Why we are 90% confident the Battle of Hastings was fought at Sedlescombe

Philip Merricks, a local farmer and former High Sheriff of Kent, once asked us to estimate the probability that the Battle of Hastings was fought at Hurst Lane in Sedlescombe. "Over 90 percent", we confidently replied. How so?

We have found more than 30 clues about the battlefield from the contemporary accounts, including more than 20 new clues that have never previously been considered. Our proposed battlefield on the spur at Hurst Lane in Sedlescombe matches them all.

This said, a bunch of these new clues are associated with the shape of the shield wall: an enclosed loop. A bunch more are associated with the topography of the battlefield: the crest of a spur. These are important insofar as they refute the traditional battlefield at Battle Abbey, as well as John Grehan's proposed battlefield at Caldbec Hill and Nick Austin's at Telham Hill, none of which are on the crest of spurs. But there are lots of other spurs in the vicinity, 36 off the Hastings Ridge alone. Any of them could have had an enclosed loop shield wall. Some of them fit many of our other clues. However, there are three groups of battlefield clues - summarised below - that match the spur at Hurst Lane and nowhere else. It is these clues that make us so confident it is the battlefield.

Why then are we not 100 percent confident? It would not have been possible for us to deduce the battlefield location without Wace and the Chronicle of Battle Abbey, two of the four most detailed contemporary accounts. They also provide nearly all the evidence below that the battlefield can only have been at Hurst Lane. The rest comes from the other two detailed accounts, William of Poitiers and Brevis Relatio. Poitiers is early and trustworthy, but the least useful of the four. The others might be inaccurate. The first two were written around 100 years after the battle. Both claim to be based on early accounts, but they might be fibbing or those early accounts might be inaccurate. CBA is less than honest regarding the Abbey's royal privileges. Brevis Relatio was written at the same place and might be similarly flawed. Despite all this, we are confident that these accounts are mostly accurate and that we have a good idea of where they are not, but we are not certain. Only physical evidence can make us 100% certain we are right, and that is some way off.

1. Battlefield ditches

Hurst Lane spur is the only place in the region that matches contemporary account descriptions of battlefield ditches.

The Chronicle of Battle Abbey provides the best known description, giving its ditch the famous name 'Malfosse'. It is a good description too: “Just where the fighting was going on, and stretching for a considerable distance, an immense ditch yawned. It may have been a natural cleft in the earth or it may have been hollowed out by storms.” Later it says that the Malfosse has precipitous sides and that many Norman horses and riders are killed falling into it.

CBA is probably wrong about the Malfosse's origin. Natural steep-sided ditches near hillstops are associated with geological features like faults and kettle holes. The only known examples of the latter in East Sussex are on the coastal plain, and it seems unlikely that there would be glacial features near the top of a hill on land that had not been glaciated. The BGS Weaden Geological Survey (extract above) shows that there are two geological faults in the region - the Archer Wood/Brede Valley and the Coghurst/Marsham - but there are no hilltop ditches on either of them.

We guess that CBA's monk author was trying to say that the Malfosse was not fluvial before such a term had been invented: Everyone can recognise a stream valley and running water is not on his list of possible origins. In this area, non-fluvial ditches with precipitous sides are almost invariably where iron ore was extracted. The monk's speculations are a good guess for someone that had no knowledge of geology and no reason to recognise an iron ore mining pit. The name Malfosse is a clue that someone recognised it because the word 'fosse' derives from the Latin word 'fodio' meaning to 'dig out', usually associated with mining.

Wace also describes a ditch at the battlefield, encountered as the English retreat from the battlefield after Harold's death: “The English fell back upon a rising ground, and the Normans followed them across the valley, attacking them on foot and horseback.” This needs some thinking about. The Normans were attacking upslope, so it sounds like the English fell back in formation over the crest of the battlefield hill, down the other side and up an adjacent hill. But this makes the age old mistake of assuming that the Normans would attack from the least favourable direction. If the English tried to cross a normal stream valley, the Norman cavalry would have trapped them on unfavourable ground at the bottom. If they were allowed to cross a normal valley and climb normal rising ground on the other side, the Norman cavary would have looped around to attack downhill. The alternative is that the valley was between the battlefield and the crest of the battlefield hill. It therefore cannot have been fluvial, because the battlefield was near the crest of the battlefield hill, and  streams near the crest of hills are tiny and run downhill. Most likely, in our opinion, Wace's valley was actually an upslope non-fluvial ditch that went across the top of the battlefield. If so, the rising ground was simply the opposite side of the ditch. In other words, Wace's ditch is in the same position as the Malfosse and probably of the same origin. We believe Wace is giving another description of the Malfosse.

William of Poitiers gives a third account of ditches near the battlefield, this time encountered as the English fled: “However confidence returned to the fugitives when they found a good chance to renew battle, thanks to a broken rampart and labyrinth of ditches”. A 'labyrinth of ditches', once again, means that they are non-fluvial.

So, we need to look for an immense non-fluvial ditch with precipitous sides, towards the top of a hill, and deep enough to be fatal for horses and riders that fall over the edge. There is a broken rampart and other ditches nearby.

The only place in the region that matches this description is the iron ore pits at Hurst Lane and Killingan Wood near Sedlescombe. Below is the LiDAR for the vicinity. The Hurst Lane pits are immeditely south of the rectangle that marks an indoor horse school. It is bisected by Hurst Lane. The Killingan Wood pits are 250m away to the west. A similar pit from the same iron ore outcrop is in Combe Wood a further 300m west-northwest, this time bisected by the B2244. They are all 150m by 100m or so, and 8m or so deep with precipitous sides. There is a broken rampart to the east of the Killingan Wood pit and another to the east of the Combe Wood pit.

https://momentousbritain.co.uk/boh_lidar.html

Don't take our word for it. Check for yourself. Above is a link to a high res 2m LiDAR scan of the entire Hastings Peninsula and Udimore Peninsula. Our proposed Hurst Lane battlefield is marked S, the traditional battlefield is marked B, Caldbec Hill is marked C and Telham Hill is marked T. Click on the image, then use your scroll wheel to zoom or drag to pan.

If you find any new candidates that match the desciptions above, or find any errors in our analysis, please contact us: momentousbritain@outlook.com.

To see how our Sedlescombe battle theory fits the topography, here are some key features superimposed on the LiDAR. The magenta heart is our proposed battlefield, protected upslope by the Hurst Lane iron ore pits, and to the sides by boggy streams. The cyan lines are the three Norman divisions, forced to attack upslope. The black line to the left is the Rochester Roman road. The magenta dots are the route we believe that the English took when fleeing. We think they fled through the pits and around them, as depicted in the double-decker section of the last panel of the Bayeux Tapestry (below).

2. The Norman advance

Hurst Lane spur is the only place in the region that matches contemporary account descriptions of the Norman advance.

Brevis Relatio (Dawson translation) describes William and his barons arriving at the Norman battle camp on the morning of battle: “Accordingly, coming to a hill which was on the side of Hastingas, opposite that hill upon which Harold with his army was, there under arms, they halted for a short time, surveying the army of the English.”

Brevis Relatio then reports that a solider standing at the Norman battle camp tells William that Harold is: “... in the midst of the dense array, which was before them on the top of the hill, for he thinks he can see Harold’s Standard there”.

Wace describes the Norman advance from Harold's perspective: “The Normans appeared, advancing over the ridge of a rising ground; and the first division of their troops moved onwards along the hill and across a valley.”

Wace continues: "But while they yet spoke of the Normans they were looking at, another division, still larger, came in sight, close following upon the first ; and they wheeled towards another side of the field, forming together as the first body had done."

These are among the most specific landscape descriptions among all the contemporary accounts. The only part that makes it into the traditional engagement scenario is that the armies were visible to each other on facing hill tops. This is why Mark Anthony Lower originally proposed that the Normans attacked from Telham Hill to the south whereas it had previously been assumed that they attacked along the Hastings Ridge crest to the southeast.

They tell a lot more than most experts read into them. The place to start is that William's second division 'wheeled' into position. This has a specific military meaning. It is the way that ranks of soldiers turn 90° or more. Wace is saying that the Normans approached the battlefield from the side, then wheeled 90° to face the English army. This is corroborated by the hill over which the English see the Normans emerge. It has to be to the side of the battlefield for the obvious reason that the armies would not be visible to each other if there was a hill in between. If the Normans advance to the side of the battlefield, they did not, as tradition dictates, advance in three divisions from their battle camp.

Initially, as Brevis Relatio explains, the armies faced each other on two hills. A circuitous advance wastes precious time. The only credible reason that the Normans would make a circuitous advance is that there was some sort of impediment between the armies, presumably a deep bog or wide river, that was difficult or dangerous to cross. All the low lying land on and near the Hastings Peninsula is boggy, but the roads and trackways try to avoid low lying ground. The only exceptions are where they cross waterways. The impediment between the armies was therefore almost certainly a river.

Normans lived in the land of the Seine, Orne and Dives, and their tributaries. They routinely crossed rivers twice the width of anything on or near the Hastings Peninsula. The Bayeux Tapestry depicts William and his men crossing the Couesnon estuary at low tide to attack Mont St Michel. Its eastern channel was 70m wide. The only waterways they could not easily cross around the Hastings Peninsula were the Brede and Ash Bourne estuaries, which were 200m wide. We think one or the other was between the two armies before the Normans advanced. 

If they did not wade across the watery impediment between the armies, they must have crossed on a bridge, ford or causeway. Bridges, fords and causeways over major waterways were important medieval traffic arteries, almost always attached to a road or trackway on both sides.

The basic geography of the battlefield can therefore be deduced. The English were on a hill that sloped down to a wide river. The Normans faced them, on a hill that sloped down to the other side of the same river. A Norman soldier can see Harold's Standard, so the armies were not separated by more than, say, 2km. There is a road or trackway near to the Norman camp that crosses the river. From the crossing point it passes one or more hills away from the English army at the battlefield.

Here is a heat relief map of the Hastings Peninsula and surrounds as they were in 1066, showing the routes in the area that armies could have used. The black line shows the Rochester Roman road. The solid white lines show known trackways, mostly on ridges and to iron ore mines. The dotted white lines are presumed trackways. The Rochester road was the only paved road in the region, which should have made it the preferred method for armies to get around. Tracks made for transporting iron products are also plausble, probably metalled with broken slag.

It is clear from the map above that the Rochester Roman road was the only road or track that crossed a major waterway, the Brede at modern Sedlescombe. If the Brede estuary was the major obstacle between the armies and the Normans circumvent it on the Rochester Roman road, the Norman battle camp was at Cottage Lane, facing the English army on the spur at Hurst Lane.

We have searched the Hastings Peninsula and surrounds for ten years without finding any other geography that matches these four contemporary account descriptions of the Norman advance. Once again, don't take our word for it. We encourage you to check for yourselves. If you think there is an error in our reasoning or if you can find somewhere else that matches these descriptions, please contact us: momentousbritain@outlook.com.

3. Herste

According to the Chronicle of Battle Abbey, the battlefield was at Herste. A manor named Herste is listed in Domesday. It was in Staple hundred with 12 other manors stretching north and east from the manor of Salescome (Sedlescombe). Sedlescombe (named Setlescumbe in CBA) was south of the Brede and upstream of the bridge in Saxon times, as shown on our Battle Abbey Leuga diagram below.

Herste is listed immediately next to Sedlescombe and Footlands. Footlands is a well known Roman bloomery north and west of Sedlescombe. Phillimore deduced - rightly in our opinion - that Herste manor was therefore north and east of Sedlescombe, which means that Hurst Wood, Hurst House and Hurst Lane are probably legacies of the Saxon era manor. If Phillimore is right, our proposed battlefield was within Herste manor. It is the only manor named Herste in the vicinity, thereby uniquely matching our Hurst Lane battlefield.

A battlefield in Herste manor might explain one Domesday anomaly. Herste was given to a Saxon tenant by the name of Ednoth. He is one of only a handful of Saxon tenants in the entire county. We guess that Normans did not want it, for fear they would be haunted by the souls of English battle victims.

Three arguments have been used against our theory: 1) 'herste' was the Old English word for 'hilly woodland', so perhaps CBA was using the term as a noun rather than as a proper noun; 2) CBA is not saying that the battlefield was at Herste manor; and 3) CBA was referring to a different place also named Herste.

Hilly woodland was very common in these parts: Bodeherste and Croherste are among ten places listed in Battle Abbey's Leuga, for instance. It is possible that CBA was using the term as a noun, but the Latin grammar and spelling persuade us that it was being used as a proper noun in this case.

CBA Folio 12, according to Professor Searle’s translation, says: “They studied the battlefield and decided that it seemed hardly suitable for so outstanding a building. They therefore chose a fit place for settling, a site located not far off, but somewhat lower down, towards the western slope of the ridge. There, lest they seem to be doing nothing, they built themselves some little huts. This place, still called Herste, has a low wall as a mark of this.”

Roy Porter of English Heritage interprets this passage to mean that the huts were at Herste, so he rejects it as a useful locational clue for the battlefield. There does seem to be ambiguity. Porter justifies his theory by saying: “Searle’s translation uses a standard usage known as a connective relative to differentiate between the monks in the first sentence and the battlefield in the final sentence”. Confused perhaps. ‘connective relative’ is a Latin figure of speech not writing.

The original Latin passage says: “Qui memoratum belli locum considerantes cum ad tam insignem fabricam minus idoneum, ut uidebatur, arbitrarentur in humiliori non procul loco, uersus eiusdem collis occidentalem plagam, aptum habitandi locum eligentes ibidem ne nil operis agree uiderentur mansiunculas quasdam fabricauerunt. Qui locos, hucusque Herste cognominatus, quandam habet spinam in huius rei monimentum.”  

Searle breaks down the first Latin sentance into three English sentences. It makes ‘This place’ at the start of the fourth sentance seem to apply to the subject of the third sentance, the 'little huts', but it is a quirk of Searle's translation. It says that the 'little huts' are not far from the battlefield. It seems most likely to us that the Latin original is saying that the battlefield and the little huts were in Herste. If not, it is surely more likely that CBA would be naming the location of the battlefield rather than the location of the temporary little huts.

The confusion about whether CBA was referring to Herste manor or somewhere else named Herste comes from CBA Folio 21. It says that a field next to the hostel where pilgrims stayed was named Herste. Elsewhere it says that the hostel was immediately north of the Abbey, which Dr Searle used to work out that Herste was roughly 100m northeast or northwest of the original Abbey. The other passage in Folio 12 could therefore be saying that the battlefield and/or little huts were at this other Herste, near Battle Abbey, which would support the traditional battlefield location. It isn't.

The traditional battlefield is south or southeast of the Abbey. The Herste next to the pilgrim house was north or the Abbey. The little huts were "not far off" and "somewhat lower down" than the battlefield, "towards the western slope of the ridge". But anywhere north of the Abbey and "not far off" was higher than the traditional battlefield and towards the eastern slope of the Hastings Ridge. Therefore, the Herste next to the Abbey was not the location of the battlefield or the little huts.

It is very odd that the field next to the pilgrim house was named Herste, because that is the Old English name for hilly woodland. We explain what we think was going on in our Traditional Battlefield blog here. In brief, we agree with Dr Searle's view that the monks of Battle Abbey were fabricating evidence to support their independence and royal privileges. We think they doctored an early text to make it look like Battle Abbey was built on the battlefield. Simultaneously, they needed to confuse any other accounts that gave the real locations of the Norman battle camp and the battlefield. We think those places were named Hechelande and Herste, respectively, and they achieved the confusion by inventing places named Hechelande and Herste near to the Abbey. As it happened, no other accounts have survived that name the Norman battle camp or the battlefield, but they were not to know.

Please check our analysis. If you find any errors or find alternative interpretations, please email us momentousbritain@outlook.com. We would love to hear from you.