Mr Wace

Wace lived and wrote some time around 1173, according to current thinking, quite late in the day for my 150 years from the battle rule. His manuscript the Roman de Rue claims to be an account of the Invasion of England and the Battle of Hastings, which was passed to him by his father. It just fits the time scale possible and has that ring of truth. He tells us that he was born in Jersey, probably soon after 1100 and was taken to Caen to be educated.

Wace's principle patron was Henry II, who gave him the prebend of the cathedral at Bayeux. This is according to the archives of the church, where he held the office for nineteen years. He says in the main text that he wrote the main part in 1160. English Historians will however argue for ever, as to whether this is right or wrong, when it comes to this particular author. I have studied all the texts from the time and I conclude, contrary to English experts who have spent their lives repeating ad infinitum what they have read by other historians, that Wace is the most reliable source. I take this view because information is recorded in Wace that confirms the correct locations of the Battle of Hastings and the Invasion camp. This information cannot be correct and his manuscript be fundamentally at fault.

The reason for current disquiet by many historians is they are haunted by the past episodes of ego inflation, by eminent historians from the Victorian period who all thought they were right, and are now seen to be hopelessly wrong. It all goes back to the Victorian era when Wace's work was discredited, because of the argument about who could see whom on the night of the battle. No-one ever considered that the cause of this difficulty could be because the battle site might be in the wrong place. The only conclusion possible at that time was the belief that one or more of a number of authors from the time must have made the whole story up. The impossibility of the port being visible from the Abbey site meant that Wace was the one at fault, and consequently his supporters were discredited in a very public humiliation in the pages of the Historical Society papers. It is therefore some surprise to find that the claim that Wace is not reliable is based upon nothing more than Victorian hypocrisy. As if to emphasise this point no such discrimination process took place in France, where Wace is and always has been the pre-eminent source for Norman history. You will find his writings accompanying the text of the Bayeux Tapestry in Bayeux today, as it rightly should.

Having read Wace in full I conclude that the 10,000 lines of battle poem have a legitimacy that defies logic to criticise. Many of those who attended the Invasion and Battle of Hastings were included in the text by name and family. This was at a time when the close ancestors of those who died and fought were still alive. These were the very same people who inherited lands in England as a result of their deeds at the Battle of Hastings. It would simply be madness to invent the pedigree for those who attended.

Clearly, like all historical texts of the time, certain names may have been embroidered into the narrative for political or other reasons without the knowledge of the author. That does not undermine the validity of the record. I do not think Wace would have known this, but simply reported what he believed to be true, like Poitiers and Jumieges before him. None intended deception and therefore the bulk of the information is probably reliable. It is an extremely foolish historian who believes he has the authority to dismiss works written 1,000 years ago, when the same work is the leading authority in the home of those who created the story in the first place - the French.

Wace unlike any other scribe of the time tells the whole story of the Invasion, how Harold was captured by William and how William cheated Harold at Bayeux Cathedral, by hiding the relics under the cloth and obtaining an oath of allegiance. The chapter that covers these events isn't painted with the political thinking of the likes of Poitiers, who was part of William's court. It tells the truth of the occasion and doesn't pander to being politically correct, because sufficient time had elapsed for the truth to be told:

"To receive the oath, he (William) caused parliament to be called. It is commonly said that it was at Bayeux that he had called his great council assembled. He sent for all the holy bodies thither, and put so many of them together as to fill a whole chest, and then covered them with a pall; but Harold neither saw them, nor knew of their being there; for nought was shewn or told to him about it; and over all was a philactery, the best he could select; I have heard it called. When Harold placed his hand upon it, the hand trembled, and the flesh quivered; but he swore, and to deliver up England to the duke; and thereunto to do all in his power, according to his might and wit, after the death of Edward, if he should live, so help him God and the holy relics there! Many cried "God grant it, and when Harold had kissed the saints, and had risen upon his feet, the duke led him up to the chest, and made him stand near it; and took of the chest the pall that had covered it; and shewed Harold upon what holy relics he had sworn;and he was sorely alarmed at the sight".

At this point Harold is released to go home to England.

What this manuscript tells us is that William is now dead and the deception imparted upon Harold can be told. The fact that Harold has not been informed of the relics does not undermine the oath, which has major significance, because an oath before God upon the relics of saints cannot be disputed in the eyes of the church at that time. However it also explains why Harold never accepted it as a legitimate oath, because it was obtained by deception and whilst he was held captive. The principal of an oath obtained under duress or deception has never been valid in an English court since.

Wace's manuscript is packed with details that suggest authenticity and knowledge of events, which were known at the time to the general population. Wace tells the story of William's boat having a brass child on the prow, the Invasion arriving near or at Hastings, building a prefabricated fort and the story of the death of the soothsayer. William falls and grabs "England with my two hands" turning a bad sign into one that gets reported as good. Harold's men dig a fosse (ditch) and the exchanges with Harold's spokesman takes place over many pages. Harold comes to the Norman camp with his brother Gurth the night before the battle to spy on the Normans and it is clear from the description that the Norman and Saxon camp are very close.

On the day before the battle Wace records Harold creating some form of defense at his camp:

"He (Harold) had the place well examined, and surrounded it by a good fosse, leaving an entrance in each of three sides, which were ordered to be well guarded."

It is reported that each side fears the other will attack at night and both side make ready for battle. The names of many French families are embroidered into the tale and as a consequence of this it has become the major source in France for the Norman Invasion story. It was never discredited in France, because there was never any reason for French history experts not to believe its authenticity, as a historical report of the events of the Battle of Hastings.

Wace tells us it was 14th October the day of the battle. The text we have read up to this point is almost a script for the Bayeux Tapestry. All the events shown in the Bayeux Tapestry are recorded in Wace with details. The conclusion must be drawn that Wace had access to the Bayeux Tapestry and that formed the basis for his story. There is however much more detail in Wace than shown on the Tapestry.

He tells us that the Normans attacked in three divisions, with a full transcript of William's pep-talk to his men in the Norman camp before the battle. It includes the story of the armor being held up the wrong way round, which is also reported in the Chronicle of Battle Abbey, and the choice of horse given to him as a present from the King of Spain.

Twice Wace reports in the same section that Harold has enclosed the field, where he expects the battle to take place. This appears to be an important issue, since other issues of the battle are not repeated:

"Harold knew that the Normans would come and attack him hand to hand; so he had early enclosed the field in which he placed his men"

There is more in this statement than meets the untrained eye, once the true battle site is known. We are being told that Harold had certain knowledge that the Normans would not only have to come to him, but that they would have to fight hand to hand. This was not the way that the Normans fought - it was the way that the Saxons fought. It must be remembered that Harold had fought with William in France, as one of William's men whilst he was held captive. He had earned a position of favour, as a result of his rank and acts of valor in battle with William. Most important of all Harold knew that these were people who fought on horseback and he had seen how they fought. It was a style of engaging the enemy that was completely different from the style employed by the Saxons.

The normal style for the Saxons was to fight on foot and to lock shields, creating a shield wall, through which no man could normally pass. Battle was engaged by using the free arm to wield the battle-axe against any opponent within range. Yet Harold knew, according to Wace, that not only would the Normans need to come to him, but they would also be forced to fight on foot.

This is because Harold knew the land and made preparations that made the Norman horsemen impotent. He had dug a ditch, enclosed the defense, and as shown the Bayeux Tapestry put stakes across the field. He knew what the Norman horsemen could do. This was an invading army who unlike any other army before, or since, brought with them their secret weapons - horses. Harold knew how these horsemen worked and he knew that stakes driven across the field would force the horsemen to fight on foot. If they wished to escape the trap he had sprung as a result of force marching his men to Crowhurst they would need to fight on foot.

The Bayeux Tapestry shows the horses tied in the ships and William expected to use them with devastating effect. These horses where no runners in the Grand National, but devastating fearless man killers. They were what are affectionately known now as cart horses - but trained for battle. Approaching a ton of horse meat, moving at thirty miles an hour, Harold's shield wall would be blown away by the first charge. William knew that, but so did Harold. That is why the battle lasted all day. Harold was prepared and took the initiative.

Wace confirms that the field of battle was not an open field, but was in a confined place. Indeed one of the Saxon Chronicles confirm this too. Wace goes into some detail about the tactics employed by the English in creating a fence on the battlefield. This of course makes a lot of sense if the Normans had to pass through the area of the battlefield to exit the land on which Harold had them contained. It makes no sense at all on the Battle Abbey site, because it has unrestricted side approaches.

"They had built up a fence before them with their shields, and with ash and other wood; and had well joined and wattled in the whole work, so as not to leave a crevice; and thus they had a barricade in their front, through which any Norman who would attack them must first pass."

"The English stood in close ranks, ready and eager for the fight; and they had moreover made a fosse, which went across the field, guarding one side of their army."

The problem is that the Battle Abbey site is neither confined by the geography of the site, because it is possible to bypass any defense that might be made there. It is also confirmed by Wace to be the wrong location, because there is and never has been a ditch that has been created as a defense across that field. A man made ditch would be detectable by archaeologists. Both of these requirements are necessary to satisfy the due diligence of the correct Battle site, which can be found at Crowhurst.

I realised as I read Wace that once you know the correct location of the Saxon defense and the Norman camp the text in Wace and the Bayeux Tapestry springs to life, as an actual true description of the day. You know where Harold was standing when the descriptions of the Normans arriving is made. You know the area of land which is called "the plain" in Wace where the first division arrives, because it truly is a plain in all the senses of the word. You also know that the Normans arrive over the rising land in the distance:

"Meanwhile the Normans appeared, advancing over the ridge of a rising ground; and the first division of their troops moved along the hill across a valley"

You know where the valley is - missing from the Battle Abbey site along with the "plain".

Wace continues to describe the events just before the battle commences:

"The youths and common herd of the camp, whose business was not to join in the battle, but to take care of the harness and stores, moved off towards a rising ground. The priests and the clerks also ascend a hill, there to offer up prayers to God, and watch the event of the battle"

This is an unexpected confirmation that this was the first recorded entertainment event in history. We often forget that battles are not just won and lost by those who fight. A large number of non-fighters are required to support an invading army. There was a hill that had to be behind the Norman lines and yet still provide a view of the battle site.

Every knight had his manservant and they all needed feeding and looking after. Wace confirms that there is a nearby hill that requires them to ascend - exactly as detailed at the Crowhurst site and completely missing from the Battle Abbey field.

Wace tells us the ingredients of the most important battle in English history, are a confined battlefield, steep hills, valleys, a plain, at least one and possibly two ditches, one of which is man made across the site and the other within the battlefield with viewpoints. This is not the Battle Abbey site. It is too far from the Norman camp by the sea and topographically wrong for the descriptions that are available. The only evidence to support the site at Battle Abbey is I believe the discredited Chronicle and once that is understood the only alternative is the Crowhurst site - which fulfills all the descriptions. Instinctively you know you are in the right place when you read the texts, because like William's camp at Wilting there is nothing out of place.

The account of the battle now follows in Wace detailing those who attended and their valor. Wace refers to an incident which may be interpreted to be a confirmation of the Malfosse incident:

"In the plain was a fosse, which the Normans had now behind them, having passed it in the fight without regarding it. But the English charged and drove the Normans back before them, till they made them fall back upon this fosse, overthrowing into it horses and men. Many were to be seen falling therein, with their faces to the earth and unable to rise. Many of the English also, whom the Normans drew down along with them, died there. At no time during the day's battle did so many Normans die, as perished in that fosse. So said those who saw the dead."

It is not known whether this is the so called Malfosse incident or not, but appears to be an event that caused Bishop Odo to take up arms to rally his men, as he orders the fleeing Frenchmen to "Stand fast, Stand Fast". It is however more likely to be the incident shown in the Bayeux Tapestry, because the story follows the same format. The Chronicle of Battle Abbey tells us that that the Malfosse incident is at the end of the Battle after Harold has died.

The important element from the point of view of looking for the right site, for the Battle of Hasting, is that both events can be validated by the lay of the land. In the case of the correct site they can, because of the arrangements in regards to where the so called "clefts in the land" are located. One is located next to the final stand and one next to the plain. I shall deal with that in the next chapter.

Wace tells us that the battle starts at 9am in the morning and continues through till 3am, when the Normans change to shooting arrows up into the air and down onto their enemy. This is important information because dawn was at 6.30am and the time taken to get the men into position and battle commencing is a key element, as we have discussed earlier. Wace acts as a further authority to undermine the Battle Abbey site by virtue of the logistics involved.

I shall write here what Wace reports about the death of Harold. Not because it adds anything to the investigation into the correct battle site, but because it offers an insight into a truthful understanding of the events of that day. For the last two hundred years, since the Victorians synthesised their definitive, and selective, understanding of historical truth, it has been believed by people who have not studied the original source documents that Harold died with an arrow in the eye. That is what we all learnt at school. In the same way many historians still believe that Pevensey refers to the town in Poitier's manuscript, when he was referring to the area under the control of Pevensey Castle.

The Chronicle of Battle Abbey tells us that Harold was laid low by a chance blow. The Carmen on the other hand says that four knights killed Harold. Poitiers and Jumieges omit the story completely - which infers they did not know how Harold died. Wace's description satisfies all accounts, by offering a comprehensive understanding of the events of the day.

Wace states that first Harold is hit above the eye and wounded - his eye is put out:

"The arrows now flew thicker than rain before the wind; fast sped the shafts that the English call 'wibetes'. Then it was that an arrow, that had been shot upwards, struck Harold above the eye, and put it out. In his agony he drew the arrow and threw it away, breaking it with his hands; and the pain in his head was so great, that he leaned upon his shield."

However this is not the end of the battle. There are still many lines of verse describing the heroic events of French knights. The battle is by no means easily won by the Normans. It is clear from the text that there were times the Normans were in danger of losing the day.

Wace fails to mention any battlefield oath, but recounts specific events involving those who were subsequently to enjoy great privileges, after winning the battle. The English are said to "fall back upon a rising ground, and (the Normans) follow them across a valley, attacking them on foot and horseback". Only at this time near the end of the details of the battle are we told that Harold is killed:

"And now the Normans had pressed on so far, that at last they reached the standard. There Harold had remained, defending himself to the utmost; but he was sorely wounded in the eye by the arrow; and suffered grievous pain from the blow. An armed man came in the throng of battle, and struck him on the ventaille of his helmet, and beat him to the ground; and as he sought to recover himself, a knight beat him down again, striking him on the thigh, down to the bone...... The standard was beaten down, the golden gonfanon was taken, and Harold and the best of his friends were slain; but there was so much eagerness, and the throng of so many around, seeking to kill him, that I know not who it was that slew him."

As a result of the dismissal of the Wace text in England in Victorian times it was necessary for the academic fraternity to unite under one version of how Harold died. This consensus eventually settled for the Bayeux Tapestry version of events, which is open to interpretation. The image with the picture of Harold with an arrow in the eye is the one we all know and to some extent is due to the marketing power of Bayeux in selling their heritage to the world.

The truth appears to be in part the arrow story, but you should remember that the images we see in the Bayeux Tapestry today were not always the same. The words Harold Rex are shown above the man with the arrow in his eye. However engravings of the Tapestry taken in 1729 by Bernard de Montfaucon show that the arrow is absent. In the next section a figure is shown dead on the ground and has the words "Interfectus est - "he is slain" above it. The fact that this figure has been shown from needle holes in the linen to have once had an arrow in his eye appears to confirm Wace - that Harold was slain and also had an arrow above his eye.

Consequently we cannot rely upon the Tapestry to tell us everything, due to the ingenuity of men who have gone before us. The conspiracy to place the battle site where the Abbey now is did not stop in 1180 as power and influence in historical circles even extended to altering the Tapestry at some stage to suit the politics of the day. The advantage of the written word being it is less easy to edit an old manuscript than an old tapestry.

In conclusion Wace is a vibrant source of information which endorses the new battle site at Crowhurst. Wace is also confirmed by the editing of the Bayeux Tapestry to contain authentic information about the battle that is not confirmed in any other text. The distance between the authentic battle site in the Crowhurst valley, to the Norman camp site at Wilting is less than 3 miles, the sort of distance that would allow troops to be organised to move the distance involved in the time scales recorded.

Much as been made by historians of Harold's decision to force march his men immediately after the Battle of Stamford Bridge, back to Sussex so soon after the battle, whilst still weary from that fight. What we are seeing unfold is evidence that Harold knew exactly what he was doing and why it was necessary. He took a decision that under all the manuals of war should have won the day. This is because not only was he going to deliver a tactical surprise upon his enemy, but he was going to outmaneouver and outsmart him at the same time.

RETURN TO INDEX