On 14th October 1066, the Normans, led by Duke William, faced the English army led by King Harold Godwinson. King Harold died, pierced through the eye with a Norman arrow. That is how we are taught that the Battle of Hastings ended, a view confirmed by the almost contemporary Bayeux Tapestry. Is it true, or is it an early example of history being rewritten?
How do we know Harold was killed by an arrow in the eye? In about 1077, William of Poitiers wrote about how well the Norman archers decimated the English forces. Then, in about 1080, the Italian Amato di Montecassino, wrote that William fought with Harold and ‘gouged his eye out with an arrow.’ Well, actually, he didn’t write that. The only survival of his text is a French translation written in about 1300, which we know from other documentary evidence wasn’t an accurate translation.
The 12th century historian William of Malmesbury, writing his 1118 Chronicle of the Kings of England, says that Harold, ‘fell, from having his brain pierced with an arrow…..receiving the fatal blow from a distance, he yielded to death. One of the soldiers with a sword gashed his thigh; for which shameful and cowardly action he was branded with ignominy by William and expelled from the army.’ Another English writer, Henry of Huntingdon wrote in Historia Anglorum, between 1130 – 40, that there was a hail of arrows ‘and he himself was pierced in the eye.’ This is the first recorded mention of death by arrow in the eye.
The Bayeux Tapestry dates from about 1170, which is when Bayeux cathedral was being built, and may have been ready in time for its consecration in 1077. The tapestry was first mentioned in 1476, in the cathedral inventory. In the last battle scene, we see a standing figure with an arrow in the face. Above it is the beginning of the inscription, Hic Harold rex interfectus est – Here King Harold is killed. Does that show Harold being killed by the famous arrow?
Writers immediately after the battle don’t mention Harold being killed by an arrow. One wrote that he ‘fell, pierced with mortal wounds.’ There is a very detailed description of Harold’s death in Carmen de Hastingae Proelio – The song of the Battle of Hastings, which was presented to William during Easter 1067. This states quite clearly that Duke William and three of his knights fought their way to Harold. ‘These four bore arms to kill the king. Others indeed were there; but these were better than the rest. If anyone doubts this, what they did proves it true, for in accordance with the rules of war they compelled Harold by many blows to go the way of all flesh. The first of the four, piercing the king’s shield and chest with his lance, drenched the ground with a gushing stream of blood. The second with his sword cut off his head below the protection of his helm. The third liquified his entrails with his spear. And the fourth cut off his thigh and carried it some distance away.’ This story is found in many accounts of the battle. Even the Anglo Saxon Chronicle simply says that Harold and his brothers died. So terribly was Harold mutilated that, ‘he was not recognised by his face but by certain signs.’ This story makes sense if we look at the tapestry again. Much of the wording that the king is dead is above the man lying on the ground being attacked by a mounted knight. This figure has a golden scabbard, whilst arrow man has a plain black one. He has also been struck in the thigh.
Look at the earliest illustrations of the tapestry, engravings produced in about 1730 and 1733. They show that the man who supposedly has an arrow in his eye is holding a spear. In an 1818 sketch the spear has miraculously turned into an arrow, which doesn’t match other arrows in the tapestry. In fact, seven arrows don’t match the style of arrow used in the 11th century, and they don’t match the arrows that are in the supposed Harold’s shield. The tapestry was damaged in the late 18th century and underwent some restoration. In the 1730 engraving, the word interfectus does not appear, so it has been restored. But was the word originally interfectus? Some academics argue that the inscription originally read, ‘Hic Harold rex in terra iactus est,’ – Here Harold the king has been thrown to the ground. And there is a man on the ground, with a golden scabbard and an axe – the weapon that King Harold carried.
There was a King Harald killed by an arrow in the autumn of 1066, just three weeks before the Battle of Hastings. That was Harald Hardrada, King of Norway. On September 25th Harold Godwinson led his army against a Norwegian invasion led by King Harald and King Harold’s own brother, Tostig Godwinson, both of whom died. Harald Hardrada was killed by an arrow in his throat. With two kings whose names sounded the same, it was an inevitability that there would be confusion. Did tapestry restorers hear that Harald had died by arrow and decide that it was Harold?
This all rather supposes that Harold did die at Hastings. Again, there are many conflicting stories, claiming that he did not. But, 957 years later, it’s unlikely that we will know the truth. However, there is a Saxon grave at Bosham which, when excavated, contained the bones of a man of the right sort of age for Harold, and showing signs of the injuries that he suffered at the hands of William and his knights.
Image Credits: Myrabella .