"Battle of Hastings 'fought at site of mini roundabout'" Topic

Any thoughts on this?

link

Seemed plausible to me…good documentary.

Makes sense… Normans managed to confuse the Anglo-Saxons by approaching the roundabout in the right-hand lane and failing to indicate.

Very funny.

I watched this programme last night.

Having been to the battlefield several times it seems a reasonable theory. The town of Battle is quite small and the roundabout is only a couple of hundred yards from the alter of the abbey. The main adjustment is to the orientation of the English line.

I thought the substance of the documentary pretty thin for an hour long programme. The only new/interesting thing was the aerial-radar survey. Significantly, having proposed the roundabout theory as the battle site, no attempt was made to put in trenches and prove their opinion by 'finds'. Really, just another Time Team pantomime in the end.

PS. The location of the axe-head' find from some time ago has never been pin-pointed and could be anywhere in the area -just like the site of the battle, in fact.

Why can't we accept that the people who built the Battle Abbey knew what they were doing? Seems kinda non-controversial to me.

Dn Jackson has a point. We weren't at the battle (or at least I wasn't) whereas William I was. Even so, later generations may have got the orientation of the battle vis a vis the Abbey wrong.
Huh! Who needs aeriel-radar, just look at it on Google Earth.

Why can't we accept that the people who built the Battle Abbey knew what they were doing? Seems kinda non-controversial to me

Because the monks had a vested interest in the story that the abbey was built on the battlefield site and that their rights of ownership dated back to William I, among other reasons. It is not uncommon in the medieval period for the church to embellish stories to their own advantage, and even to forge documents that reinforced the stories.

Battle Abbey was begun by William I in 1070 at the command of the Pope as a penance for killing so many people during the conquest of England. It was therefore William who decided the site not the monastics. William was there at the battle (!!) so we can only assume that he knew the correct site.

What's your evidence for this statement, Major Bumsore? The ASC does not record Battle Abbey before 1086, and then only briefly. Much of the broader, more embellished story comes from the 'Chronicle of Battle Abbey', which is of twelfth century date. This Chronicle is known to have various verifiable inaccuracies in it, so at least its first half is open to question. William of Malmesbury records some bits about the abbey some fifty years earlier, but even he reports it as hearsay from the monks, rather than as fact.

Do you think that William the Bastard actually stood on the ground and said to the monks, "You may have this bit, where I stood over the dead body of Harold" or words to that effect? Or is it not more likely that he sent an agent out to the area and said, give the monks a parcel of land that seems right to you and is in the vicinity of the battle, and don't bother me too much about it, because I am too busy being a king?

It's possible that the tradition is entirely correct, but, as historians, we should question first and conclude only what the evidence will support.

The ASC does not record Battle Abbey before 1086, and then only briefly.

That's probably because construction was not completed until 1094.

Further detail and sources here:
link

Do you think that William the Bastard actually stood on the ground and said to the monks, "You may have this bit, where I stood over the dead body of Harold" or words to that effect?

Yes, I do, although it is only conjectural. My reason for so believing is that he ws given a direct order by the Pope to build the abbey and in the medieval mind such a spiritual obligation was not something you could easily delegate.

The roundabout actually appears in the lower border of the Bayeaux Tapestry. See under the caption: "hic ceciderunt Lewine et Gyrd".

The roundabout actually appears in the lower border of the Bayeaux Tapestry. See under the caption: "hic ceciderunt Lewine et Gyrd".

!!!

Even the 1094 entry is minimalist, lacking detail about the exact proceedings. It's only the later sources that flesh them out.

Yes, I do, although it is only conjectural. My reason for so believing is that he ws given a direct order by the Pope to build the abbey and in the medieval mind such a spiritual obligation was not something you could easily delegate.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this then.

I suspect that much of William's dedication to spiritual obligations was for the sake of appearances and for political reasons. He strikes me as a thoroughly pragmatic and political beast, who only really served himself. Being able to report to the Pope that he had built the abbey would have been enough for him, unless the Pope specifically ordered him to go and actually indicate the right place himself. But then, that is just my reading of his character.

The roundabout actually appears in the lower border of the Bayeaux Tapestry. See under the caption: "hic ceciderunt Lewine et Gyrd".

Crikey, so it does, and they buried a poor soldier partially underneath it too.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this then.

I suspect that much of William's dedication to spiritual obligations was for the sake of appearances and for political reasons. He strikes me as a thoroughly pragmatic and political beast, who only really served himself. Being able to report to the Pope that he had built the abbey would have been enough for him, unless the Pope specifically ordered him to go and actually indicate the right place himself. But then, that is just my reading of his character.

We will indeed have to disagree. One thing that modern historians often fail to take into account is how important and significant religious faith was to the medieval people and their mindset. The Pope was (and to Catholics, still is) the Head of the Church and when the Pope said "jump" they jumped! It wasn't until the 16th century England that Henry VIII refused to acknowledge the Pope's authority. In 11th Century England, the king was appointed by God to rule and therefore in a way owed his authority to do so from the Church. You did not really become king until you were anointed by the Archbishop.

We like to think that they were "men of the world" just like us, but I respectfully submit that religion and the Church played a huge part in their whole lifestyle and mindset.

I respectfully submit that religion and the Church played a huge part in their whole lifestyle and mindset.

I totally agree with this. The Church did play a huge part in their mindset. Understanding that mindset is a cornerstone of understanding the period. Nevertheless, the rulers of nations did not always do what the Church said. The number of conflicts between Church and State is testament to that, as is the imprisonment of Pope Leo IX after the defeat of his army at Civitate in 1053, to name but one example.

I'm going to step away from this, else we shall go round in circles, because we both have our own views on the subject.

I just watched the programme on 4od. It seemed a bit superficial, but I found the gist of the argument worth considering, even if I would like to see more evidence to support it.

The third position for the battle seemed very plausible to me. If William was coming up from Hastings, he would have had to use the track which approaches the roundabout. His flanks would have been protected by the marshy ground. If Harold's position was the traditional one, surely William would have had to veer to the left to engage him, passing through the low ground at the bottom of the Abbey ridge. In 1066 that would have been very difficult ground to move over, especially for cavalry. It seems much more logical that he would have carried on up the road and Harold's fighting line would have had to block him there.
The lack of any archaeological finds in the traditional field has to be supportive of the case against it, although I appreciate that in a pre- gunpowder age there may well be few artefacts to find. Key question though is where are the bodies? Surely there would have been several hundred corpses ( if not more) on the actual battlefield, as well as hundreds more killed in the pursuit. I cannot imagine that the victors would have been very careful in burying them- dig a big hole close to where they fell and throw them in seems to have been the usual way.

The bodies, at least the English bodies, were left on the battlefield to rot, so I believe. So wind and weather may well have distributed the bones far and wide. However, as mentioned above … if we could dig up the roundabout…

In 1139 Pope Innocent II outlawed the use of crossbows, bows and slings against Christians. Doesn't seem to have had much impact.

The lack of any archaeological finds in the traditional field has to be supportive of the case against it,

Be careful there. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

dig a big hole close to where they fell and throw them in seems to have been the usual way.

Actually not so common as you might think. Bearing in mind my previous commenst about the role of religion in the medieval world, great efforts were often made to bury the fallen from a battle in consecrated ground. To be buried in unconsecrated ground was almost to be condemed to Hell and thus unthinkable for a baptised Christian.

In 1139 Pope Innocent II outlawed the use of crossbows, bows and slings against Christians. Doesn't seem to have had much impact.

I was referring to a direct command to an individual. Defiance in such circumstances could lead to excommunication.

great efforts were often made to bury the fallen from a battle in conscrated ground. To be buried in unconsecrated ground was almost to be condemned to Hell and thus unthinkable for a baptised Christian

This ecclesiastical imperative seems to contradict the claims that the English were left unburied; and contradicts the evidence of the Battle of Visby [1361] unless the Swedes weren't Christian.

I wasn't going to comment further, but idle googling has led me further on the topic of refusing direct demands from the Pope. I just came across a reference to William refusing a direct demand for fealty from Pope Gregory VII. The demand is only preserved in letters from William and Lanfranc to the Pope, but it is quite clear what is going on. It seems to have been made in the 1070s, and instead of excommunication, Pope Gregory appears to have acquiesced to William's position.

So we had the 'King in the Carpark', now it's the 'Rumble at the Roundabout'…

I just came across a reference to William refusing a direct demand for fealty from Pope Gregory VII.

There is no reason why any king should give fealty to a Pope. The Pope had no temporal authority and therefore could not demand fealty. There is a clear division between Church and State. It is therefore not surprising that William refused this demand. The Pope could not threaten him with excommunication because actually he had no right to demand fealty.

In the medieval mindset, a king was divinely appointed to rule his realm under God and therefore received his right to rule directly from God. The only fealty owed by a medieval king was to God himself.

Gee thanks! Already done a Harold back in 2002, London to YORK to BATTLE in 48hours and now you tell me I missed it by 200metres…..meh.

Oh, and how is it working out having a French/Nordic upper class running the place?

William developed a track record for blowing off the pope, during his reign, with the notable exception of the penitence request. In my mind, William was not so much worried about the pope when he built the abbey but rather his own nobles. The papal demand for penitence was not directed against William but rather his whole army. If he didn't acquiesce here then he would have a whole bunch of nobles upset with him for potentially sending them to hell. Also notable is that the pope did not request that he build a monastery in any exact spot, but rather it listed the things they needed to be penitent for and what each transgression was worth. Building an abbey seems to be a way to throw money at the problem.

This indicates to me that there is no reason to believe that William cared exactly where the monastery would be placed. Of course it doesn't prove that they built it in the wrong place either.

The Bayeux Tapestry does seem to depict Saxon spearmen on a hill , but as far as I know there is no depiction of a road :

Yes there is: Lower right, just below the blue horse; a cobbled road.

Having actually been able to watch the programme now, I found it extremely interesting. First of all, with Dr Glenn Foard involved any conclusion will have to be taken seriously. Dr Foard is the foremost Battlefield Archaeologist in the UK (the guy that found Bosworth) – if he didn't agree with Time Team's conclusions he would have refused to be in it.

Secondly, I was amused by the way Time Team humoured Nick Austin – the guy who thinks the battle was fought near Crowhurst and that there were Turks armed with crossbows present (!!). His "helmet rings" were summarily dismissed.

Finally, the revised location of the battlefield places the Abbey and the site of Harold's demise in just the right place – a short distance behind the Saxon line right where Harold would have made a desparate last stand.

I have always wondered why William's army didn't simply outflank the Saxon line. Now I think I understand.

Secondly, I was amused by the way Time Team humoured Nick Austin – the guy who thinks the battle was fought near Crowhurst and that there were Turks armed with crossbows present (!!). His "helmet rings" were summarily dismissed.

That bit made me giggle.

His "helmet rings" were summarily dismissed.

And done so by a fellow wargamer !