Two recent studies are reshaping our understanding of the Battle of Hastings. One challenges the long-held belief about where the battle took place, while the other highlights the crucial role that weather played in the events of 1066.
The Battle of Hastings, fought on October 14, 1066, was a decisive conflict that marked the end of Anglo-Saxon rule in England and the beginning of Norman dominance. The battle saw William, Duke of Normandy, defeat King Harold II, who had only recently fended off an invasion from Norway. Harold’s death in the battle led to William’s ascent as William the Conqueror. This victory fundamentally altered the course of English history and is often the subject of many books and papers.
One of these papers, “Heathfield Down: An Alternative Location for the Battlefield of Hastings, 1066,” by Rebecca Welshman and Simon Coleman, offers a new site for the battle: Old Heathfield, which is about ten miles northwest of Battle Abbey (where most historians believe the battle took place). They also propose a scenario explaining why the English and Norman forces would have fought there.
Known and probable routes through and into East Sussex in 1066. – Image courtesy Rebecca Welshman and Simon Coleman
Among their evidence are several accounts written in the 18th and 19th centuries that suggest the battle took place in this area. For example, a 1751 edition of England’s Gazetteer states: “Heathfield, (Sussex), lies on a Down of its own name, near Burwash-Downs, 7m. from Hastings, and 12 from Tunbridge [Tonbridge, Kent] and Lewes. On this plain was fought the decisive battle bet. Will. the Conq. and K. Harold.”
It was also in this area that a bronze battle-axe was discovered in 1848, which at the time was connected to the Battle of Hastings. All this points to the idea that the Battle of Hastings was fought in Heathfield, at least according to local folklore.
Welshman and Coleman also find importance in a passage from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (D text), which explains that “com him togenes æt þære haran apuldran, and Wyllelm him com ongean on unwær, ær þis folc gefylced wære.” (“[Harold] came against him [William] at the grey apple tree. And William came upon him by surprise before his people were marshalled”). They believe that the English forces would have gathered at this apple tree because it was a significant landmark. There was such a “hoar apple tree” in Heathfield that served as a boundary marker.
These clues suggest to Welshman and Coleman that Heathfield might actually be the site of the famous battle in 1066. They write:
While it may have suited the field of British history to maintain the tradition of Battle Abbey as the ‘very spot’ where the battle took place, and to neglect evidence in favour of Heathfield until it was almost lost altogether, military historians now have a collective responsibility to seriously consider fresh evidence.
Their article, “Heathfield Down: An Alternative Location for the Battlefield of Hastings, 1066,” appears in the International Journal of Military History and Historiography. Click here to read it. See also their webpage discussing the findings.
The second article, by Christopher Macdonald Hewitt, evaluates what climate and paleoclimatic data can tell us about the events of 1066. Hewitt points to three important findings:
The weather impacted the timing of the campaign—chronicle accounts explain that unfavorable winds and storms delayed the Norman fleet from crossing the English Channel for several weeks. This was likely caused by “a low air pressure system centered near Iceland [which] brought westerly winds and precipitation to northwest Europe including the British Isles and English Channel and hence could have been a driving force behind the weather in 1066.”
It seems that the summer of 1066 was wetter than average. This would have left more marshy areas, including the battlefield (if it was indeed located at its traditional site).
The wetter conditions would have also affected the soil and, “in conjunction with armies moving over the battlefield, could [have] result[ed] in more challenging terrain which the armies and commanders would have to contend with.”
Hewitt finds that by examining this data, one can gain new insights into the Battle of Hastings. He concludes:
By refocusing the analysis of the battle from a primarily literary focus to one where the climate and paleoclimatic data is the central focus of study, a more comprehensive understanding of the weather surrounding the campaign and battle is provided than can be achieved from literary sources alone. While the written sources emphasize that the campaign was delayed because of the weather, in the literature this point has not been investigated to the depth that it can be. Specifically, by incorporating recent studies on climate change, paleoclimatic reconstructions, and patterns into the discussion of the battle, it is possible to provide a more in-depth climatological context of the campaign, which evidently shaped the timing of the battle. This is important because it can lead to re-evaluations of previous literary interpretations.
Christopher Macdonald Hewitt’s article, “Duke William’s 1066 Campaign: The Historical Climatology,” appears in Physical Geography. Click here to access it.
Two recent studies are reshaping our understanding of the Battle of Hastings. One challenges the long-held belief about where the battle took place, while the other highlights the crucial role that weather played in the events of 1066.
The Battle of Hastings, fought on October 14, 1066, was a decisive conflict that marked the end of Anglo-Saxon rule in England and the beginning of Norman dominance. The battle saw William, Duke of Normandy, defeat King Harold II, who had only recently fended off an invasion from Norway. Harold’s death in the battle led to William’s ascent as William the Conqueror. This victory fundamentally altered the course of English history and is often the subject of many books and papers.
One of these papers, “Heathfield Down: An Alternative Location for the Battlefield of Hastings, 1066,” by Rebecca Welshman and Simon Coleman, offers a new site for the battle: Old Heathfield, which is about ten miles northwest of Battle Abbey (where most historians believe the battle took place). They also propose a scenario explaining why the English and Norman forces would have fought there.
Among their evidence are several accounts written in the 18th and 19th centuries that suggest the battle took place in this area. For example, a 1751 edition of England’s Gazetteer states: “Heathfield, (Sussex), lies on a Down of its own name, near Burwash-Downs, 7m. from Hastings, and 12 from Tunbridge [Tonbridge, Kent] and Lewes. On this plain was fought the decisive battle bet. Will. the Conq. and K. Harold.”
It was also in this area that a bronze battle-axe was discovered in 1848, which at the time was connected to the Battle of Hastings. All this points to the idea that the Battle of Hastings was fought in Heathfield, at least according to local folklore.
Welshman and Coleman also find importance in a passage from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (D text), which explains that “com him togenes æt þære haran apuldran, and Wyllelm him com ongean on unwær, ær þis folc gefylced wære.” (“[Harold] came against him [William] at the grey apple tree. And William came upon him by surprise before his people were marshalled”). They believe that the English forces would have gathered at this apple tree because it was a significant landmark. There was such a “hoar apple tree” in Heathfield that served as a boundary marker.
These clues suggest to Welshman and Coleman that Heathfield might actually be the site of the famous battle in 1066. They write:
While it may have suited the field of British history to maintain the tradition of Battle Abbey as the ‘very spot’ where the battle took place, and to neglect evidence in favour of Heathfield until it was almost lost altogether, military historians now have a collective responsibility to seriously consider fresh evidence.
Their article, “Heathfield Down: An Alternative Location for the Battlefield of Hastings, 1066,” appears in the International Journal of Military History and Historiography. Click here to read it. See also their webpage discussing the findings.
The second article, by Christopher Macdonald Hewitt, evaluates what climate and paleoclimatic data can tell us about the events of 1066. Hewitt points to three important findings:
Hewitt finds that by examining this data, one can gain new insights into the Battle of Hastings. He concludes:
By refocusing the analysis of the battle from a primarily literary focus to one where the climate and paleoclimatic data is the central focus of study, a more comprehensive understanding of the weather surrounding the campaign and battle is provided than can be achieved from literary sources alone. While the written sources emphasize that the campaign was delayed because of the weather, in the literature this point has not been investigated to the depth that it can be. Specifically, by incorporating recent studies on climate change, paleoclimatic reconstructions, and patterns into the discussion of the battle, it is possible to provide a more in-depth climatological context of the campaign, which evidently shaped the timing of the battle. This is important because it can lead to re-evaluations of previous literary interpretations.
Christopher Macdonald Hewitt’s article, “Duke William’s 1066 Campaign: The Historical Climatology,” appears in Physical Geography. Click here to access it.
Top Image: Bayeux Tapestry
Subscribe to Medievalverse
Related Posts