Talk:Battle of Hastings/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Why did William Win the Battle of Hastings?

The battle of Hastings was fought by William the Duke of Normandy, and Harold Godwinson. It was a one day battle on the 14th December 1066. The battle was fought at Senlac Hill. I will write about why William had a tactical advantage over Harold so why I think William won the battle. I think that William won the Battle of Hastings because he could give out orders while Harold couldn’t, because Harold was fighting in the front line with the rest of his army, but William was charging around on horseback and could give orders to his men. William being friends with the pope, got people to join his army because he said that the pope was backing William in his decision to fight against Harold, so that the battle was a holy battle and would guarantee them a place in heaven. William had a stronger army than Harold’s when the battle started because Harold’s army had just marched down from York, but Williams’s army had only marched from Dover. William had more areas of his army than Harold’s, William had men on horseback but Harold’s army didn’t. William had approximately 5,000 infantry and 3,000 Calvary and archers. Harold’s army was around the same size as he had approximately 2,500 Housecarl (his paid army) and 6,000 Fyrd (people who came from nearby towns and villages to support his king). Williams’s tactic was for his army to go up to Harold’s shield wall, and try to weaken it. After a while some of Williams’s army retreated back and the part of Harold’s army that were fighting them charged after them leaving a gap in Harold’s shield wall. Harold could not repair this part of the wall as he was fighting in the front line. William who was riding on horseback noticed, and managed to get a part of his army to surround the part of Harold’s army that had broken off. And Williams’s army killed all of Harold’s army that broke off. William got his army repeat this tactic until most of Harold’s army were dead. After that both army’s had a rest. Then Williams’s army fired arrows at Harold’s army. These arrows would fly into Harold’s army and injure the warriors. At one stage Harold himself got an arrow in his eye. It is clear that compared to the other reasons, the reason that Harold’s army had marched approximately 250 miles from York to Senlac hill, was the main reason for Williams’s victory. This meant that Harold’s army would have been very tired. JakeAWGriffin (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Jake, are you clear that this isn't a forum to discuss the battle? If you have some sourced material you want to add or want others to comment on, that's great, but it isn't really appropriate to post your own ideas here. Dougweller (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 December 2011

pennance -> penance : misspelling

98.248.63.138 (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing that out. Nev1 (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The Battle Of Hastings

It occourd around 1066 to 1070. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.228.220 (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

William actually landed at Pevensey on 28th October — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.0.56 (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Claiming "crusade" mentality

"Many had also come because they considered it a holy crusade, due to the Pope's decision to bless the invasion."

While it is true that the pope did openly support William over Harold, the name "crusade" should rightly only be used after the First Crusade. The papal standard that William bore is not the same religious force as the "milites Christi" that fought in the Middle East.

Lifthrasir1 21:52 Oct. 14 2006

Non breaking Space

Measurement units should have non breaking space between number and measurement unit to prevent breaking between lines. Please discuss here before changing this in the article. mdkarazim (talk) 01:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with you?

Why have you got rid of all the other people who took part in the battle along with the Normans (Poitevins, Manceaux, Bretons, French...etc). Is English butthurt the reason? In any case, this is pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeHappiste (talk • contribs) 20:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hardly constructive. Why don't you help and edit the article? You'll need sources, see WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions

See diff Ealdgyth - Talk 20:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The organization of the "background" doesn't make sense in a way. Consider current organization:

1 Background
   1.1 Succession crisis in England
   1.2 Tostig's invasion
2 Harold's preparations and the English army

It's odd in that subsection "Tostig's invasion" has linked "main article" being Battle of Stamford Bridge, while subsection ends with mention of the battle of Fulford, and the subsection does not discuss the Battle of Stamford Bridge at all. The Battle of Stamford Bridge is mentioned in the next major section "Harold's preparations...".

I saw mention of the FAC and call for comments at a user Talk page. Hope this helps. Good luck with the FAC! --doncram 21:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Duh! Thanks, Fixed. It's a remnant of the earlier organization of the article... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

What do archers do?

Do they "shoot" or "fire"? I am not used to this period. --John (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Either is fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I had a wobbly moment there where both looked wrong. --John (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Fyrd and housecarls

WP:ITALIC says we should italicise "words-as-words" and also foreign words used in English. I am not convinced that italicising fyrd and housecarl is the best. What do others think? --John (talk) 11:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Fyrd for sure - it is pretty much italicized in all the sources I've consulted. Housecarls is also often italicized (see Huscroft's Norman Conquest) but not as often as fyrd. Douglas puts fyrd in quotes but doesn't do that for housecarls, for example. Both of these words go out of use after the Conquest. Housecarl could also be put as huscarl - which is a Danish loan-word that came in with Cnut. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I support italicising fyrd consistently (which it is) and not housecarl (at the moment it is inconsistently formatted). --John (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Both terms are in most of the larger English dictionaries so perhaps not quite foreign words as such. However whereas Housecarl has some equivalent terms household troops or praetorian guard, to mention two, would be used these days. Whereas there is no real alternative to fyrd - "It was a local militia in the Anglo-Saxon shire, in which all freemen had to serve, the noblemen had an obligation to provide men, for the king, based on their landholding" hardly rolls off the tongue. As with Ealdgyth my sources are somewhat ambiguous. I would suggest that you put either of the terms in italics the first time you use it only, more for clarity than MoS. Wilfridselsey (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

A possibility

One archer on the side of the Normans was granted title, lands, and a coat of arms for his service in the battle of hastings. A description of the coat of arms follows:

Coat of Arms: First found in Devonshire England where they were seated from very early times and were granted lands for their distinguished assistance at the Battle of Hastings in 1066 A.D.

The colors: Gules on argent, or red on silver, the tinctures mean warrior, military strength and magnanimity for red and peace and sincerity for white.

The shield: The two arrowheads on the field can also be spearheads and were referred to as ‘pheons’ and on a coat of arms meant dexterity and nimble wit, and readiness for battle, repetition of the image meaning that this virtue was of a higher order than normal. The unicorn on the shield proper was one of the highest military awards, meaning extreme courage, virtue and strength. The two red lines or ‘chevrons’ occupying the position of the ordinaries represent some act of faithful service, the repetition once again meaning to a higher degree than normal. The number of chevrons also identifies military rank.

The Crest: The helmet displayed is a closed or tilting helmet and was used for burgher arms (coats of arms of non-noble commoners). The torse, on a wreath of the colors of Argent and Gules… the wreath that sits on the top of the helm holds the crest. The crest depicts a hand holding an arrow facing left or sinister. Crests were the personal symbol a person would use and would say the most about them as an individual. In this case, the arrow is probably how the person won the coat of arms.

The Motto: Displayed above the crest indicating Scottish descent, the motto Projeci is Latin for the personal past tense form of project, so it translates to “I shot” or “I threw.”

This crest was awarded after the battle of Hastings in which the English King Harold was hit in the eye by an arrow, turning the tide of the battle. Archers painted their arrows for identification, so it would not have been difficult to identify the archer who slew the enemy king.

The family name on the coat of arms is Mayne. Though it is not proof of the deed, the coat of arms presented to a commoner after the battle suggests that the archer did something impressive with an arrow during the battle, and I propose that the recipient of this coat of arms was the archer who shot King Harold in the eye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.84.254 (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Um. No. See Coat of Arms. The granting of coats of arms to people doesn't actually happen until wayyy after this battle. This is a great example of a story made up after the fact to give a family greater antiquity. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, only the land was granted after the Battle of Hastings. The coat of arms came later. http://www.houseofnames.com/mayne-coat-of-arms (please refer to a good latin-english dictionary to translate 'projeci')

No, that's not a reliable source. I checked Origins of Some Anglo-Norman Families by Loyd - no such family is mentioned. No company that sells "Family coats of arms" is at all reliable - there is no such thing as a "family coat of arms" - coats of arms are for individuals, and individuals only. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Again you are correct; Loyd makes no mention of the name Mayne in his book which contains every family name from England during that time, all 315 families that made up that country. Or perhaps Loyd only discusses some families which may be why he included the word some in his title, though this is merely speculation on my part. Other sources seem to back up what I put forth above regarding the family, however I am now finished with this discussion as it has degraded to the point where we find it now. ("no such family is mentioned" implying what, exactly? That there never was a family named Mayne in England because they were not included in the one book in which you looked?) I presented this as a possibility to consider, not a definitive proof as that is impossible due to lack of documentation during that era. That said, a commoner of the name Mayne was indeed granted lands in Devon for their service to the Normans during the Battle of Hastings. (I'll leave this as an assertion, disprove it if you can. Not that I couldn't cite my sources, but that I feel that the act of performing real research on the matter would prove educational.) Why they were granted this is not clear, neither is the abundance of arrows associated with so many variants of the name such as Maynes, Main, Mains, Maine, Maines, etc. nor is the prevalence of the motto Projeci which is only poorly translated to I have thrown away and is more accurately the personal past tense of project as in I have projected or I have thrown or I have shot but the context of the arrows that accompany the motto imply the latter is the better translation. Further, never once did I claim that the coat of arms applied to an entire family, that was the wording of the one site that had a picture of the coat of arms I described. I concede that it is entirely possible that the coat of arms I mentioned had nothing to do with the Mayne who served in the Battle of Hastings. However I still contend that it is entirely possible that the lands were granted for the reason I gave above. The truth of the matter has been lost in time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.84.254 (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I looked up my family name(s), long story, and was aghast at the idea that anyone would take this site as reliable in any way shape or form --Guerillero | My Talk 00:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• The fact that my last name (even with various spellings) turned up nothing is pretty good evidence that it's highly reliable. *cough* Then again, the highest we've ever achieved is probably garcon de pisse or something like that. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Hello 76.27.84.254 . You may find the following pages useful in improving your research to determine who shot King Harold: WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:Evidence, You may also find some useful information to help you in Source criticism and various links provided in the disambiguation page at Burden of Proof. Finally, House of Names is clearly not a reliable source, and it should not be used to back up any firm claims on wikipedia, let alone the "possibilities" you are trying to highlight. To put it bluntly: if House of Names is a reliable source for surname origins, then I'm the Queen of Sheba!  DDStretch  (talk) 08:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Commanders in infobox

Several sources place Leofwine and Gyrth in positions of subordinate command, consistent with their positions as Earls. Perhaps they should be included in the infobox given that it lists subsidiary commanders for the Norman side. Agricolae (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 September 2013

Hi,

It's not Alan Fergant (in the section commanders and leaders) but Alan the Red (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Rufus) who was a companion of William the Conqueror. It could be great if you have time to edit it. Thank you !

Sincerely,

David Utliak (talk) 03:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for bringing this up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Time of year

Dear Ealdgyth,

I was suprised that my contrubution of earlier this evening (19:44, 14 October 2013) was reverted. Manly because I did not understand why you felt it was neccasary. You state as the reason: "not in the source that is given - presumably the source did the corrections". What do you mean?

I dont know the source “Lawson Battle of Hastings pp. 212–213”, but do you mean that it does not mention the (modern) day of the year at which moment these times of sunrise and sunset occur? Why should that be a problem? There are other sourches and other ways for calculating the corresponding modern date. (See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Style)

And, unfortunatly, you do need extra sources like this as the other source metioned in that section doen’t metion the times of the sunrise & -fall “Marren 1066 p. 114”.

Furthermore, elswere in that book (page 9) “Marren” is inaccurate. He states that 14 October compares to the modern 25 October, a diverence of 11 days. Marren probably got confussed by the 1752 addoption of the Gregorian calender in England. At that time the difference with the Julian calender was indeed 11 days. In 1066 however it was still “only” 6 days.

As it is often forgotten that historic dates fell on diverent days of the year than we associate with that given modern date I think it is importent to mention this shift. This is more so as this article mentions the time of the sunrise and sunset. On any modern 14 October (as today) the sunset in Battle is at ca. 17:07 (UTC), but in 1066 it was at ca. 16:54.

I hope to here form you.

Best wishes, Vlaascho (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Lawson is the source for the sunset/dusk/dark times, and no, he doesn't mention anything at all about the New Style/Old Style shift in dates. Thus, you cannot include the information you are giving here as that would be original research. Marren p. 114 is not a source for that sentence - it is a source for the preceding sentence. The source for the sunrise times is Gravett p. 59. THere is no use of Marren p. 9 at all in the article - so whether he's right or wrong on that information is immaterial. To mention the date shift you need a reliable secondary source that mentions it - you can't just shoehorn it into a sentence that is sourced to something that does NOT mention the shift. Nor can you change sourced information without changing the source. QUite honestly, since Gravett is a quite competant medieval historian, I'm sure he adjusted for the time/date shift - as we can assume Lawson did, since he's also a reliable historian. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Ealdgyth,

Thanks for you promt response, unfortunatly I didn't have much time during the week to respond. 

Yes, the two historians use the correct daylighttimes but apparently don't mention how these times can occur on a 14 October. But, not including correct information just bcause it's not in one of the best (secondary) sources is strange and including this information doesn't make it automaticaly Original Research. 

The date shift is a given fact when reading on any date before 1582 but usually not metioned. Off course, this level of detail isn't always neccecary for most readers would know that the calender used was different then. On wikipedia however there are many more "uninformed" readers who don't know this. Therefore I think it is even more importend to mention this information on this page (and on other pages, like Agincourt) as the day is widely remembered each year. 

At the moment I dont know of a published source that has a paragraph stating the correct date shift of the battle (since, as mentioned earlier, Marren has got it wrong). But their are other easy and available ways to calculate any corresponding date in a different calendar with publications like:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Table_of_equivalent_dates_in_the_Julian_and_Gregorian_calendars.JPG
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_between_Julian_and_Gregorian_calendars
•  http://www.ortelius.de/kalender/form_en2.php
•  http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/

So, there might be no paragraph to quote yet, but the information given is easy to verify. As a result of this, I would like to include the information again, with clear reference to publications to verify it. 

The paragraph that mentions the sunset is i.m.o. the most logical place to include the information. I can follow your point of not including this information in the sentence that depends on a specific source. So I'll try to find a beter way to insert the information.

I hope you agree. Vlaascho (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Honestly - two of those references are utterly unreliable - you can't use Wikipedia or Commons to reference stuff. It isn't odd that we don't point out things that secondary sources don't point out... that's how Wikipedia works. We report what secondary sources say about the subject. Adding stuff that doesn't specifically discuss the subject of the article is OR in Wikipedia's terms. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

A few quibbles

"This was the name favoured by Edward Freeman, a Victorian historian who wrote one of the definitive accounts of the battle."

I feel that "one of the definitive" is a bit of a contradiction in terms. Probably "one of the more complete/accomplished accounts" would be a better way to allude to its scholarly merit.

"fitzOsbern" and other such prefixed names

Is it a stylistic option not to capitalize the 'f' like on the article page for this person? Dracontes (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

"fitzOsbern" is a perfectly fine choice - it's actually more usual to see this in the scholarly literature. On the other matter, Freeman's account is still used as the basis of a lot of scholarship even now. But I'm not that bothered by using another word instead, except I do not think "accomplished" is quite the same meaning as "definitive". Ealdgyth - Talk 19:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

There can clearly be many definitions of anything, so there's nothing wrong with "one of the definitive accounts". I'd probably be inclined to shorten and simplify it by saying "a definitive account" though. Eric Corbett 19:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2014

I notice in the commanders section of this article, you missed Robert de Beaumont, who commanded the right wing of infantry on the field of battle!

'one of the Proven Companions of William the Conqueror at the Battle of Hastings in 1066, and was leader of the infantry on the right wing of the Norman army' -> sourced from a wiki article on Robert de Beaumont.

I don't know whether or not you want to add this in somehow, but it would help make this interesting article a little bit more accurate!! Thanks! P.S Great job on this article :) EditorofEngland (talk) 12:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Beaumont commanded a "troop" which was on the right wing, according to William of Poitiers. This is not the same thing as what his article says - which is unsourced. The three wing commanders were Alan, William fitzOsbern, and Eustace, which is sourced here. It's highly unlikely that Beaumont actually commanded more than his personal troops - as it was his first battle. Vaughn's description of Beaumont's role in the battle is that he was young, newly knighted, and that he commanded some troops on the right wing - does not specify what type of troops or how big. We only list the wing commanders in the infobox, not sub-commanders. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: for the reasons explained above.
If think this is incorrect, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, noting that Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source. - Arjayay (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2014

There's an error in the translation of the Latin text in the tapestry image: it should be "King Harold was killed," not "King Harold is killed."

"King Harold was killed": Harold Rex Interfectus Est

"King Harold is killed": Harold Rex Interficitur — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.15.55.134 (talk)

Done Stickee (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Background and location

This subsection strikes me as a bit of a mishmash, a heap of information that's not very well ordered. The first paragraph starts by talking about timing, then mentions something William de Jumieges wrote about the night before (what's the point of this?), then it goes on to describe the battlefield itself (wouldn't it be better to break into a new paragraph here?), which leads into a discussion of the battle's name (while the progression is logical, it still feels odd). Then the second paragraph breaks off by going back to timing in its first sentence, before heading into an entirely different direction with the routes followed by the two armies to Hastings.

While translating the article into French, I decided to rearrange this passage in a manner that seemed more logical to me (first chronology, then geography, to put it roughly). Maybe the same could be done here, unless I'm the only one who feels that way. Ælfgar (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I feel like it is significant enough to mention that the English troops present at Hastings rode to the battle field yet dismounted before engaging in battle in the introductory paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Politic Revolutionnaire (talk • contribs) 21:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2015

uhhh baby baby ohh yeh people 5.71.43.221 (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. /wia🎄/tlk 19:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The repeated editing in of information on "new site"

March 2016

This information: "The field south of the Battle Abbey has been historically considered the actual location where the Anglo-Saxon army formed its defense shield to stop the Norman advance. At the end of 2013 British Channel 4's Time Team performed archeological survey and excavated the field. No human remains or any remnants of an axe, sword, arrow or armour from the conflict have ever been found in the area, even though some 10,000 men are believed to have died there. Channel 4 suggested that possibly the actual location of the battle is not south of the Abbey, but about 200 meters east." is being edit-warred in. A "Time Team" TV investigation is not needing this much undue weight placed on it in an article on the whole battle. I note that English Heritage has not changed their opinion, nor have any historians changed theirs. This information really doesn't belong in the article and has been repeatedly added ... while being reverted by other editors. There are a number of problems with this content besides the WP:UNDUE problem of a fringe theory. At least the sentence "No human remains or any remnants of an axe, sword, arrow or armour from the conflict have ever been found in the area, even though some 10,000 men are believed to have died there" is almost an exact word-for-word copy from "However, no human remains or artefacts from the conflict have ever been found in the area, even though some 10,000 men are believed to have died there." which is in this article. And that article basically goes on to point out that this "theory" is not supported by anyone else, including English Heritage. See this from English Heritage. Basically, this is a fringe theory and has no place in the article .. or in Wikipedia. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, thank you for clarifications, good objectivity. Wiley Sage (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

September/October 2016

::@Ealdgyth: This page does need to conform to WP:NPOV. While Lawson may believe that he "and other modern historians" agree on the site of Caldbec Hill, this is not uncontentious. You can't prove a contentious point from a single citation. English Heritage - which is a reputable authority - would disagree and point us at many conflicting sources that support the traditional Senlac site. Wikipedia should document both. While I agree that Time Team isn't "a historian", English Heritage's Roy Porter, who wrote the article I referenced, most certainly is: he views the LiDAR investigation and landscape analysis as being strongly supportive of the "traditional" battlefield location.

You can't go about claiming things are 'fringe theories' simply because your favourite historians disagree.

The Parson's Cat (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

This statement (which was just editwarred back in) "The traditional site of the Battle of Hastings is Senlac Hill, the of the present-day remains of Battle Abbey... "makes no sense. Also - see above - the information is way undue. And breaks the whole flow of the article - you're inserting information about a 2014 investigation (by a TV show, not an archaelogist or historian, no less) into the description of the actual preparations for the battle. Also - the reference being used is stated as having a date of 2 December 2016 - that's patently not possible (as it's 30 September 2016). There have been many investigations of the battlefield, and I'm sure some archaelogical investigations - but none of those merit mention in the article on the battle itself. There have been many possible sitings of the battlefield but most historians (which ... Lawson says in the source given for the statement "most historians" which keeps getting tagged without actually having the source being consulted, near as I can tell) concur with location. It's a fringe theory when no other historians take it up. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Further ... the statement "The traditional site of the Battle of Hastings is Senlac Hill, the of the present-day remains of Battle Abbey, and William the Conqueror is said to have directed that the abbey's high altar be placed on the exact spot where Harold died; the battle is said to have been fought on the land to the south and west of the abbey." is sourced to this page from English Heritage but no where on that page is any mention made of Senlac Hill. Nor does the source say anything about the battle being fought to the south and west of the abbey. The information fails to be verified by the source given. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: Apologies for the missing word 'site', now added. Can I suggest you read the sources again, please? You'll see a map of the battlefield which shows the space to the south and west of the abbey. The source I indicated very definitely contains the essential claims that I re-stated.

The only part that isn't in the article is the naming of the site as Senlac Hill. Senlac Hill exists today in Battle, and if you look on any map, Google identifies its two halves: Lower Lake and Upper Lake. Lawson would agree with this terminology: he believes (or believed?) that the Saxon army assembled on Caldbec Hill and the Norman Army assembled on Senlac Hill.

Could you name the modern historians that Lawson cites, please?

It's certainly not true to say that no modern historians disagree with Lawson: I quoted English Heritage's Roy Porter who takes a measured and sceptical view of Time Team's contribution. Note that I inserted information from English Heritage and Roy Porter, not from Time Team. I am very sure that we could find other historians who take this view. I would suggest that rather than books, articles in peer-reviewed academic journals would be the gold standard here. Perhaps you have expertise to identify these?

I'm sure that the flow of the article could be better - please do improve. But the traditional site of the Battle of Hastings does need to be mentioned and given due weight. That's not to say that Lawson's wrong: it's just that Wikipedia needs to give all credible positions due weight, not make judgements.

The Parson's Cat (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Senlac is mentioned. And we don't need to go into great details about which hill is which - this is an overview article. If someone wants all the indepth details - the place for them to go is to the various books that are used as sources. We locate the battle site as between Caldbec Hill to the north and Telham Hill - (in the background and location section) and then describe the naming of it as Senlac in that section. That's where the due weight is. The fact of the abbey's high altar being located on the site of Harold's death is dealt with later in the article - repeating it is not needed elsewhere. Lawson doesn't cite other historians - he says what the traditional view is ... and then goes on to refute with his own view. When a historian says "The usual view" or "The mainstream view" ... that is enough to state that "most historians" (this is also borne out by the fact that none of the sources I just went back and checked differ on the location of the battle being at the site of the Abbey. As for there being no bodies or other artifacts found at the site - we mention in this article that the site had some extensive work done on it to build the abbey - the top of at least one hill was leveled off. (There is also mention of a possible skeleton related to the battlefield later in the article in the explanatory footnotes.) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: Exactly what does Lawson say, please? I can easily access peer-reviewed journals, I don't have ready access to Lawson's book. "Historians" is not a well-defined term: it can mean highly-respected academics who publish in peer-reviewed papers, or it can mean populist history authors who sometimes have a strong academic pedigree but not always. Lawson may be referring to them. Could you clarify this, please? Lawson must himself have given some references?

I would disagree with your analysis of the article as it stands: reading the original you would not realise that the site Lawson's modern historians are claiming differs significantly from the traditional battlefield site. Calddec Hill and Senlac Hill are a mile apart. This is something important, and the readers do need to know this. They shouldn't be told that there is a consensus that the Saxon army formed up and fought on Caldbec Hill, when there is an I porta t - and dare I say more orthodox - view that the Saxon army formed up on the traditional site. Do you understand where I am coming from here, please?

Other than this, are you now happy that my edits stands? I believe I've responded adequately, but what do you think

The Parson's Cat (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm not happy with your additions. Your text still duplicates texts elsewhere to little need. I'm not about to type out what Lawson says because it covers two pages - it's properly summarized here. If I typed all that in here, it'd be a copyright violation. But it's not just Lawson - Peter Rex in 1066 says "Duke William, early on the morning of Saturday 14 October, had moved up to the crest of Telham Hill, some 200 feet above sea level, from which he was able to observe English movements on Calbec..." (p. 61). Frank McLynn in 1066 says "At first light the Norman advance guard on Telham Hill saw the Anglo-Saxon standards on Caldbec Hill" (and he never once mentions Senlac in the book, as it's not in the index). Peter Merren in 1066 says "The Battle of Hastings was fought on a saddle of land formed by Caldbec Hill in the north and Telham Hill in the south" (p. 101). David Howarth in 1066 says "The apple tree where Harold's army met was on Caldboc Hill" (p 169) and describes the place of the battle as between Caldboc Hill and Telham hill. Howarth describes the valley between the two hills as "Santlache" and says that's the basis for the corruption by the NOrmans in to Senlac. Matthew Bennett in Campaigns of the Norman Conquest says that the English formed up on Caldebec Hill (p. 39). Gravett in Hastings 1066 has the English forming up on Caldebec Hill and the Normans arriving at Telham about 6am on the 14th. (p. 59) He does mention Senlac - but as the marshy area between the two hills, not as a hill itself. It's clear that the battle was fought between the two hills, given all of these sources. Even English Heritage avoids mentioning Senlac in their pages. We go by what the sources state - and your source doesn't mention Senlac itself (nor on the map) so it can't be used for what you're trying to make it say. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: Again, can you respond to what I've actually asked, please? Who does Lawson say claim the battle took place on Caldbec Hill rather than the site of Battle Abbey? Are these academic historians or are they popular history writers? That should not require you to reproduce two pages. If you can't do this, you need to back down.

There is a difference between the place an army met - which was traditionally Caldbec Hill - and the place it formed up to fight. The sources you have may well make that distinction: from what you have written, it is not clear.

The Parson's Cat (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

One - you don't need to ping me each and every time. Since I did the majority of the work on this article, I have it watchlisted. Again - Lawson says "The traditional view" is that the battle took place between Caldebec and Telham with the English line on Caldebec. He disagrees to some degree. One reason for simply stating that the battle took place between the two hills is that this is what the sources agree on. Then you get into many different ideas about what happened when - all of which are subjects for scholarly monographs but are too much detail for an encyclopedia article. Scholarly monographs go into great detail - this isn't a monograph. We need to cover the information, based on sources such as the above, so that the average reader can understand what's going on. The article currently states "The battle took place 7 miles (11 km) north of Hastings at the present-day town of Battle,[78] between two hills – Caldbec Hill to the north and Telham Hill to the south." - does that disagree with anything you're saying? Again - overview. We don't need to wade into the scholarly debate about whether or not this tiny detail is correct. Your information about Harold's death site being the high altar site is already in the article. The information about Time Team is undue weight as no other such survey is discussed in the article - those sorts of surveys are the basis for the secondary historians we are basing the article on. Most of the above writers are historians - Howarth and Rex are the closest to "popular" historians. Several of them are military historians, and two of the works are from Osprey, quite a well respected military history publisher. And again - your source does not say anything about Senlac, so until I see a source that does say something you're trying to insert - I can't see inserting it. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

You shouldn't be deleting other editors' referenced work just because you feel a sense of ownership of the article. It's not up to you what gets inserted. Please see WP:OWNERSHIP.

You're very fixated on the lack of a reference to Senlac Hill, and haven't seemed to grasp that the point I am making is that many historians - and as yet, you've not identified someone you regard as an academic historian - would disagree with the article's current claim, which is that the Saxon line was on Caldbec Hill. Traditionally, the Saxon line was believed to have been formed at the site of Battle Abbey which is very definitely not at Caldbec Hill. This is not a minor issue: it's significant.

The naming of the Battle Abbey site as Senlac Hill is a minor point, and would not normally be contentious: the Senlac Hill article on Wikipedia does discuss this, though perhaps needs merging into here. However, if your after a strong reference, you can easily find one at

• English Heritage (2002). "Battle Abbey and Battlefield: information for tutors and students of tourism studies" (PDF) (educational resource). English Heritage. Retrieved 30 September 2016.

The Parson's Cat (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The references did not back up the information cited to them. It's perfectly acceptable to delete information that is not referenced in the reference given. That's not referenced information. And the edit being discussed didn't just mention Senlac Hill - it added information that is elsewhere in the article and information about a survey. If you want to propose specific information about Senlac Hill backed by a reference or so - that's one thing. But an edit has to be taken as a whole - not just one piece of the information. The new reference is not really ideal - it is not exactly high quality. I did check biographies of William and Harold - neither Douglas nor Bates discuss the location of the actual fighting in their biographies of William. Walker does a bit but his biography isn't what you'd call academic. Rex also has a biography of Harold, where he puts Harold on Caldebec Hill. Several of the authors above mention that Harold moved down into the valley and then moved back... Huscroft in The Norman Conquest names no names but says that Harold drew up his battle lines on a hill. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The references do back up the information I inserted in the article. I suggest you read them again.

I disagree with your view of the article, and I think you're treating the article in contravention of WP:OWNERSHIP.

I feel that the source I've given is strong enough to show that Battle Abbey's site is known as Senlac Hill. This shouldn't be contentious. It's just the present-day name of a hill in Battle.

It's not for individual users like yourself to decide how Wikipedia works: you need to refer to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Can you do this here?

The Parson's Cat (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

It is not just Ealdgyth who disagrees with your approach, but other editors such as hchc2009 and myself. Discussion of a TV programme has no place in this article. Time Team was conducted by first rate archaeologists who boasted that they followed up their programmes with peer reviewed articles. If they thought on reflection that their investigation produced significant discoveries, then there will be an article, but judging by Roy Porter's comments, it does not seem likely that their discoveries were important enough to require amendment of the Wiki article. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you please look at the edit made: the key point - supported by a reference - which was that the traditional site of the Saxon line was not Caldbec Hill but Battle Abbey. This was not referenced to Time Team: it was referenced to English Heritage, in an article that did not mention Time Team.

What do you think of this? The current article makes a clear claim suggestion that there is a full consensus that the Saxon army formed up on Caldbec Hill. I feel that the article needs to reflect the fact that there is a significant body of thought that disagrees.

I have referred this discussion to Wikipedia's Dispute Resolution process. I plan to take a back seat now and see what the wider community thinks.

The Parson's Cat (talk) 22:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

(ealdgyth—Dudley Miles) can I draw your attention to WP:CANVAS please. I see that you've discussed this on your talk pages. Wikipedia has a suggested way of asking other editors to get involved in a more neutral way. The Parson's Cat (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

William II of Normandy (was Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2015)

From the first line, please change "Duke William II of Normandy" to "Duke William I of Normandy" because the William of Normandy that fought at the battle of Hastings was the first William of Normandy thus styled as William I of Normandy. William II was his son. Jebbens (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

No. William the Conqueror is the second William who was Duke of Normandy, so he's correctly styled "Duke William II of Normandy". See William Longsword. William Longsword was William the Conqueror's great-great-grandfather. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't appear so simple. Our article William the Conqueror currently lists him as William I in bold, and William II only secondarily. In the infobox, it lists his successor as William II (of England). --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

That is, while the "of England" or "of Normandy" can make the I vs. II "correct", it's confusing to a casual reader, and may deserve some clarification. --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

What are you suggesting? that it is phrased "Duke William II of Normandy (later to become King William 1 of England)"
This seems rather cumbersome in an article about a battle, rather than the individual, especially as, if you click the link William II of Normandy it takes you direct to William the Conqueror which explains he "had been Duke of Normandy since 1035 under the style William II"
We either need a proposed re-wording, or to accept the status quo. - Arjayay (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate that this is an old discussion, but it's worth noting that this one is slightly more complex than it appears. If the relevant Wikipedia articles are correct, during his lifetime, William Longsword and his predecessor Rollo were referred to as the Counts of Rouen, not Dukes of Normandy.. William Longsword's son Richard I of Normandy was the first person recorded as a "Duke". Some non-contemporary sources have referred to all the counts and dukes as "dukes", and it may well be that there was no real change in status, just a change in the terminology used.

I would agree that referring to William the Conqueror as "Duke William II of Normandy'" is confusing. However, there is another option: he was also known (unambigously) as "William the Bastard". I propose changing the opening sentence:

The Battle of Hastings was fought on 14 October 1066 between the Norman-French army of Duke William II of Normandy and an English army under the Anglo-Saxon King Harold Godwinson, beginning the Norman conquest of England.

to

The Battle of Hastings was fought on 14 October 1066 between the Norman-French army of William the Bastard, Duke of of Normandy, and an English army under the Anglo-Saxon king Harold Godwinson, beginning the Norman conquest of England.

Any objections?

The Parson's Cat (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I object. There really isn't much evidence that William was really known as William the Bastard by any Norman source during his lifetime. I'd be fine with "William, the Duke of Normandy" which avoids the whole numbering issue. But William the Bastard was clearly a name used as a pejorative by his enemies and not one he'd embrace. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Done. Now says "William, Duke of Normandy". The Parson's Cat (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Reinstated as "William, the Duke of Normandy" - I think there's consensus here, judging by the lack of further comments.

The Parson's Cat (talk) 10:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Site: Battle Abbey versus Caldbec Hill (October 2016)

• The current article seems to state that there is agreement among modern historians that the Battle of Hastings took place on Caldbec Hill, with a (referenced) assertion from an author.

• The traditional academic consensus is that the Battle of Hastings was fought on the site of Battle Abbey, which is not Caldbec Hill. This is sourced to numerous near-contemporary documents including the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. The following sources support this:

Hare, J. N. (1984). Battle Abbey: The Eastern Range and the Excavations of 1978-80. London: English Heritage. p. 11. ISBN 9781848021341. Retrieved 1 October 2016 – via Archaeology Data Service.

"Research on Battle Abbey and Battlefield". English Heritage. Retrieved 5 October 2016.

"Where Did the Battle of Hastings Happen?". English Heritage. Retrieved 5 October 2016.

"Battle of Hastings: 14 October 1066". UK Battlefields Resource Centre. Battlefields Trust. Retrieved 5 October 2016.

• Many writers seem to agree that the likely place Harold's army met and camped overnight was Caldbec Hill. Recently, Grehan, Mace and Lawson (possibly others?) have conjectured that Harold's army took up its defensive position at Caldbec Hill too, rather than at the traditional site. There are already references in the article in support of this hypothesis.

• There seems to be little modern easy-to-find academic literature on the topic: apart from popular history books, the only thing I can find is a Ph.D. thesis from Canada. This is an interesting read, and says that from a geographic perspective, both the Battle Abbey site and the Caldbec Hill site are geographic possibilities. (Two other proposed sites - including Crowhurst - are dismissed outright.)

Hewitt, C. E. M. (2016). The Battle of Hastings: A Geographic Perspective (Ph.D. thesis). University of Western Ontario. Retrieved 5 October 2016.

• There are two incidental details that may well not need to appear in the article: the site of Battle Abbey is today called Senlac Hill, but if its Wikipedia article is correct, that name may not be contemporary. Also, a widely-reported "new site" from a popular archaelogical TV programme was actually part of the traditional site, not a new site at all. However, neither of these points is at all key to the argument.

• In light of all this, I would suggest amending the article from:

Most recent historians conclude that Harold's forces deployed in a small, dense formation around the top of Caldbec Hill, with their flanks protected by woods and a stream and marshy ground in front of them. Lawson points out the possibility that the English line was a bit longer and extended enough to anchor on one of the streams nearby. The English formed a shield wall, with the front ranks holding their shields close together or even overlapping to provide protection from attack.

to

There is a consensus that Harold's forces deployed in a small, dense formation at the top of a steep slope. Traditionally, historians have identified this as the present-day site of Battle Abbey, but some recent writers have suggested that it was Caldbec Hill, with the English flanks protected by woods and a stream and marshy ground in front of them. The English formed a shield wall, with the front ranks holding their shields close together or even overlapping to provide protection from attack.

• What do people feel about this? At the moment, we seem to be giving WP:UNDUE weight to the Caldbec Hill hypothesis at the expense of the traditional Battle Abbey site.

The Parson's Cat (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps "Harold's forces deployed in a small, dense formation at the top of steep slope, with their flanks protected by woods and marshy ground in front of them. The line may have extended far enough to be anchored on a nearby stream. The English formed a shield wall, with the front ranks holding their shields close together or even overlapping to provide protection from attack. The exact hill that the English fought on is unclear with older sources stating the site of the abbey, but some newer sources suggesting it was Caldbec Hill."

Ealdgyth - Talk 18:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I prefer a slight variation: "Harold's forces deployed in a small, dense formation at the top of steep slope, with their flanks protected by woods and marshy ground in front of them. The line may have extended far enough to be anchored on a nearby stream. The English formed a shield wall, with the front ranks holding their shields close together or even overlapping to provide protection from attack. The exact hill that the English fought on is disputed with traditional sources stating the site of the later abbey, but some newer sources suggesting it was Caldbec Hill." It's very close, so I'll start making this changes do we can continue discussion if needed.

The Parson's Cat (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Let others weigh in. There isn't any great hurry... you can allow others to have time to see things. And I dislike the "traditional" wording - it implies too much. Older/newer is much less tinged with other meanings - that's a clear dichotomy without weighing in on which might be correct. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Please let others weigh in before adding information. Not even three hours after your first edit and you're already putting it in. I prefer to see others views on this, given the discussions before. As a gesture of good faith towards others, it would be nice if the edit was self-reverted. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The Parson's Cat, any reason to prefer "disputed" over "unclear" in your choice of wording? That seems to be the only difference. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Ealdgyth that "traditional" is not right, and "older" is better as more neutral. I think the choice between "unclear" and "disputed" is marginal, and I would prefer "uncertain" to either. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I missed that part; read it too fast. I agree "older" is more neutral. I like "uncertain". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay: I'm travelling at the moment, and don't have regular internet access.

The reason I prefer "traditional" is that "older versus newer" creates a sense that there was an old way of thinking about things, but we now know better. It's actually the case that many (nearly all?) present-day academic historians still regard Battle Abbey as the battlefield site, so it's not really and "old versus new" thing. (We want to avoid editorial bias, obviously!) I don't think that holders of either viewpoint would object to the label "traditional".

Similarly, the reason I prefer "disputed" is that I don't think there is any evidence that there is a consensus that the site is "unclear". A good example of this is Marc Morris's review of John Grehan and Martin Mace's The Battle of Hastings 1066: The Uncomfortable Truth, which you can find here, and it's easy to find other examples - English Heritage also seems pretty confident here. This doesn't look to me like "uncertainty", but rather a disagreement or dispute. Can anyone think of a better way of capturing this?

Hope that helps. It might be a few days before I can check in again, but I'd rather people went ahead than hung around waiting for me.

I wonder whether there might be a consensus that Ealdgyth's new text is at least a reasonable starting point? We could keep discussing the precise wording here?

The Parson's Cat (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

As the comments here have dried up, I'm going to implement a change which I think reflects a consensus:

Harold's forces deployed in a small, dense formation at the top of steep slope, with their flanks protected by woods and marshy ground in front of them. The line may have extended far enough to be anchored on a nearby stream. The English formed a shield wall, with the front ranks holding their shields close together or even overlapping to provide protection from attack. Sources differ on the exact site that the English fought on: some sources state the site of the abbey, but some newer sources suggest it was Caldbec Hill.

I hope this is a reasonable reflection of consensus.

The Parson's Cat (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Stamford or Stamford Bridge?

At present, the article has a couple of references to Harold leaving "Stamford". I'm about to amend this to "Stamford Bridge" as this is the name of the village. (There is a Stamford in England, but it's nowhere near Stamford Bridge.)

In support of this, please see::

• Stamford
• Stamford Bridge

I hope this won't be contentious, but if so, please discuss below.

The Parson's Cat (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

We could probably go with just "leave the battlefield" or "leave the north" as a variation. As an aside - the article on the village is totally unsourced ... so it's not much use in determining if there was an actual village there at the time of the battle. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I misread the surrounding text before I made my edit, so that might not quite work - apologies. It was actually "The deaths of ... at Stamford Bridge". This could be re-worded as "the battle". I have no objections - please all edit until perfect. The Parson's Cat (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Location map for Infobox

Battle

Hastings

Eastbourne

Rye

Newhaven

Lewes

Crowborough

Hailsham

Bexhill-on-Sea

Heathfield

Uckfield

Seaford

Peacehaven

class=notpageimage|

Site of Battle of Hastings in East Sussex

I'm about to add a map showing the location of the battle within East Sussex to the infobox. Please feel to improve and/or discuss below.

The Parson's Cat (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Lead image ...

I greatly prefer File:Harold dead bayeux tapestry.png as the lead image - it's shows up the details much better in the infobox, rather than the image that has been twice placed in the infobox. Rather than just doing the edit again, let's discuss per the WP:BRD cycle. Given the small size imposed on images that are in the infobox, it's usually better to use images that show details better. The image of the Norman knights is very very small and loses all detail. Also, showing the climax of the battle (Harold's death) strikes me as a much better idea than generic knights. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Fully agree, the previous image should be restored. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Anyone else (such as the person who changed the picture twice) want to weigh in? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree - should be changed back. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)