When I wrote BattleBooks: Hastings I wanted the book to not only be a cracking read, but also produce a fair reflection of our current understanding of a battle for which almost no reliable accounts remain. As a military historian and a children’s writer, it was this challenge that excited me more than any other. This meant that I had little option other than to turn to the Bayeux Tapestry as a reference. This iconic artwork has long been the foundation of many historian’s interpretation of the Battle of Hastings. But I was not so convinced of its reliability…

So, this left me with one important question: ‘Can I trust the Bayeux Tapestry?’

For those unaware, the Bayeux Tapestry is a huge woven depiction of William the Conqueror’s invasion of England in 1066, and naturally, the resultant Battle of Hastings. It was believed for many years that the work was commissioned by Queen Matilda (William’s wife), but it now seems more probable that it was commissioned by Bishop Odo, William’s half brother. This presents many issues since Odo’s relationship with William was troubled, at best. Odo was a bad boy, who was not beyond stealing and some even suggest he had plans to make himself Pope. If Odo was behind the Bayeux Tapestry then it can’t be ignored that the Bishop had political motivations to depict the campaign and battle in a way that benefited his own goals

The importance of the Bayeux Tapestry comes from the fact that it is one of the few depictions of the events of 1066 that survives today. We have very few written accounts of the events, and almost none recorded by people actually involved. This leaves historians with little choice but to use the Bayeux Tapestry as a source.

This throws up a huge problem. When you have an important battle, such as Hastings, and then almost no reliable first hand accounts, it leaves a void into which historians can speculate. This has produced hundreds of years of theories and postulations as to what actually happened on the day of the battle. However, many of these theories use the Bayeux Tapestry as supporting evidence.

…and this is my point. If you are using the Bayeux Tapestry to support your argument you are, in my view, on very thin ice.

Take this example:

In the image above we see mounted knights (Normans) attacking warriors on foot (English) who are wielding spears atop of a hill. This matches our understanding of the battle. It is generally accepted that as the battle of Hastings progressed the Norman knights came up against less well armed English troops who were defending a hill. The Bayeux Tapestry seems to provide evidence for this understanding.

In his book, 1066, the Hidden History of the Bayeux Tapestry, Andrew Bridgeford has this to say about the incident:

‘On the top of an isolated hillock, a group of lesser Englishmen, with shields and spears, but without chain mail protection, continued a manful defense.’

Well, OK. Seems reasonable, and this is the basis for the understanding of the battle we currently hold. Evidence, aside from the Bayeux Tapestry, including written accounts and even geographical and archaeological insights all point towards the fact that the English defended themselves from the Norman knights by forming a shield wall on the lip of a hill. Look back at the image above and this seems to be the case.

Now, here’s the problem. If Bridgeford’s interpretation of the tapestry is correct (the English defended the lip of a hill), and it seems to be so, then how do the explain the following image from the Bayeux Tapestry?

The image is taken from a section of the Bayeux Tapestry that shows the Norman attack on the English. I have one problem with this image – no hill!

So does this mean the English defended on flat ground or that the tapestry is wrong?

The answer is that we just don’t know. The Bayeux Tapestry is riddled with inconsistencies. These may be due to interpretation of events, artistic license or even political motivations, but one thing is certain, the Bayeux Tapestry is NOT a reliable source.

This, therefore, means that any historical account of the battle, based largely on the Bayeux Tapestry is likely to be incorrect, and this includes the famous story of Harold being shot in the eye.

The up shot was that it made the writing of BattleBooks: Hastings a slow and time consuming affair. At each point in the battle I was forced to consult all the evidence at hand (including the Bayeux Tapestry) and construct what, I thought, was the most likely sequence of events.

The result is a book of which I am very proud. I wanted to create more than a fun read for kids and I have hopefully done this by producing a book that reflects serious historical research into a battle hidden in the mists of time.