on the Bayeux Tapestry. The Bayeux Tapestry is an embroidered cloth made in the 1070s. It is nearly 70 metres (230 ft) long and 50 centimetres (20 in) tall with embroidered captions describing events leading up to the Norman conquest of England concerning William, Duke of Normandy (a.k.a William the Conqueror), and Harold, Earl of Wessex, later King of England, and culminating in the Battle of Hastings.
William the Conqueror of whom much of the Bayeux Tapestry concerns, is related to King John Lackland of England (a.k.a John Plantagenet) from whom all 44 American presidents bar one (Martin Van Buren, the eighth president) are credited as direct descendants.

The Battle of Hastings is revealed by the finding of the Malfosse and the original version of the Abbey built in Crowhurst East Sussex. Norman metal found in the Malfosse and soon the Saxon bones will be found. English Heritage have refused to attend the site or even discuss it. The original Hastings hidden, but history and archaeology cannot be hidden, because you do not like the message that comes from the past. Academic discussion welcome. Over 10,000 sold in the UK to the public it is now free to academic audience please do not post the document on public web sites. Kickstarter project reaps rewards in public knowledge.
Youtube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGfTmoXaJZb7GgVqcWZpHwQ

The Bayeux Tapestry (or rather, embroidery) is one of the most famous medieval artworks, which narrates in images the conquest of England by the Normans led by Duke William the Conqueror. Images taken from the embroidery are reproduced on thousands of objects evoking the Middle Ages, and at the same time the work has been the subject of hundreds of studies in many European countries, by historians, art historians and narrative scholars. In all of this, some questions and some answers are lacking, in particular with regard to the political culture expressed in the work: there is no doubt that the embroidery is a narrative of the exploits of William the Conqueror, an attempt to reconcile the English and Normans and in part an exaltation of the role of Odo, bishop of Bayeux; but it is also the expression of a series of political ideals and models of order, a reading and an evaluation of the system of contemporary power, organized around the kingdom and based on the primacy of the aristocracy and the value of personal ties. The volume aims to follow this line of research, showing how the embroidery, from many points of view (the political ceremonial, the role of the king, the aristocratic bonds of fidelity), reflects a social imaginary and a series of clearly recognizable political ideals.

Explains our theory that the Battle of Hastings was fought at Hurst Lane near Sedlescombe. Also explains why we think that the Normans entered England in the Brede estuary, landed on the north bank of the Brede, and camped at Winchelsea.

Third Edition: Made less 'folksy' and removed section about alternative battlefields.
Second Edition: Improved graphics, changed font, improved readability. Rev 2 updated with survey results from BAG.

Rev 1, 2, 3a: Fixed some typos and switched Appendix A section on Haestingaceastre and Haestingaport.

Rev 3b. Fixed an ambiguity regarding Latin translation of Warrenne Chronicle
Rev 3c: Elaborated on a minor point in Hastinges placenames
Rev 3d: Added reference Forestry paper about understory coverage in British ancient woodland by Elisa Fuentes-Montemayor
Rev 3e: Tried to improve the readability and flow of some major sections

Harold Godwinson's journey to France, depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry, is nowadays mostly regarded as rather reckless attempt to free two hostages in Normandy. It is a curious incident, interrupting Harold's ascent to power in his homeland. William of Malmesbury's description of it as a fishing party has always been dismissed as a silly explanation. This article connects Malmesbury's phrase 'commentum' ('pretext') with other sources on the expedition. This comparison shows that Harold's boat trip and his intended diplomacy in France were not an interlude in his policy, but formed a continuation of his cautious, calculated manoeuvres towards possession of the English throne.

An Account of the Norman Conquest of England (1043-1086) from an Orthodox Christian point of view, arguing that the Conquest was not only a political but also a spiritual event, being the destruction of Orthodox Christianity in England and its replacement by Roman Catholicism

A model for the development of Hastings immediately prior to the Norman Conquest in 1066 is put forward, which explores the new thesis that a burh or citadel was created on the castle site at Hastings by King AEthelred in c.990 as one element in a possibly systematic defence of southern England against the new Viking invaders. This was associated with the establishment of a mint, and led directly to the development of the town of Hastings from this time, together with a probable port and associated shipbuilding industry. This defended site, provided with defences, a tower-nave church and a monumental gateway, survived to be used by Duke William for two weeks in the autumn of 1066 as his military command centre, in preparation for the battle which made possible his subsequent conquest of England.

This review of perhaps the most crucial and in its effects most far-reaching year in English history presents historical events in an unconventional and at points even bizarre  manner. Could Emma of Normandy be described as a 'gal. We are sometimes in danger of forgetting that famous historical personages were real people like - I hesitate to suggest - you and I'
Other matters of possible interest:


https://www.academia.edu/41824694/A_UNIVERSE_OF_SYMBOLS

Il presente volume, partendo dal racconto delle origini storiche dei Normanni e degli Anglosassoni, ripercorre le varie tappe che portarono alla battaglia di Hastings del 14 ottobre 1066 e alla storica vittoria di Guglielmo, potente Duca di Normandia che passò dal ruolo di “bastardo” a quello di “Conquistatore”. Il racconto di quegli eventi si accompagna a una dettagliata analisi tecnica  (e storicoartistica) del celebre Arazzo di Bayeux, soffermandosi in ultimo sugli importanti elementi di novità portati da Guglielmo una volta asceso al trono d’Inghilterra.

Our analysis of place names from Battle of Hastings contemporary accounts, extracted from our book 'The Battle of Hastings at Sedlescombe'.

Draft Rev 2: Fixed some stupid errors. 
Draft Rev 3: Fixed some broken cross references
Draft Rev 4: Added a Table of Contents
Draft Rev 5: Fixed an anomalous, and plainly ridiculous, header
Draft Rev 6: Added bibliography and tidied up the layout
Draft Rev 7: Improved clarity, in part by converting some narrative lists into bullet point lists
Draft Rev 8: Improved clarity, in part by standardising the spelling of some place names 
Draft Rev 9: Improved clarity by moving more stuff into bullet point lists
Draft Rev 10: Tidied up some messy explanations
Draft Rev 11: More tidying of messy explanations
Draft Rev 12: Tidied up Hastingas section
Draft Rev 13: Reordered the sections and replaced some Winchelse by Old Winchelsea
Draft Rev 15: Fixed some ambiguities
Draft Rev 16: Now refer to pefenes ea as Old Pevensey, and switched all references to consonantal u to v, to reduce confusion about pronunciation
Draft Rev 17: Switch Hastingaport and Hastingaceastre
Draft Rev 18: Restored a point accidentally edited out and reworded some paragraphs in Hastinges for clarity

But for the sake of frequent and long when he finally held by the marital bond emissaries decided, it is difficult to imagine how vast into each another arose a magnitude of delight. For he rejoiced: for the king, the use of the most noble and the little chambers, had unexpectedly entered upon; But these are on the one side the most admirable valor of his wife; Even here, the happy hope excited to future offspring.'' Queen Emma describes her first night as the wife of King Cnut Encomium Emmae Reginae twice a queen-the story of emma

Notre communication propose de mettre en avant les représentations iconographiques de la bataille d’Hastings, dans les chroniques historiques de la fin du Moyen Age, et plus précisément dans la Grande Chronique de Normandie produite aux XIVe et XVe siècles. En effet, sur un corpus comptant cinquante quatre images, seules quatre présentent ce thème. Produits pour l’essentiel pendant la guerre de Cent Ans, notamment sous l’occupation anglaise, les manuscrits sont riches de textes relatant la bataille de 1066 alors que les images sont peu nombreuses. Comment pouvons-nous expliquer ce phénomène ? Est-il lié aux commanditaires, aux destinataires ou encore aux méconnaissances des artistes chargés d’enluminer ces œuvres ? Ainsi, nous tenterons de déterminer si cette faible représentation est volontaire ou non, et si elle est liée au contexte historique. Enfin nous comparerons cette production avec d’autres chroniques historiques de la fin du Moyen Age, qu’elles soient rattachées à l’histoire anglaise ou non. Ainsi, nous verrons que la bataille d’Hastings ne représente pas un tabou dans la production iconographique de la fin du Moyen Age.

Resumo: Este artigo tem por objetivo analisar as diferenças técnicas e militares entre o exército normando de Guilherme da Normandia e o exército anglo-saxão de Haroldo Godwinson que se confrontaram na Batalha de Hastings de 1066. Para isso, utilizamos como fontes a Tapeçaria de Bayeux e a Crônica de Guilherme de Poitiers, bem como dialogamos com a historiografia da história militar inglesa. Dessa forma, observamos que as diferenças de armas e estratégias existentes entre os exércitos anglo-saxões e normandos, influenciadas pelas condições econômicas e sociais de ambos, favoreceram a vitória das forças invasoras normandas no campo de batalha.