|
Norman archer | Anglo Saxon History 
Search Pages |  | |
| | Battle of Hastings 1066AD Observations - King Harold was NOT killed by an arrow in the eye |
|---|
| | |
|---|
To set things straight King Harold was NOT Killed by an arrow in his eye
|
|---|
The tradition that King Harold was killed by an arrow in the eye became firmly established in the Victorian period, largely through the influence of historians who favoured one particular chronicle account over all others.
A more careful reading of the full range of contemporary sources tells a different and more consistent story. Of the eight main chronicle sources for the battle, only two mention an arrow at all — and both of those describe Harold being wounded by it, not killed. The remaining six make no mention of an arrow in any form.
The Carmen, which gives the most detailed account of Harold's death, describes him being killed by four knights in close combat — struck by a lance through the shield, beheaded, disembowelled and having his leg severed. That is not the death of a man who had already been killed by an arrow.
So lets look at the Chronicles and take a holistic view of all that reported this incident.
| | Details from the Chronicles |
|---|
Of the eight main chronicle sources, only two mention an arrow - and both describe Harold being wounded, not killed by it.
Anglo Saxon Chronicles:
There was slain King Harold, and Leofwin his brother, and Earl Girth his brother, with many good men: and the Frenchmen gained the field of battle, as God granted them for the sins of the nation.
Nothing about an arrow
Battle Abbey Chronicles:
The miserable English, feeble and on foot, are scattered abroad. Pressed upon, they fall; they are slaughtered, and killed ; and their king being overthrown by a chance blow, they fly in all directions, and seek their hiding places.
Nothing about an arrow
The Carmen:
When the duke spies the king above on the steep hill
His hard pressed men are being torn to pieces
Harold is forced to go the way of all flesh
The first shatters his breast through the shield by a lance
The second by sword severs the head below the helmet
The third by spears pours out the belly’s entrails
The fourth cuts off the leg at the hip
Nothing about an arrow
Florence of Worcester:
When, however, numbers had fallen on both sides, he, alas ! fell at twilight. There fell, also, his brothers, the earls Gurth and Leofric, and almost all the English nobles.
Nothing about an arrow
Henry of Huntingdon:
Meanwhile, a shower of arrows fell round King Harold, and he himself was pierced in the eye. A crowd of horsemen now burst in, and the king, already wounded, was slain. With him fell Earl Gurth and Earl Leofric, his brothers.
At last an arrow, but Harold was injured by it not killed
Master Wace:
The arrows now flew thicker than rain before the wind ; fast sped the shafts that the English call 'wibetes' Then it was that an arrow, that had been thus shot upwards, struck Harold above his right eye, and put it out. In his agony he drew the arrow and threw it away, breaking it with his hands : and the pain to his head was so great, that he leaned upon his shield.
And now the Normans had pressed on so far, that at last they reached the standard. There Harold had remained, defending himself to the utmost ; but he was sorely wounded in his eye by the arrow, and suffered grievous pain from the blow. An armed man came in the throng of the battle, and struck him on the ventaille of his helmet, and beat him to the ground ; and as he sought to recover himself, a knight beat him down again, striking him on the thick of his thigh, down to the bone.
The arrow again, but Harold was injured by it not killed
Orderic Vitalis:
Although the battle was fought with the greatest fury from nine o'clock in the morning, King Harold was slain in the first onset, and his brother Earl Leofwin fell some time afterwards, with many thousands of the royal army.
Nothing about an arrow
William of Malmsbury:
Very little on the battle at all
Nothing about an arrow
The Bayeux Tapestry:
The tapestry appears to show a figure either holding a spear or with an arrow in his eye, this may not be Harold, and may also be a bit of fake news, as it there is a weight of opinion that says the first copy of the Tapestry by Stothard in the early 1800's doesn't show this arrow.
So lets look at a copy of the Stothard and compare this with the actual Bayeux.
| | |
|---|
Arrow in the Eye - Bayeux vs Stothard vs Lancelot print
|
|---|
| Bayeux Tapestry |
Stothard print |
Lancelot engraving |
It has been claimed that the Stothard print of the Bayeux Tapestry commissioned by Society of Antiquaries and printed in 1821 shows that the arrow in Harold's eye was a spear or javelin being thrown by the soldier, and was not an arrow in their eye, and that this was modified in Victorian times.
This image shows a comparison between the Stothard print from 1821 and the modern Bayeux, both show the arrow in the soldier's eye or face, hence the above statement is just an urban legend and is incorrect. If there were changes made to the Bayeux then this would have had to be prior to 1821.
However if we now look at the Antoine Lancelot's engraving from 1733 we can see that the arrow is now a spear, so it looks as if the image was restored/changed sometime between 1733 and 1821.
If you would like to see a copy of the Stothard print, the only one available to the public can be found at Battle Museum.
| | |
|---|
The death of Harold - Lancelot, Stothard vs Bayeux
|
|---|
The Bayeux Tapestry shows two events, before and during Harold's death, the arrow in the eye is depicted to the left, and then his death by a sword blow to his leg.
The Stothard shows the same details as the Bayeux which implies the events occurred in this order.
The Lancelot engraving also shows the same order, but the figure that was identified as Harold having an arrow in the eye is actually a Housecarl throwing spears.
These events from the Bayeux seem to agree with Master Wace's chronicle and also that of Henry of Huntingdon.
| | |
|---|
| Conclusion |
|---|
The chronicle evidence points consistently to the same sequence of events. Harold was struck in or above the right eye by an arrow fired overhead during the archery phase of the battle — Master Wace and Henry of Huntingdon both record this, and it is consistent with the overhead firing tactic described elsewhere. He was wounded and in pain but remained standing, leaning on his shield. He was then killed in close combat by multiple Norman knights as the line finally collapsed around him. The Carmen's account of four knights delivering the killing blows is the most detailed description of his actual death, and none of them use a bow.
The Bayeux Tapestry evidence is more complicated than it first appears. Antoine Lancelot's engraving of 1733 shows the figure commonly identified as Harold holding what appears to be a spear rather than having an arrow in his eye. The Stothard print of 1821 shows an arrow. Something changed between 1733 and 1821 — either in the tapestry itself or in how it was interpreted and reproduced. This does not prove the arrow tradition was deliberately inserted, but it does mean the tapestry cannot be used as independent confirmation of it.
The weight of evidence is clear. Harold was injured by an arrow and killed by knights. The arrow in the eye did not kill him — and the tradition that it did rests on a selective reading of two chronicles, a tapestry image that was apparently different a century before the Victorian historians examined it, and nearly two centuries of repetition.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Local Interest
Just click an image |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
![Norman archer](javascript:launch_resize("/images/1066AD/norman_archer_lft.png",900,1000);)
