Quick Guide - Faulty Evidence for the Traditional Battlefield

We propose that the Battle of Hastings was fought at Hurst Lane near Sedlescombe, in which case, there must be errors in the evidence that the battle was fought at the orthodox Battle Abbey location. There are only two and a half supporting arguments, each summarised below. 

Contemporary account assertions that Battle Abbey was built on the battlefield

The only substantial evidence that the Battle of Hastings was fought at the traditional Battle Abbey location is seven contemporary accounts that are thought to say or imply that Battle Abbey was built on the battlefield. We refer to them as the 'abbey on the battlefield' references. They would be compelling if that is what they really say and if they were independent and trustworthy, but they are not. 

The most trusted 'abbey on the battlefield' reference, because it was written within living memory of the battle by a non-Norman affiliate, is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle's obituary for William. Garmonsway translates: “On the very spot where God granted him the conquest of England he caused a great abbey to be built”. It is a quirky translation. The Old English original ‘ðam ilcan steode’ means 'in the same place'. All the other Anglo-Saxon Chronicle translations use this less specific meaning. A 'place' is far less specific than 'on the very pot'. Indeed, it might be pretty vague in a place as remote and sparsely populated as medieval Hastings Peninsula. Anywhere south of the Andredsweald might as well have been in the Algarve as far as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle's author in Peterborough was concerned. Even if the battlefield was five miles from Battle Abbey, he and his readers would still have thought they were 'in the same place'. 

Two more 'abbey on the battlefield' references were written by the monks of Battle Abbey. William guaranteed them immense wealth and independence during his lifetime but made no provision after his death. They spent the next 200 years fending off serial subjugation attempts, in part by fabricating narratives, doctoring manuscripts and forging charters. There is good reason to believe that both their 'abbey on the battlefield' accounts, especially the second, were fabricated and clumsily inserted into a genuine battle narrative.

Another 'abbey on the battlefield' reference is in William of Malmesbury's Chronicles of the Kings of England: “... the principal church is to be seen on the very spot where, as they report, Harold was found among the thickest heaps of the slain". The Latin original uses a declension suggesting 'what follows is untrustworthy hearsay', which Giles translates 'as they report'. The context means that their untrustworthy source was the monks of Battle Abbey. It makes sense. Malmesbury was writing after the battle participants had died. There are no details about the battle or the battle location in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Where else could he go for information about the battle?

So, William of Malmesbury thought the 'abbey on the battlefield' story had been fabricated by the monks of Battle Abbey. Garmonsway, perhaps subconsciously, transferred Malmesbury's words into his Anglo-Saxon Chronicle translation, omitting to mention that it was unreliable hearsay, thereby inadvertently elevating a fabrication to an apparent fact.

The other three 'abbey on the battlefield' references were also written after the battle participants had died. Like William of Malmesbury, their only likely source of information would have been the monks of Battle Abbey, either directly through questioning or indirectly through the first of their fabricated narratives. If so, they would have been similarly misled.

In summary, the earliest and most important 'abbey on the battlefield' reference has been misinterpreted, two more have been fabricated, and the other four were based on unreliable hearsay that is likely to have been fabricated.

Battle Abbey's name

It is often assumed that Battle Abbey's name means that it was built on the battlefield. The reverse is true. Medieval Christian abbeys were never built on battlefields, for fear that it might be interpreted as the glorification of violence. Battle Abbey would have been especially sensitive in this respect because it was built under a papal penitential edict to earn absolution for the violence and death caused by the Conquest. It is true that some churches are said to have been built on battlefields for the salvation of those that died - at Cruden and Assandun for example - but this really means that they were built at the nearest settlement to the battlefield. Moreover, building Battle Abbey somewhere other than the battlefield would prevent Harold being worshipped as a martyr, and it would avoid the palpable medieval dread of being haunted by the souls of a battle's victims.

Battle Abbey was built on a slope

In 2014, English Heritage devised a new argument that Battle Abbey was built on the battlefield, namely that it was built on a side slope, thereby making the construction unnecessarily tricky. Their reasoning is presumably that the abbey might have been built on a side slope because William commanded it be built exactly where Harold died. The argument is spurious. English Heritage are referring to the 13th century abbey. William's original abbey, whose foundations are outlined at the site, was built on the level ridge crest.