The Battle of Fulford ... at York Racecourse

Introduction

The Battle of Fulford was fought on 20th September 1066 between an alliance of Norse and Flemish invaders under King Harald Hardrada and Earl Tostig Godwinson, and an alliance of Mercians and Northumbrians under Earls Edwin and Morcar. It was a resounding victory for the invaders. No physical evidence of the battlefield location has ever been found. In this paper, we will explain why we think the battle was fought on a strip of land between the Knavesmire and the River Ouse near modern York.

Fulford is the poor relation of 1066 battles. It gets just two pages in Frank McLynn’s ‘1066: The Year of the Three Battles’, less than a page in A H Burne’s ‘Battlefields of England’, and less than a paragraph in Smurthwaite’s ‘Complete Guide to the Battlefields of Britain’. Yet it had a crucial impact. If the English had been victorious at Fulford, Harold would not have been distracted from the defence of the south coast, which would probably have been enough to turn the finely balanced result at Hastings. Fulford deserves more attention.

The traditional battlefield location

One obvious place to start is the battle’s name. None of the detailed accounts give a name to the battle location, but Symeon says that it was ‘apud Fulford’, Gaimar that it was ‘A Fuleford se combatirent’. Latin ‘apud’ means ‘at’, ‘by’, ‘near’, ‘towards’. A place named ‘Fuleford/Foleforde’ south of Jorvik appears in Domesday. Its exact location has been lost, although it was probably at or near modern Fulford.

Twentieth century historians nearly always say that the battlefield was at ‘Gate Fulford’ and refer to the battle as the ‘Battle of Gate Fulford’. There is no supporting evidence and Gate Fulford did not exist at the time of the battle. The notion can be traced back to the towering Norman Conquest expert Augustus Freeman, who simply states: “On the spot known as Gate Fulford, about two miles from the city, the armies met.” Not for the first time, he is reporting speculation as fact.

Freeman’s reputation ensured that his battle narrative held sway for the next 150 years. This is what he says. “The present village stands on a low elevation, sloping gently to the river on the left hand and to the marshy flat to the right. This doubtless was the site occupied by the invading army. The royal post [Hardrada’s flank] was by the river ; there the line of the shield-wall was thickest …. The right wing stretched across the rising ground as far as a ditch, beyond which lay the marsh, which is described as broad and deep. Here the line was weakest, and here, whether by accident or by design, the English made their first attack. … The charge of the Northumbrians was vigorous and, for a while, successful. The enemy gave way, and the banner of Earl Morkere pressed on valiantly. But it was only where the line was least strong that the English could make any impression; and the chances of war presently changed. For now King Harold of Norway caused the charge to be sounded, and he himself led on the left wing, with the Land-waster borne beside him. He charged at once on the troops which were already beginning to boast of their victory; before his two-handed sword all went down ; the Northmen pressed on around their King ; the English gave way before their onslaught.”

Figure 1: DeVries's engagement scenario at Gate Fulford

To summarise the engagement. The armies faced each other between the Ouse and a ditch. There was marshland beyond the ditch. The adversaries were drawn up in parallel shield walls, Hardrada and Edwin leading the flanks towards the river, Tostig and Morcar leading the flanks towards the ditch. This is depicted on Kelly DeVries’s diagram (Figure 1).

Figure 2: David Cooke’s battle scenario

To summarise the battle. Morcar’s flank advanced and pushed back Tostig’s flank. They advanced far enough to come level with or beyond Hardrada’s flank. Hardrada led his men across the battlefield to attack Morcar’s flank from the side. Morcar’s men were forced to into the ditch (Dike) and marsh, many to their death. The rest of the English army fled to York. These events are portrayed on David Cooke’s battle diagram from his 2006 book ‘Yorkshire Battlefields from the Romans to the Civil War’ (Figure 16). It is not clear from his diagram that the offset in the English line was cause by Tostig’s flank being forced back, but we think he has got the major battle events right, albeit not necessarily on the right side of the Ouse.

Figure 3:  Traditional battlefield at modern Fulford with relief regressed to 1066

Figure 3 transposes DeVries’s diagram to a heat relief map with sea level regressed to 1066. The geography is not as Freeman describes. For one thing, there would have been 100m or more of marshy flood plain, locally known as ‘ings’, between the armies and the Ouse. As Chas Jones says, “There was just not enough room to accommodate anything beyond a skirmish in the wet and broken land”. More concerning, there is no ditch or marshland to the east of the traditional battlefield. Walmgate Stray – shown as fenland to the northeast of the English line on Figure 3 – does get soft after persistent heavy rain, but York’s ‘strays’ were common land used for grazing cattle. They were not dangerously soft, they were seldom under enough water for anyone to drown, the fate of many that tried to flee according the contemporary accounts, and if it was dangerous, the English could have fled east or northeast on higher ground.

One kilometre north, around the barracks, is a better fit for the contemporary account descriptions with relatively narrow ings and Walmgate Stray bordering the eastern side of the battlefield. But there is still no ditch, and it is implausible that the English would have marched over the moraine ridge and then down into the plain. They would clearly have made their shield wall on top of the ridge, near the modern cemetery, leading to a different battle.

To be fair to pre-21st century historians, perhaps it was only the advent of LiDAR and soil sampling that showed the traditional battlefield is inconsistent with the contemporary account battlefield descriptions. Even so, it would have been better if they had not reported speculation as fact to corrupt the narrative for the next hundred years .

The new orthodox battlefield

Figure 8: Chas Jones battle scenario at Germany Beck

Dissention against the traditional battlefield location started in the 1980s, led by Professor Forrest Smyth Scott, then of Sheffield University. He proposed that the battle happened 500m south of the traditional location at Germany Beck. Scott’s theory was developed into the currently accepted orthodox battle narrative by Charles ‘Chas’ Jones.

Germany Beck today has 200m of ings at its confluence with the Ouse, but Jones suggests there was a levee along the river in 1066 that made it less boggy. The ground east of Jones’s proposed battlefield is over 10m elevation, meaning it would have been fen rather than marsh, but it would not have been easy for the English to flee. The huge advantage of Germany Beck compared to the traditional battlefield, is that it has a significant ditch, like the one described in the contemporary accounts.

Figure 9: Jones's main battle manoeuvres, mirrored if the Ouse was east of the battlefield

There are differences between Jones’s battle narrative and Freeman’s traditional battle narrative apart from the location. The details are in the ‘Battle at the Ford’ section of Jones’s 2010 book ‘Finding Fulford: The search for the first battle of 1066’. His initial troop deployment is depicted on Figure 4. His major battle events are depicted on Figure 5. Briefly, his battle narrative is this:

  1. The Norse army marched north from their camp at Riccall towards Jorvik on an unpaved road (black lines on Figure ).
  2. The English army marched south from their garrison at Jorvik towards Riccall on the same road.
  3. The English army lined up on relatively high ground north of Germany Beck, the Norse army faced them across the beck (Figure 4 and Panel 1 on Figure ).
  4. The stretch of Germany Beck between the armies was tidal. As the tide went out, Tostig’s flank crossed the beck to attack the English on the other side (Panel 2 on Figure ). The English had the advantageous higher terrain and held the line.
  5. Hardrada sent men to wade through ‘the delta’ - Jones’s name for the boggy ground north of the Ouse/Germany Beck confluence - trying to get behind Edwin’s flank (Panel 2 on Figure ).
  6. Edwin’s flank fell back: “Once enough of King Harald’s men had crossed the beck’s delta, Edwin had to fall back”. Eventually, Edwin’s flank fell back far enough that Hardrada’s men could break the English line and slide across the battlefield to get behind Morcar’s flank, encircling them on three sides (Panel 3 on Figure ). Jones says the first hint of their fate: “might have been when those behind them were felled by Norwegian warriors”.
  7. Morcar’s men fled into the beck and into the adjacent fen, many drowning.
  8. Edwin’s men realised that the game was up, so fled back to Jorvik.

Jones provides some evidence to support his theory:

  1. Medieval iron recycling archaeology on the banks of Germany Beck. If that iron included weapons or armour, it could be evidence of a nearby battle.
  2. The discovery of five Roman sarcophagi in the area. He says about the first two: “in 1835 and 1836 workmen quarrying for gravel located two stone coffins in an area of land known as the ‘Nunneries’ or ‘Nunners’ fields’. The early OS maps show several gravel workings along the Ings [i.e. east of the Ouse].” The next two (quoting MAP): “During excavations for York sewer in 1892, two Roman coffins were found near St Oswald’s church containing human skeletons”. The fifth: “In 1997 during work on the A19/A64 interchange: A gritstone sarcophagus was encountered during the machining of a drainage service trench (SE 6135 4790).” Sarcophagi are associated with high status Romans who often lived near communications highways, such as Roman roads. Jones reckons they infer that an unpaved Roman road ran near the route of the A19. He proposes this road crossed a tidal part of Germany Beck on a low tide ford, and that this ford was the origin of the name ‘Fulford’. If all this is right, it is consistent with the battle having been fought at Germany Beck.
  3. Laing’s translation of Heimskringla’s description of the Norse troop disposition says: “The one arm of his line stood at the outer edge of the river, the other turned up towards the land along a ditch; and there was also a morass, deep, broad, and full of water.” Jones interprets this to mean that the Norse were deployed along a ditch that held a tributary of the Ouse and that it was roughly perpendicular to the Ouse. The only Ouse tributary in a meaningful ditch on this stretch of the river is Germany Beck, and it is perpendicular to the Ouse.
  4. Jones says that: “one version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records them [the English] as fighting their way to Heslington, a mile away along the Beck”. Heslington is east of modern Fulford. If the English fought their way from the battlefield to Heslington, they must have started somewhere near Germany Beck.
  5. Laing’s translation of Heimskringla’s description of the English advance says: “The earls [Edwin and Morcar] deployed their army down along the river with the whole body of their men … Then the earls proceeded down along the ditch.” This seems to corroborate the previous Heimskringla statement, implying that the English army marched south along the Ouse riverbank then turned to march along a ditch that was roughly perpendicular to it.

Arguments against the new orthodox battlefield

In our opinion, all Jones’s evidence is unreliable.

  1. There is no archaeological evidence that the iron being recycled at Germany Beck was weapons or armour. Even if it was, there is no reason to believe that it was being recycled at the battlefield. Evidence of a Roman Road (probably RCHME 1) has been found a few hundred metres upstream. It is quite plausible that, even if the battlefield was several miles away, weapons and armour from the battle were recycled at Germany Beck because the road made it easy to bring wood for charcoal.
  2. The first two sarcophagi were found at Masham, 30 miles northwest of York, so they are irrelevant. Roman coffins were found near Clementhorpe Nunnery, which might have been known as the ‘Nunneries’ to match Jones’s statement, but they were on the Ouse west bank. A Roman coffin lid was found near Old St Oswalds on the Ouse east bank, but this and the fifth sarcophagus were on the Ouse riverbank and were therefore more likely to have been associated with the river than with a Roman road.
  3. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle does not say that the English fought their way to Heslington. Indeed, none of the recensions gives any details about the battle or the flight, other than that Hardrada won.

That leaves Laing’s translations of the engagement passage in Heimskringla: “The one arm of his [Hardrada’s] line stood at the outer edge of the river, the other turned up towards the land along a ditch”. It specifically says that the ditch ‘turned up’ from the river, implying that the ditch joined the river and was roughly perpendicular to it, and that one Norse flank arrayed ‘along a ditch’. The only likely reason the Norse would have been arrayed along a ditch is if the English were on the other side, and the next sentence seems to confirm it: “The earls [Edwin and Morcar] deployed their army down along the river with the whole body of their men … Then the earls proceeded down along the ditch”. This is depicted Figure 4 and Panel 1 on Figure 5.

Jones does not mention it, but Alison Finlay’s translation of a closely related passage in Fagrskinna also says that one flank of the Norse army was arrayed facing a ditch: “[King Harald] went up onto the river bank and drew up his troops there with one flank of the army facing towards the river and a second towards a certain ditch ”. Finlay does not say that the ditch ‘turned up’ from the river but she does say that one Norse flank was arrayed along the ditch which implies the same thing.

Laing’s translation is an aberration. For some inexplicable reason, he has invented the ditch turning. Heimskringla does not say anything of the sort. The Old Norse phrase that Laing and Finlay translate as ‘along the ditch’ is ‘at díki’. That is not what it means. The normal Old Norse word for ‘along’ is ‘með’ and it is used in the second Heimskringla sentence above to describe the English army advancing ‘along the ditch’. Old Norse ‘at’ means something else - ‘to’, ‘towards’, ‘at’ or ‘by’ - and this is how all the other translators handle it:

  • Morkinskinna (Andersen & Gade): “one wing toward the river and the other toward the still water of a deep pool”.
  • Fagrskinna (Finlay): “one flank of the army facing towards the river and a second towards a certain ditch and that was deep and full of water”.
  • Heimskringla (Laing): “The one arm of this line stood at the outer edge of the river, the other turned up towards the land along a ditch; and there was also a morass, deep, broad, and full of water”.
  • Heimskringla (Smith): “One wing stood forth on the river bank, while the other went farther inland towards a dyke, where there was a deep wide marsh full of water”.
  • Heimskringla (Binns): “One wing by the river, the other by the dyke, a deep swamp full of water”.
  • Heimskringla (Palsson): “One flank reaching down to the river and the other stretching inland towards a dyke where there was a deep and wide swamp full of water”.
  • Heimskringla (Hollander): “One wing stood on the bank of the river, the other was arrayed further up on land, and extended to a ditch. There was a swamp, deep and broad and full of water.”
  • Heimskringla (Finlay): “One wing of his formation was stationed forward on the bank of the river, and the other extended up inland to a certain dyke. It was a deep fen, broad and full of water.”

So, all these accounts agree that the Ouse and the ditch were roughly parallel, and that the armies were arrayed roughly perpendicular to them. Laing’s translation wrong, and we suspect that Finlay’s was misled by him in her faulty translation of ‘at díki’ in Fagrskinna. She seems to have realised her mistake when she translated Heimskringla where she translates ‘at díki’ to its regular meaning.

It seems to us that Jones was incredibly unlucky. His theory is based on Laing’s translation of Heimskringla, and its multiple errors make it match the geography at Germany Beck. He updated his theory in 2020 to reflect the post-Victorian Saga translations. He acknowledges that they contradict his interpretation but stands by his narrative because of his other evidence. But, as we explain above, we think that is faulty too.

So, in our opinion, the orthodox battlefield at Germany Beck is not supported by any reliable evidence. This said, absence of supporting evidence is not contradictory evidence. We will give some reasons we think the battle was not fought at Germany Beck.

 Confusingly, her translation goes on to say that the other flank faced towards the river, which would be a waste of troops, especially at Germany Beck where they would be facing Middlethorpe Ings, unable to engage the enemy.

1. There was no road across the tidal part of Germany Beck

Figure 6: Jones's diagram of roads between Riccall and Jorvik

Jones depicts (Figure 6) two routes between Riccall and Fulford. He describes them thus: “From Riccall there are two routes on firm ground that converge at Fulford and a third route which passed through some wet land. The main route was along the moraine via Escrick. The other firm route followed the Ouse to the north west before striking north to Naburn and then towards the ford. Although they did not have the benefit of surfaced roads, the going would likely be good enough to cope with a marching army. The third, most direct route is indicated on some 18th century maps, but this had a limited capacity since in three places it had swampy ground on either side”. He goes on to say: “There would doubtless be other tracks and routes leading from Riccall to the fording point”. He goes on to say: “There was no acceptable by-pass or other route to reach York from the south so the ford was an excellent ‘choke point’ for the defenders to control because the invaders would be forced to pass that point.”

Figure 7: Humber Levels in 1066 based on LiDAR - Jorvik J; Riccall R; Germany Beck G

Jones does not explain the source of his information about roads between Riccall and Fulford, and the LiDAR shows it is difficult to accept what he says (Figure 7). We have regressed sea levels to 1066. Broadly, land shaded green, yellow or red was permanently above water, land shaded blue areas was marshy, permanently underwater, land shaded cyan was fenny, sometimes underwater.

Thus, in 1066, Riccall (R) was an island surrounded by tidal saltmarsh. The Escrick moraine ridge to which Jones refers was between Stillingfleet (S) and High Catton (HC), passing though Escrick (E), Wheldrake (W) and the River Derwent. It is at least five miles from Germany Beck, and the gap was filled with marshland. Jones recognises this, proposing that Riccall was connected to the Escrick moraine ridge by a causeway and a levee. It is possible but incredibly unlikely. The distance is ten times longer than any other causeway in the region. Natural levees can develop on the banks of rivers that regularly flood but seldom in salt marshes because they get washed away by tidal scour. There is no documentary or physical evidence of causeways or levees on the Humber Levels, but plentiful evidence that people and freight moved by boat. Even if there was a causeway or levee north out of Riccall, it would not have been designed to hold an army. It might have collapsed drowning them all. Moreover, if there was a land link between Riccall and Jorvik, Hardrada had no reason to move his army to Stamford Bridge a week later.

We have no reason to doubt the contemporary accounts are right that the Norse sailed upstream on the day of battle. We suspect that Jones was misled by Freeman’s unfounded claim that the Norse army arrived at the battlefield on foot.

An absence of roads at Riccall does not mean that there was not a road at Germany Beck. Jones has found some evidence of an unpaved medieval road near modern Fulford. Perhaps, then, this was part of a road that ran from Jorvik to Water Fulford, which would have crossed Germany Beck. If so, it might have been the ford after which Fulford was named. We are sceptical.

Water Fulford had one family in Domesday. The average traffic between it and Jorvik would have been no more than one cart a day. Tidal fords get scoured twice a day. They need a lot of maintenance. There was nowhere near enough traffic to justify it. Even the Romans balked at building tidal fords. They usually diverted roads to the head of tide where they could cross a narrow fluvial part of the waterway. Briden reckons that the maximum tidal range at medieval York was 1.5m which implies that Germany Beck would have been tidal 600m upstream (Jones reckons 900m but does not explain his calculation). It is next to nothing in this context. In the unlikely event that there was a river-hugging east bank road, we are convinced that it would have been diverted to Germany Beck’s head of tide, where the fluvial stream was narrow enough to step across. Indeed, this is exactly where evidence of a Roman road has been found.

In summary, there is no evidence of an Ouse east bank road, no incentive to build or maintain such a road, and if there was a road, it would have crossed the fluvial part of Germany Beck. Therefore, the battle was not fought at Germany Beck.

2. Fulford ford was not over Germany Beck

If there was no road over the tidal part of Germany Beck, there was no ford. There are other reasons to think so. One is that the ‘Ful’ part of Fulford means ‘muddy’. Jones argues that Germany Beck would have been muddy, but it seems unlikely. Its tiny catchment area was too small for significant alluvium deposits, and it would have been scoured twice a day by the tide. Another is that medieval fords over tiny streams like Germany Beck were usually packed with stones, sticks and reeds to prevent cartwheels getting stuck, which means they were not muddy. Even if there was a ford over Germany Beck, in our opinion, it would have been too small and too little used to have had a name that anyone would recognise.

There is a glacial moraine ridge between Fulford and Upper Helmsley (it is shown as higher ground in the northeast corner of Figure 9). According to the Roman Roads Research Association, it carried a Roman road from Jorvik to Roman Derventio at modern Low Catton, and on to Bridlington and Lincoln. The most westerly known section of this road is heading towards Fulford. It was not the main military road east out of Jorvik, so it probably carried mainly freight and livestock, in which case it probably terminated to Jorvik’s vicus and southwest gate. If so, it crossed the Ouse south of Jorvik on a ford. The Ouse had a huge flat catchment area, so it carried a lot of alluvial sediment. It seems to us that this ford would have been muddy, busy and well known, a promising candidate to have been Fulford, and we have a good idea where it might have been.

Figure 8: OS Map of the battle theatre
Figure 9: Fulford district relief in 1066; our suggested position of the ford shown in black

The obvious straight route for the moraine ridge Roman road, crossing the Ouse at Clementhorpe, would have been difficult because the ings were wide to the west of the river. We think that the road dipped south to cross the Ouse between the Millennium Bridge and Old St Oswalds, where the ings were narrowest. A section of Roman road has been found at Nunthorpe (see below), which suggests the ford was at or south of it, consistent with a Millennium Fields crossing.

Old St Oswalds is thought to have been built on the site of an earlier Saxon church. That church was presumably associated with a local Saxon settlement, which might have been associated with a ford. Christopher Rainger found a Victorian road mirroring St Oswalds Road on the opposite bank. He therefore reasons that Fulford ford was probably immediately west of Old St Oswald’s.

Rainger’s theory is plausible, but there is no obvious reason for the Roman road to cross the Ouse any further south than it needed to, which means it is more likely to have been up near the Millennium Bridge. Moreover, as Jones points out, there are two entries for Fulford in Domesday, with slightly different names. As he proposes, one was probably associated with a settlement, the other with the ford. The settlement was presumably around Old St Oswald’s, which suggests that the ford was a few hundred metres away. Jones proposes a few hundred metres south. We think it was a few hundred metres north.

Figure 10: Possible causeway at Fulford Cross

There was a Victorian railway causeway across Millennium Fields. Its location can still be seen on LiDAR (circled on Figure 10). On the basis that what was good for the Victorians was perhaps equally good for the Romans and Anglo-Saxons, we suspect that the Roman road and the medieval ford were also here (road shown as a black dotted line on Figure 9). It is an extension of Fulford Cross, a road west from the actual Fulford Cross monument which is now in an ALDI carpark. That cross is ancient. No one knows how ancient, but it seems likely that it was some sort of marker on the Roman road as it headed to the ford.

If Fulford ford was, as we think, adjacent to Millennium Park, it was 1500m from Germany Beck, not too far to discount the possibility that the battle was named after it, but not that close either. In our opinion, the name ‘Fulford’ was associated with the Roman road Ouse crossing which was somewhere adjacent to Millennium Fields. At the very least, it should not be used as evidence that there was a medieval ford on the tidal part of Germany Beck.

3. Germany Beck is inconsistent with the contemporary accounts

The only geographic information about the battlefield is in the Norse Sagas. We have mentioned several times above that they are inconsistent with Germany Beck. We have already explained that they describe the battlefield as between the Ouse and a ditch, which contradicts Germany Beck. We will list a few other inconsistencies.

  1. Heimskringla says that the “lines were thinnest by the ditch” and that the “the wing of the Norwegian army extending to the ditch gave way”. This corroborates that the flanks extended to the ditch rather than that they were arrayed along the ditch, thereby further contradicting a battlefield at Germany Beck.
  2. This second statement above also says that the cause of the offset in the English line that led to heir defeat was Morcar’s flank advancing. It is implausible at Germany Beck where they would have had to relinquish advantageous ground for horribly disadvantageous ground. Jones therefore arbitrarily assumes that the offset was caused by Edwin’s flank falling back. Any credible reading of this sentence contradicts a battlefield at Germany Beck.
  3. Heimskringla (Hollander) says of the English flight: “most leapt into the ditch. There the bodies of the fallen lay so thick that the Norwegians could walk dry-shod over the swamp”. It makes no sense at Germany Beck. If the Sagas are right that Morcar’s flank advanced to force back Tostig’s flank, they would have had to cross the beck. If they crossed it safely, they could cross back safely. If Tostig’s flank attacked, Morcar’s men would have had to flee through Tostig’s flank to get to the ditch. If, on the other hand, Jones is right that Edwin’s flank fell back and Hardrada attacked Morcar’s men from the side, they would have fled east and/or north, not south into Tostig’s flank and ditch.
  4. Heimskringla says that there was marshland beyond the ditch. This makes no sense at Germany Beck, where there was no nearby marshland and the nearest fenland was either side of the fluvial part of the beck, 500m upstream of Jones’s battlefield.
  5. Heimskringla says that the English advance “down along the ditch” which implies they were moving downstream or downhill whereas they would be heading upstream and uphill at Germany Beck.
  6. John of Worcester and Symeon say: “Edwin and Morkar, with a great army joined battle with the Norwegians on the north bank of the River Ouse”. Germany Beck is on the east bank of the Ouse, not the north bank.
  7. Heimskringla says that the ditch was ‘upp á landit’, ‘inland’, of the Ouse, whereas Germany Beck was seaward of the Ouse.
  8. Jones reckons that Germany Beck was 40m wide at the start of the battle when the tide was at in. It should have been a major factor in the battle, yet none of the accounts mention either army crossing a major waterway, none of the accounts say that there was any sort of obstacle between the armies, none of the accounts say that combat was delayed while waiting for the tide to ebb.
  9. Jones reckons that Hardrada’s men tried to loop behind Edwin’s flank by crossing ‘the delta’, but it seems incredibly unlikely. There is no plausible reason why Edwin would have allowed hundreds of Hardrada’s men to outflank them through a clearly visible bog.

One last point is that Chas Jones explained to us his theory about why no battle related archaeology has been found at his proposed battlefield. He reckons that anything valuable would have been scavenged and the acid soil would have corroded away any weapons or armour that were left. This may be so, but hundreds of men died at the battlefield, over 1000 Englishmen alone, according to Marianus Scotus. There should be lots of copper alloy personal items, like strap ends, brooches and buckles that were too small to be scavenged.

To summarise, in our opinion, there is no supporting evidence that the battlefield was at Germany Beck and a dozen or so reasons to think it was not. Most of the those reasons apply equally to the traditional battlefield.

Back to the contemporary accounts

Translations of the relevant sections of the contemporary accounts can be found in Appendix A. In summary, there are two core accounts, one English, one Norse, with snippets of extra information in the other accounts. They create a credible and coherent pre-battle narrative:

  1. The English army was in the medieval walled city of Jorvik.
  2. The invaders entered the Humber in some 300 ships, then sailed up the Ouse to camp at Riccall.
  3. The following day the Norse fleet sailed/rowed up the Ouse mooring midstream within sight of Jorvik’s ramparts.
  4. The English army marched south from Jorvik along the riverbank.
  5. The Norse fleet landed on the north bank of the Ouse.
  6. The Norse army disembarked and marched north.
  7. The battlefield was between the River Ouse and a watery ditch.
Figure 11: Sketch of main battle manoeuvres, mirrored if the Ouse was east of the battlefield

The battle is described in Heimskringla. It does not say whether the battle was east or west of the Ouse, but instead, refers to the river side of the battlefield and the ditch side of the battlefield. It is generally assumed that the battlefield was east of the Ouse because modern Fulford is east of the Ouse. If so, the key events were as depicted on Figure 11, with the Ouse to the west. If not, these panels should be mirrored with the Ouse to the east.

Panel 1 - Hardrada (H) and Edwin (E) faced each other on the flanks near the river, Tostig (T) and Morcar (M) faced each other on the flanks near the ditch.

Panel 2 - Morcar’s flank pushed back Tostig’s flank.

Panel 3 - Morcar’s flank advanced beyond the front rank of Hardrada’s flank, allowing Hardrada’s men to break the English line and surround Morcar’s men on three sides. Morcar’s men were squeezed sideways into the ditch where many perished. Seeing their compatriots capitulate, Edwin’s men fled along the Ouse back to Jorvik, some tried to escape into the river.

There is one major inconsistency. Heimskringla says that Morcar was killed and that his co-commander was named Walthiof, whereas the English accounts say that Morcar survived and that his co-commander was Edwin. Some historians interpret these inconsistencies as evidence that Heimskringla is an unreliable source. It is clearly wrong about Walthiof’s name and Morcar’s fate, but Norse Sagas are prone to these types of incidental errors through having been handed down by word of mouth for two hundred years. In our opinion, they do not undermine the veracity of the core events they describe.

A handful of disappointingly vague battlefield location clues can be extracted from the contemporary accounts:

  1. ‘Fulford’, presumably at or near modern Fulford, was probably the nearest named settlement to the battlefield.
  2. The battlefield was adjacent to a stretch of the Ouse between Riccall and Jorvik.
  3. The battlefield was between the Ouse and a watery ditch.
  4. Beyond the ditch was marshland that was sometimes flooded, perhaps after heavy rain or perhaps at high tide.
  5. The battlefield was near where the Ouse had a north bank.

Our proposed battlefield

There is nothing clever about our Fulford battlefield location theory. As we explain above, the geography east of the Ouse does not match the contemporary accounts battlefield descriptions. The only other place near to medieval ‘Fulford’ and the Ouse was the west bank opposite modern Fulford. It was also near the Ouse’s only north bank. It was between Riccall and Jorvik. It had a watery ditch that was parallel to the Ouse. It had marshland beyond the ditch. It therefore matches all the battlefield clues, such as they are. We just have to narrow down the location to point archaeologists in the right direction.

Looking today, the ditch is not obvious. It was known as Knavesmire Beck (shown on Figure 12) but was culverted in the 19th century, leaving it only visible where it discharges into the Ouse. It is shown as a normal beck on the 1842 Ordnance Survey map with racehorses crossing on bridges at the 14 and 5-furlong posts. Jones questions whether Knavesmire was wetland in the 11th century. Its Old Norse name suggests it must have been. MYO4287 HER explains: “In the early 18th century the Knavesmire was drained and levelled. The first race meet took place there in 1731 having moved from Clifton Ings.” It was clearly tidal marshland in the 11th century.

Figure 12: Fulford initial deployments

The starting point is fairly straightforward. John of Worcester says: “Edwin and Morkar, with a great army joined battle with the Norwegians on the north bank of the River Ouse, near York”. The Norse fleet was coming upstream, so this means that they landed on the north bank of the Ouse and that the battlefield was on the north bank of the Ouse near York. It is only possible if they landed at Middlethorpe Ings. Next, Heimskringla says: “Then the king went on land and began to array his army for battle. One wing stood on the bank of the river, the other was arrayed further up on land, and extended to a ditch.” This means that the Norse army lined up across Middlethorpe Manor, as depicted in cyan on Figure 12).

Meanwhile Edwin and Morcar were leading the English army south from Jorvik. Heimskringla again: “The earls deployed their army down along the river with the whole body of their men.” So, the English headed east on what is now Nunnery Lane to join the Roman predecessor of Bishopthorpe Road, the cobbled remains of which were found 2m below the current surface in a 1981 excavation (EYO786). We think this road crossed the Ouse on Fulford ford, then followed the York moraine ridge to Derventio at modern Low Catton. Regardless, if there was a Roman road along the Ouse, the English would have used it. We think it crossed the Ouse at Nunthorpe, so the English army would have been as depicted in magenta on Figure 12.

Figure 13: Engagement and battlefield; our suggested position of the ford shown in black

Thereafter, we can only guess. The Norse got the battle theatre first. How far north did they advance. They would not have wanted to fight with a swamp to their rear, so they would have advanced at least a few hundred metres. After Morcar’s flank fled into the ditch, John of Worcester says: “Not without some small loss they [the English] turned to flee, and many more of them were drowned in the river than had fallen in battle.” The English are only likely to have jumped into the river if it was closer to them than the Roman road. This means that the English line was probably at least as far south as the Terry’s chocolate factory, which is also alongside the only stretch of the Ouse where the river flows close to the riverbank with no ings. On balance, we think that the contact zone was roughly at the one-furlong pole on York racecourse, alongside the car park entrance, as shown on Figure 13.

Figure 14: Tostig’s flank is pushed back

Figure 13 shows the initial engagement. Figure 14 shows Tostig’s flank being pushed back. Morcar’s men think they are fleeing and chase. They come alongside Hardrada’s men (Heimskringla): “King Harald saw that the battle array of the English had come down along the ditch right opposite them”.

Figure 15: Morcar’s men are sandwiched

Figure 15 shows that Hardrada led some of his men across the battlefield to split the English line and get behind Morcar’s cohort: “King Haraldr led the attack with his troops and joined battle so fiercely that the enemy was split” (Monkinskinna), and “he turns with his men at the back of Morcar's battle” (Hemings Tale). Morcar’s men are sandwiched with nowhere to fall back.

Figure 16: The English flee

Heimskringla: “Some fled up or down along the river, but most leapt into the ditch.” Morkinskinna: “the local army began to flee. They retreated to a place where there was no armed opposition, in the swampy ground around the pool.” So, Morcar’s men fled into the ditch (Figure 16). The east bank of Knavesmire Beck was lined by 50m of marsh. Morcar’s men are forced into the marsh. So many Englishmen died in this ditch and marsh that the Sagas reckon the Norse could walk over their bodies without getting their feet wet (Heimskringla). Meanwhile, seeing Morcar’s men capitulate, Edwin and his men fled back to York along the Roman road. Some stragglers jumped into the river to avoid getting caught by the chasing Norse.

So many Englishmen died in the river that it was blocked with their corpses according to Vita Edwardi Regis. This implies to us that they probably died crossing Fulford ford, because the bodies would otherwise have been washed downstream.

Our proposed battlefield matches all the battlefield clues, but there are two possible inconsistencies. One is that modern Fulford is on the east bank whereas our proposed battlefield is on the west bank. But two Fulfords are listed near York in Domesday, one spelled ‘Fuleford’, the other ‘Foleforde’. Historians think they were north and south of modern Fulford. The two Fulford entries are in different sections of Domesday: Fuleford is in the first section along with Ouse east bank manors; Foleforde is in the Westriding section along with west bank manors. We guess that there were settlements on both sides of the ford, so the name does not implicate a battle on either side of the river.

There is a possible discrepancy between the contemporary account geography and the current Knavesmire. Most of the accounts say that one side of the battlefield was bounded by a ditch with marshland beyond. But the Knavesmire is level. If there was marsh on one side of the ditch, there would be marsh on the other side. When it floods these days – which it did as recently as 2020 - the entire racecourse is under water. It doesn’t sound quite right. It is known that the racecourse was levelled in the 18th century. There are no records of the details, but perhaps a metre or so of topsoil was taken from the finishing straight and dumped on the back straight. If not, we can only imagine that Knavesmire Beck ran 150m east of its current culvert.

We cannot definitively prove that the battle was fought on the Chocolate Factory Peninsula, but it uniquely fits all the geographic clues, and it is not inconsistent with any of the contemporary accounts. There are only two other candidates, both on the east bank and both of which fail to match the geography or events described in the contemporary accounts.

Arguments against an Ouse west-bank battlefield

Jones considers other possible battlefields and gives a list of reasons for why he thinks that the battlefield was not west of the Ouse. Here are his reasons and our responses.

C J: “It lacks any ditch even though augering was undertaken to locate any ‘lost’ ditch. There are no equivalent becks entering this stretch of land that can be identified, even using LIDAR or on old maps.”
MB: This is wrong. Knavesmire Beck runs through Knavesmire north to south. It has been culverted, but at the time of the battle, it would have been just like Germany Beck on the other bank.

C J: “Some early historians place the battle on the northern bank of the Ouse while Middlethorpe is west of the Ouse.”
MB: Upstream of its confluence with the Wharf, the Ouse mainly flows north-south. Its banks would normally be referred to as the east and west. There is only one place in the battle theatre that could be described as the north bank of the Ouse, which is Middlethorpe to the north of an ENE to WSW flowing stretch of the river.

C J: “Other sources mention ‘south of York’ and Middlethorpe moves the battle to the western bank and it is not sensible to regard it as ‘south’.”
MB: It is not obvious to us what Jones is trying to say, but our proposed battlefield on the Chocolate Factory Peninsula is south of York. We cannot think of any reason “it is not sensible to regard it as ‘south’ ”.

C J: “Both armies would have to cross to the west bank of the Ouse to fight. This might have been possible for the Norse if sandbars and low tides had allowed this, but the evidence for low-tide fording places across the Ouse is extremely limited. The tides at the time of the battle were extremely high with a corresponding very low tidal level to follow. The onrushing tidal bore would threaten a repeat of the closing of the Red Sea, with its fatal consequences if an army got the timing wrong. There is no mention or hint of the armies crossing the Ouse in any writing and it is hard to image that such a ‘parting of the waves’ would have gone unmentioned.”
MB: This arbitrarily presupposes that the Norse arrived at the battlefield on foot and that the English left York through the east gate. It has no basis. The Norse accounts all clearly state that the Norse army arrived at the battle theatre by ship. They could have disembarked on either bank. If they landed on the west bank, the English would have left through the southwest gate on the Roman road to Tadcaster.

C J: “The presence of elements of the Mercian army to the west of the Ouse is however implied by the evidence of tanged arrows on the only possible mooring place, which is beside Water Fulford Hall. This accommodation would provide a further incentive for the Norse army to stay on the opposite bank. But physical evidence in the form of tanged arrows however does imply some action on the Middlethorpe Ings although confined to the southern limit where the Ouse turns sharply west towards Bishopthorpe.”
MB: The tanged arrows were found close to where we think the Norse fleet moored and close to where we think the battle was fought. They might be evidence of a west bank landing and a west bank battlefield.

C J: “Even had the opposing armies come face to face on these Ings …”
MB: As far as we know, no one is suggesting that the armies met on the Ings. They would have met on the relatively high ground north of the Ings, to the east of York racecourse.

C J: “… there is no obvious place in this landscape for either of the commanders to anchor their flanks except by stretching their shieldwalls to fill a gap of 2100 metres between the river bank and the Knavesmire, which might or might not have been wetland in 1066.”
MB: ‘mire’ is Old Norse for ‘marsh’, so Knavesmire was almost certainly wetland in 1066. The maximum lateral distance from the Ouse to the Knavesmire is 900m, where it crosses Middlethorpe Ings. We think the battle was further north, around the York racecourse carparks and the former Terry’s chocolate factory, where the peninsula is 600m wide.

C J: “The Norse ships posed a threat to which the Mercians were bound to respond. The boats might threaten an attack on York, make a landing on the west bank, or a move to outflank Morcar. A bridge of boats might have been feasible and that would have moved part of the conflict to Middlethorpe. However, the possibility of a D-Day style landing by King Harald to allow full battle on these ings, didn’t happen. It would be many centuries before an opposed, mass landing from ships would be successful.”
MB: This arbitrarily presupposes that the English were waiting at the battlefield for the Norse army/fleet to arrive. It has no basis. The Norse accounts unambiguously say that the Norse fleet was ‘lying in the Ouse’ when Morcar and Edwin leave York, they unambiguously go on to say that Harald then lands and arrays his troops before the engagement. Therefore, the English were not at already battlefield waiting for the Norse army to disembark.

C J: “This was one of the areas chosen by archaeologists for a comparative metal detecting survey but it yielded only modern debris.”
MB: It sounds like the survey was in Middlethorpe Ings, and therefore unlikely to produce any Saxon era finds. Even if it was near the prospective battle theatre, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

C J: “The area was also subject to some soil survey work as a way to understand the Ouse. The possibility that the Fulford Ings had at one time extended further west to include the Middlethorpe Ings (or vice versa) could not be excluded until the evidence demonstrated the stability of the course of the Ouse.”
MB: Once again, this arbitrarily presupposes that the Norse army arrived at the battle theatre on foot when the Norse accounts unambiguously say they arrived by ship. If they arrived by ship, they could have landed at Middlethorpe Ings.

C J: “Finally, if one respects the tradition that has named this the battle of Fulford, this name cannot sensibly be attached to a battle on the Middlethorpe Ings.” 
MB: Middlethorpe was probably known as Torp when Symeon and Gaimar named the battle, but it had no inhabitants according to Domesday. We think the battle took its name from the ford, or from a settlement adjacent to the ford, because it was the closest named place that Symeon and Gaimar knew. If so, the battlefield could have been on either side of the Ouse.

Conclusion

The Battle of Fulford narrative is about as straightforward as any medieval battle can be. There are only two main accounts - one English, one Norse - and they are not inconsistent. All the others are based on one or the other, albeit with some added information. They form a coherent engagement narrative in which the armies face each other across a narrow peninsula. They form a coherent battle narrative, in which Morcar’s flank advances beyond Hardrada’s flank, allowing Hardrada to cross the battlefield and sandwich Morcar’s men. They form a coherent flight narrative, in which Morcar’s men flee into the beck and marsh beyond, while Edwin’s men flee along the riverbank. They all point to a battlefield on the west bank of the Ouse, probably either side of the County Stand on York racecourse.

Appendix A - The contemporary accounts

ASC-C (Whitlock):

Harald, king of Norway, came by surprise north into the Tyne with a very large naval force - no small one: it could be [500] or more. And Earl Tosti came to him with all those he had mustered, just as they had agreed beforehand, and they both went with all the fleet up the Ouse towards York. Then King Harold in the south was informed when he disembarked that Harold, king of Norway, and Earl Tosti were come ashore near York. Then he went northwards day and night as quickly as he could assemble his force. Then before Harold could get there Earl Edwin and Earl Morcar assembled from their earldom as large a force as they could muster, and fought against the invaders and caused them heavy casualties, and many of the English host were killed and drowned and put to flight, and the Norwegians remained masters of the field. And this fight was on the eve of St. Matthew the Apostle, and that was a Wednesday. And then after the fight Harold, king of Norway, and Earl Tosti went into York with as large a force as suited them, and they were given hostages from the city and also helped with provisions, and so went from there on board ship and settled a complete peace, arranging that they should all go with him southwards and subdue this country.

ASC-D & ASC-E (Whitlock):

Meanwhile Earl Tosti came into the Humber with sixty ships and Earl Edwin came with a land force and drove him out, and the sailors deserted him. And he went to Scotland with twelve small vessels, and there Harald, king of Norway, met him with three hundred ships, and Tosti submitted to him and became his vassal; and they both went up the Humber until they reached York. And there Earl Edwin and Morcar his brother fought against them; but the Norwegians had the victory.

Symeon (Stevenson):

After these events, Harold Harvager, king of the Norwegians, brother of king Olave the saint, came unexpectedly to the mouth of the river Tyne with a very powerful fleet, to wit, more than fifty great ships. Earl Tosti, with his fleet, met him there as he had before agreed, and with a quick voyage they entered the mouth of the river Humber, and so sailing up the river Ouse they landed at the place called Richale, and took York after a hard struggle. When king Harold learnt this, he rapidly marched his troops towards Northumbria. But before the king arrived, on Wednesday the vigil of St. Matthew the Apostle, the brother earls Edwin and Morkar, with a large army, joined battle with the Norwegians at Fulford, near York, on the northern bank of the river Ouse, and at the first onset of the fight they overthrew many; but after a long continuance of the contest, the Angles, unable to resist the force of the Norwegians, turned their backs not without some loss of their men, and many more of them were drowned in the river than fell in the field. The Norwegians were masters of the field of slaughter, and taking five hundred hostages from York and leaving there a hundred and fifty hostages of their own men, they retired to their vessels.

John of Worcester (McGurk):

When these things had been done, Harald Fairhair [should be Hardrada], king of the Norwegians, brother of St Olaf the king, landed unexpectedly at the mouth of the River Tyne with an extremely strong fleet; that is more than 500 great ships. Earl Tostig joined him with his fleet as he had previously promised, and on a swift course they entered the mouth of the River Humber; sailing thus up the River Ouse, they landed at a place called Richale [Riccall]. When King Harold learnt of this, he speedily undertook an expedition to Northumbria. But before the king arrived there, the two brother earls, Edwin and Morkar, with a great army joined battle with the Norwegians on the north bank of the River Ouse, near York, on Wednesday, the eve of St Matthew the Apostle's day, and fighting manfully in the first thrust of the battle, they laid many low. But after the struggle had continued for a long time, the English were unable to withstand the Norwegian attack. Not without some small loss they turned to flee, and many more of them were drowned in the river than had fallen in battle. But the Norwegians gained the mastery in that place of death and, having taken 150 hostages from York, they returned to their own ships, having left in York 150 hostages of their own.

Gaimar (Stevenson):

He and Tosti had spoken so much together, that each pledged his faith to the other, that whatever they conquered together, they would divide all equally. Now they wished first by their warfare to divide all England between them. The two had a great fleet, four hundred ships and seventy sailed forward. They steered and sailed a great way until they entered the river Humber; from the Humber they went to the Ouse, and disembarked at Saint Wilfrid's. On the morrow they set sail for York, and arrived there in the evening. But the two earls met, and brought the people of six counties; and they fought at Fulford, the Norwegians were masters of the field; but, on both sides, there were many killed. Afterwards the Norwegians took the land; they desolated all the country and seized many spoils. Whoever knows not this, let him remember that it was twelve days within September.

Henry of Huntingdon (Forester):

He [Tostig] escaped to Scotland, where he fell in with Harald, king of Norway with 300 ships. Tosti was overjoyed, and tendered him his allegiance. Then they joined their forces and came up the Humber, as far as York, near which they were encountered by the Earls Edwin and Morcar; the place where the battle was fought is still shown on the south side of the city. Here Harold, king of Norway, and Tosti, his ally, gained the day.

Morkinskinna (Andersson & Gade)

He [Harald] subjected the whole north of England, then sailed south to the Humber and sailed up the Ouse. There the jarls of Northumbria, the sons of Jarl Godwin, Morkere and Waltheof of Huntingdon, marched against him with an enormous army that had been gathered throughout the summer and autumn. King Haraldr elected to give battle. He landed and drew up his troops on the riverbank, with one wing toward the river and the other toward the still water of a deep pool. The jarls led their formation with all the rank and file down along the river. The king's standard was close to the river, where his battle array was densest, while it was thinnest by the pool. There too the troops were least reliable, and when the attack was made, that wing gave way. The English launched their attack down along the river, then toward the pool, and they thought that the Norwegians would flee. King Haraldr led the attack with his troops and joined battle so fiercely that the enemy was split and the local army began to flee. They retreated to a place where there was no armed opposition, in the swampy ground around the pool. Jarl Morkere had followed the standard closest to the pool, and Jarl Waltheof fought the king more toward the river. He fled up along the river, and the troops with him were the only ones to escape. Jarl Morkere fell, and together with him so many men that the pool was full of corpses where the fleeing men had congregated. Some were driven into the water and killed there together with some who jumped into the pool and were speared, so that it was filled with corpses, as Steinn Herdisarson says:

Many died in the river; submerged men drowned;
soon countless warriors lay dead around young Morkere.
The proud lord of the Filir pursued the fleeing enemies;
the army rushed madly before the ready king.
Proud-minded knows beneath [the sun].

He composed the praise poem that includes this stanza for King Haraldr's son Olafr. It was the evening before Saint Matthew's Day, which fell on a Wednesday. After this battle all the troops in the neighbouring districts submitted to King Haraldr, but some fled, as is told in this poem:

Young lord [Olafr], you let farmers fall close to the River Ouse;
the army attacked where the reckless king risked his life.
The arrival of that king must undoubtedly appear to those
Englishmen who were left alive as if they are still pursued.

Fagrskinna (Finlay)

From there he sailed the fleet south to the Humber and went up along the river to the Ouse. There the jarls of Northumbria, Morukári (Morkere) and Jarl Valbjófr of Hundatún (Waltheof of Huntingdon) came against them with an overwhelming force, which had been gathering together all the autumn. King Haraldr offered them resistance, went up onto the river bank and drew up his troops there with one flank of the army facing towards the river and a second towards a certain ditch. And that was deep and full of water. The jarls sent their army with all its men slowly down along the river above the king’s standard. The ranks were thickest there, but sparsest beside the ditch. When the fighting had been going on for a short time, the flank of Haraldr’s army lining the ditch gave way, and the Englishmen pressed them hard at that moment, expecting that the Norwegians would flee. King Haraldr with his troop advanced so hard that (the enemy) gave way before him in two directions. Then flight broke out in the land army, and the flank that was nearest to the ditch jumped out into it. And Morukári had been moving with the standard that was nearest to the ditch. Jarl Valbjófr fled from the battle up along the river, and only those who went with him got away. There Morukári fell, and men so thickly around him that the ditch was full of dead men. So says Steinn:

Men drowned, submerged
many died in the river.
No few soldiers soon lay
around young Morukári.
The men’s lord forced on, fearless,
the flight; before the brave leader
headlong the army hastened.
Headed off, strong-minded, from under . . .

He composed this about Óláfr, and that was on the eve of St Matthew’s Day (21st September), which fell on a Thursday that year. Morukári and Valbjófr were brothers of Haraldr Guäinason.

Heimskringla (Hollander):

Thereupon King Harald sailed to the Humber and up the river, and anchored there. At that time there were two earls in York, Morkere and his brother Wæltheow, with a huge army. King Harald lay in the Ouse when the army of the earls came down from the land to oppose him. Then the king went on land and began to array his army for battle. One wing stood on the bank of the river, the other was arrayed further up on land, and extended to a ditch. There was a swamp, deep and broad and full of water. The earls deployed their army down along the river with the whole body of their men. The royal banner was close by the river. There the king’s men stood thickest, and the lines were thinnest by the ditch, with the troops he could least rely on. Then the earls proceeded down along the ditch. There the wing of the Norwegian army extending to the ditch gave way, and the English followed them up, thinking that the Norwegians were about to flee. That part of the English army was led by Morkere. But when King Harald saw that the battle array of the English had come down along the ditch right opposite them, he had the trumpets blown and sharply urged on his men to the attack, raising his banner called Landwaster. And there so strong an attack was made by him that nothing held against it. Then there was a great slaughter among the earls’ men. Soon their army took to flight. Some fled up or down along the river, but most leapt into the ditch. There the bodies of the fallen lay so thick that the Norwegians could walk dry-shod over the swamp. There Earl Morkere lost his life. As says Stein Herdisarson:

Their lives lost there many, left this world by drowning;
Mired in the marsh, lay by Morkere young a legion.
Pursued the sea-king this smitten host.
They madly fled before the brave king.
Foremost under heaven

This dråpa Stein Herdisarson composed about Óláf, the son of King Harald; and we are told here that Óláf took part in the battle with King Harald, his father. This is mentioned also in the poem called Haraldsstikki:

Lay the fallen in fen thickly,
Wæltheow’s men, by weapons slaughtered;
so that walk could warlike Northmen
on dead bodies dryshod across.

Earl Wæltheow and those who managed to escape fled to the 1066 fortified town of York. It had been a murderous battle. It took place on Wednesday, the day before Saint Matthew’s Day.

Sagas of Olaf Tryggvason and Harold the Tyrant (Hearn & Storm):

Now having come thus far on his journey King Harald fared south to the Humber and went up that river and lay in it beside the banks. At that time there were up in Jerirk [York] Earl Morcar and his brother Earl Waltheof and with them was a vast host. King Harald was lying in the Ouse when the host of the Earls swooped down against him.

And King Harald went ashore and set to arraying his host, and one arm of the array was ranked on the banks of the river, whereas the other stretched up inland over towards a certain dyke, and a deep marsh was there, both broad, and full of water. The Earls bade the whole multitude of their array slink down alongside the river.

Now the banner to the King was near the river and there the ranks were serried, but near the dyke were they more scattered, and the men thereof also the least trustworthy.

The Earls then came down along by the dyke, and that arm of the battle-array of the Norwegians which faced the dyke gave way, and thereon the English pushed forward after them and as it seemed that the Norwegians would flee. Therefore did the banner of Morcar progress forward.

But when King Harald saw that the array of the English had descended alongside the dyke and was coming right toward them, then commanded he the war-blast to be sounded, and eagerly encouraged his men, and let the banner ‘Land-waster’ be carried forward; and even so fierce was their advance on the English, that all were repulsed and there fell a many men in the host of the Earls.

This host was even soon routed, and some fled up beside the river and some down, but the most of the folk ran right out into the dyke, and there the fallen lay so thick that the Norwegians could walk dry-shod across the marsh. There too fell Earl Morcar. Thus said Stein Herdisason:

Many in the river sank (The sunken men were drowned);
All round about young Morcar of yore lay many a lad.
To flight the chieftain put them;
The host to swiftest running Olaf the Mighty is.

The song that follows was wrought by Stein Herdason about Olaf the son to King Harald, and he said, by which we know that Olaf was in the battle with his father. This is told likewise in ‘Haraldsstikka’:

There the dead lay Down in the marsh
Walthiof’s fighters Weapon-bitten,
So that they might The war-wonted horsemen
There wend their way On corpses only.

Earl Walthiof and those men that contrived to make their escape from out the battle fled even up to the town of York, and there it was that the greatest slaughter took place. This battle was on the Wednesday or ever St. Matthew’s Day.

Heming’s Tale – Appendix to the Orkneyinga Saga (Dasent):

They [Hardrada and Tostig] go on land with the host, but some watch the ships.  Those brothers Morcar and earl Voltheof, and Aki their brother in law, gather a host together as soon as they hear of the Norwegian host.  They met at that river which is hight [named] Ouse, and there the hardest fight arises, and is kept up till nones [mid-afternoon].  Then Eystein had gone through the array of the English and slain Aki the tall.  Then he sees that Morcar has got at the back of Tosti's battle; and so he turns with his men at the back of Morcar's battle. And when earl Morcar sees that he bids his men face about and defend themselves well and manfully. And at last flight broke out among his men, and they flee out into the river [stream] and earl Morcar is there slain and the most part of his folk.  Many too sunk beneath the stream.  By that time king Harald had taken earl Valtheof prisoner. 

Bibliography

Contemporary sources

Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (of which three recensions cover the invasion, known as C, D and E); reasonably contemporary with events

Vita Edwardi Regis; c1067

Chronica Clara;  Marianus Scotus; c1070

Libellus de Exordio; Symeon of Durham; c1110;

Chronicon ex Chronicis; John of Worcester; c1125

Historia Anglorum; Henry of Huntingdon; c1125

Gesta regum anglorum; William of Malmesbury; c1135

L’Estoire des Engleis; Geoffrey Gaimar; 1138

Morkinskinna; translation Andersson & Gade; c1220

Fagrskinna; translation Alison Finlay; c1220 (after Morkinskinna)

Heimskringla; translations Laing, Binns, Palsson, Hollander, Finlay ; c1230

Modern sources

David Cooke – Battlefield Yorkshire from the Romans to the Civil Wars; Pen & Sword; 2006

Kelly DeVries - The Norwegian Invasion of England in 1066; Boydell Press; 1999

Charles Jones - The Forgotten Battle of 1066: Fulford; Tempus; 2006

Charles Jones - Finding Fulford: The search for the first battle of 1066; WPS; 2010

Charles Jones – The Battle of Fulford, property development submission; 2017

Chas Jones - The Literary Sources for the 1066 Battle of Fulford; Academia; 2020

Frank McLynn - 1066: The Year of the Three Battles; Pimlico; 1999

Christopher Rainger - St Oswald’s Old Church, Fulford; 2017

James Ramsay - The Foundations of England; Humphrey Milford; 1898

Michael Rayner - English battlefields : an illustrated encyclopaedia; Tempus; 2004

Guy Schofield - The Third Battle of 1066; History Today, October 1966