What is it about?

The Battle of Hastings (14 October 1066) between King Harold II and Duke William of Normandy is a seminal event in both British and European history. Generations of scholars have analysed the sources, traditions and theories relating to how the battle was won and lost, and more has been written about Hastings than any other British battle. Yet the exact location of the battle remains a question of debate. Among battles of the Anglo-Saxon era Hastings is exceptional in possessing an official battlefield which predominantly lies within the grounds of Battle Abbey, in the town of Battle, East Sussex. However, archaeology undertaken at the site – where the Abbey’s high altar allegedly marks the “very spot” where Harold fell – has so far produced no verifiable evidence of a battle. We identify a number of 18th and 19th century sources that locate the battle near the village of Old Heathfield in East Sussex, ten miles north-west of Battle Abbey, on land once known as Heathfield Down and ‘Slaughter Common’. We analyse the relevance of the ‘Hoar Apple Tree’ in the ‘D’ text of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as an original name for the battlefield and discuss the survival of this name in medieval deeds concerning a place ‘Horeapeltre’, near Old Heathfield. We consider the cultural and military reasons why the battle might have taken place near here and show that the Hoar Apple Tree was probably a military assembly point. Heathfield Down was a likely conflict area due to its communication links, topography and strategic location. Our case is founded upon a previously unrecognised cluster of sources from the 18th and 19th centuries that names the battle ‘Heathfield’ or ‘Heathfield Down’. These newly identified texts, which include gazetteers, topographical dictionaries, military books and newspaper reports, unravels some of the confusion generated by knowledge of the name ‘Heathfield’ for the battlefield and the generally known battlefield site at Battle Abbey.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

An alternative site for the battlefield of Hastings, if confirmed by archaeological evidence, would improve scholarly understanding of Anglo-Saxon military infrastructure, raise important questions about the interpretation of sources and, naturally lead to a radical reassessment of the military operations that preceded the battle. This is the first academic article on the subject of an alternative location to have successfully passed peer review, and is one that presents a significant body of interconnecting evidence of different types - place-name studies, secondary antiquarian sources, deeds, and topographical research - as well as the routes Harold might have taken from London, and the military arguments in favour of a location situated on a nexus of significant routes.

Perspectives

Looking afresh at the place name haran apuldran ('Hore Apple Tree'), we have considered the military and cultural reasons why the battle might have taken place near a location possessing this landscape feature. The tree, most probably positioned on the ancient rape boundary between Pevensey and Hastings, would have been an important assembly point, sufficiently well-known in the district and, likely, beyond it, to give its name to the immediate surrounding area. Our theory of Harold being stationed at Heathfield Down provides a credible explanation for him being taken unawares or unprepared on the morning of the battle. We have also highlighted the likelihood of Heathfield Down being a potential conflict area due to its situation on a nexus of ridgeway tracks south of Tonbridge, where a direct route to London crossed the Medway, and the narrow, defensible position offered by the ground we are positing as the battlefield. In the absence of any agreement among the early chroniclers regarding the movements of the armies that brought them into contact, and the ambiguity in the sources concerning the location of the Norman base, further research is evidently required in order to explore these questions more thoroughly.

Rebecca Welshman
University of Liverpool

As well as presenting new documentary evidence in support of a location near Heathfield for the battlefield of Hastings, we raise questions about the case for the traditional site at Battle Abbey. These questions cover military logic, topography and the tradition of Battle Abbey’s foundation. We question why Harold would have camped so close to the Normans’ base when a number of English sources indicate that his mobilisation was incomplete when the battle began. Logic suggests that this mobilisation point, almost certainly the ‘Hoar Apple Tree’, would have been further away from his enemy, which would also have reduced the distance for potential reinforcements to travel. Lidar analysis in 2013 cast considerable doubt on the traditional conflict area due to the presence of a large area of marsh. Subsequent attempts to relocate the battlefield a short distance to the east we find unconvincing, but limitation on space prevented us from developing our argument. Statements in various medieval sources, such as "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle" E text, John of Worcester, William of Malmesbury and others, claiming that William founded Battle Abbey on the battlefield are so similar that there is good reason to believe that they were merely repeating official accounts of William’s acts. Such accounts were in circulation in the 12th century and could have appeared in the late 11th century. Traditionalist historians also place much emphasis on statements in "The Chronicle of Battle Abbey" which is a late and manifestly biased source.

Simon Coleman
West Dean College

Read the Original

This page is a summary of: Heathfield Down: An Alternative Location for the Battlefield of Hastings, 1066, International Journal of Military History and Historiography, May 2024, De Gruyter,
DOI: 10.1163/24683302-bja10061.
You can read the full text:

Read

Contributors

The following have contributed to this page