Battle of Hastings 1066AD
Site 1 - Heathfield (The Hoar Apple Tree)

Who suggested this site and where is it ?

NOTE: This site was proposed by Rebecca Welshman and Simon Coleman, not by the author of this site. It places the Battle of Hastings at Heathfield, at approximately 0.2643° E, 50.9743° N. It is assessed here against the same 21 chronicle and landscape criteria as every other candidate.

Site Concept ?

The proposal rests on the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which names the 'haran apuldran' (the hoar apple tree) as the place where Harold stood against William. Welshman and Coleman identify this tree with the Heathfield area, on the elevated sandstone ridge of the High Weald.

This is the only site on the list whose case begins with a chronicle place-name and not with the landscape, so its strength and its weakness are the same thing. If the Chronicle's hoar apple tree stood at Heathfield and marks the battlefield, most of the other criteria must be explained by the landscape around it. If it marks only the place where Harold gathered his army, as the Netherfield page proposes, then Heathfield is the muster point and the battlefield lay to the south.

Heathfield lies within the Domesday forest of Andredsweald, deep in the interior and not on its southern edge. The Domesday boundary is the 1086AD position, twenty years after the battle, so the 1066AD extent of the forest is an inference.

This map is a lidar map of the area showing the ridges, the ridgeways and Roman roads described by Ivan D Margary, and the numbered candidate locations. Heathfield is number 1.

This map is a detailed land profile of the Heathfield ridge. The land profile of the yellow line is shown in the following image.

The profile shows a maximum slope of 15%, the gentlest of the sites assessed so far, against 22% at Crowhurst and 41% at Netherfield. The assessments below that say a feature is absent at Heathfield, such as an opposing southern hill or a stream draw between the forces, are statements about what has been identified so far. They have not yet been tested against a measured profile running south from the site, and they should be read that way.

1. ✅ The Haran Apuldran (Hoar Apple tree ?? ASC)

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle names the haran apuldran. Site 1 is chosen on the premise that this tree stood at Heathfield, so the criterion is satisfied by the premise itself and cannot count as independent evidence for the site. No tree, boundary marker or charter bound at Heathfield has been identified, so the suggestion that a ridgeway boundary tree stood there remains a proposal. It is also an open question whether the Chronicle's wording refers to the battlefield or only to where Harold assembled his army, and the answer decides whether this tick supports a battle at Heathfield or only a muster there.

2. ❌ The Saxons were near a forest

The Carmen places the English at a forest, in language that reads as a wooded hill beside open ground. Heathfield lies deep inside the Domesday forest and not on its southern lip, so it is in the forest and not beside it. This is an interpretive fail. A reader who takes 'near a forest' to include 'inside one' could score it differently, but that reading loses the sense of a wooded hill neighbouring a valley.

3. ✅ Harold ascended a hill

The Carmen has Harold climbing a hill. Heathfield is approached over the elevated sandstone ridge of the High Weald, which fits this description, though it would suit many ridges.

4. ✅ The Saxons were on a hill

The Carmen, the Battle Abbey Chronicles, Master Wace and the Bayeux Tapestry all place the English on elevated ground. Heathfield stands on high ridge ground, which satisfies the criterion.

5. ❓ The Saxons were on level ground

Master Wace describes level ground. The Heathfield crest is somewhat narrow and uneven, which gives a hill position but not an obviously level platform. This is a partial fit.

6. ❓ The Saxons fortify their position

Orderic Vitalis, Master Wace, Henry of Huntingdon, Florence of Worcester, the Battle Abbey Chronicles and the Bayeux Tapestry all describe some form of English barrier. A site in the forest interior would have plenty of timber for a palisade and stakes, which counts in its favour. Against that, a dense forest sits uneasily with an open, fortified line, and no physical trace of any fortification has been found at Heathfield, as at every other candidate. This is a partial fit.

7. ✅ The terrain was rugged and uncultivated

The Carmen and the Battle Abbey Chronicles describe rough, uncultivated ground. Wild Wealden forest and heath fits this well. The 1066AD cover is an inference from the Domesday forest, but this is the criterion on which Heathfield is strongest.

8. ❌ The area was called Senlac

Orderic Vitalis states that the English took post at a place anciently called Senlac. No Senlac-type name, including the Battle Abbey form Santlache, is known for the Heathfield area in the published record, and no derivation of the name from a Heathfield place-name has been proposed. This criterion is therefore not satisfied.

9. ❌ The Battlefield was quite wide and not restricted

Master Wace describes a wide, unrestricted field. The assessment of this site is that forest density would restrict the lateral deployment of a large army. That depends on how much of the ridge top was wooded in 1066AD, and the name Heathfield itself suggests open heath at some period, so the forest restriction is probable but not certain.

10. ❓ The Battle was 9 miles from Hastings

Florence of Worcester states that the battle took place nine miles from Hastings. At about 14 miles on the figure used for this site, Heathfield is well beyond nine statute miles. The result depends on two things that need settling for every site: the measuring point, whether Hastings town or the Norman camp at Bexhill, and the length of the medieval mile. If a medieval mile was longer than a statute mile, by the factor of 1.1 to 1.5 used on the Netherfield page, nine medieval miles would be about 10 to 13.5 statute miles, which would bring Heathfield close to or within range. If it was shorter, the gap would widen. This is left as uncertain.

11. ❌ The Norman camp was at the seaside

The Carmen and Florence of Worcester place the Norman camp at the seaside. The Norman camp was on the coast wherever the English stood, so this criterion tests whether the site is within reach of that camp. At 12 miles or more from the coast, Heathfield is too far for the Normans to march out, fight an all-day battle and return to the camp, which is why it fails.

12. ❌ The Battle raged from the 3rd Hour

Florence of Worcester and Orderic Vitalis have the fighting under way by the third hour, which on the working used for the other pages falls between about 09:46 and 11:19 GMT on 14 October. A dawn start from the coast at 2 to 2.5 miles per hour would bring the Normans to Heathfield no earlier than about 11:30, and later at slower rates. That is after the third hour, unless the army left camp well before first light, which is not assumed for the other sites. An earlier draft scored this as a match on the grounds that a daylong battle was possible along the ridgeway, but that does not address the start time, which is what the criterion tests.

13. ❌ William was initially on a hill

The Battle Abbey Chronicles and Master Wace place William on a hill at the start. No southern hill opposing the Heathfield ridge has been identified. This is an absence of identification and not a demonstrated absence, so it should be tested against a lidar profile.

14. ❌ The hill William was on was called Hecheland

The Battle Abbey Chronicles name William's initial position as Hechelande, in the direction of Hastings. No Hechelande-type name is known near Heathfield in the published record.

15. ❓ The Normans advanced over a ridge

Master Wace describes the Normans advancing over a ridge. The earlier assessment failed this because the topography does not force an advance over an intermediate ridge, but that is a stricter test than Wace's wording. Any march from the coast to Heathfield would cross several Wealden ridges, so the criterion is probably met in a general sense. Whether the Normans advanced over a ridge into sight of the English position is not something the evidence can settle at this site. This is left as uncertain.

16. ❓ Behind the Normans was another hill

Master Wace describes a second hill behind the Normans. The earlier assessment failed this because the coastal approach lacks a multi-ridged profile. Ground to the south of Heathfield is ridged throughout, so the criterion is probably met if it is read generally, but it is a weak discriminator that fits most of the High Weald. It is left as uncertain, for the same reason as at Crowhurst.

17. ❌ There was a fosse between the forces

Master Wace, Henry of Huntingdon and Florence of Worcester describe a ditch or fosse between the forces. No intervening stream draw or constructed ditch has been identified between opposing lines at Heathfield. A natural stream draw would only be a partial answer to a dug fosse in any case, and the point needs a measured profile before it can be closed.

18. ❓ There was a steep slope up to the Saxons

The Carmen describes the Normans charging up a steep slope. At 15% the Heathfield gradient is moderate, and horsemen could manage it without great difficulty. This is a partial fit, and the weakest of the three sites assessed for slope.

19. ✅ Behind the Saxons was another hill

Master Wace describes the English falling back to higher ground behind their position. The High Weald continues to rise to the north of Heathfield, which provides the higher fallback ground this criterion needs.

20. ❌ The sea was behind the Normans

The Carmen and Master Wace place the sea behind the Normans. The sea lies to the south of Heathfield, so it is behind the Normans in a strictly geographical sense, but at 12 to 14 miles it is too far away to matter tactically, and the Normans would be fighting well out of sight of their ships. The criterion is not satisfied in the sense the Carmen intends.

21. ❌ Fleeing Saxons were killed when a bridge collapsed

Master Wace describes fleeing Saxons dying when a bridge gave way. No ravine or crossing matching the Malfosse and bridge accounts has been identified at Heathfield. The High Weald is cut by steep wooded ghylls, so a ravine is not implausible, but no candidate has been proposed.

Heathfield satisfies five of the 21 criteria, is uncertain or only a partial fit on six, and fails ten.

Satisfied (5): the Hoar Apple Tree (1, by the premise of the site), Harold ascended a hill (3), the Saxons on a hill (4), rugged and uncultivated terrain (7) and a hill behind the Saxons (19).

Uncertain or partial (6): level ground (5), the position fortified (6), nine miles from Hastings (10), the Normans advancing over a ridge (15), a hill behind the Normans (16) and a steep slope up to the Saxons (18).

Not satisfied (10): near a forest (2), the name Senlac (8), a wide and unrestricted battlefield (9), the Norman camp at the seaside (11), the battle from the third hour (12), William initially on a hill (13), the name Hecheland (14), a fosse between the forces (17), the sea behind the Normans (20) and the bridge collapse (21).

The site's main strength is that it starts from a named chronicle location, and its high, wild ridge terrain with rising ground behind fits the English side of the accounts. Its main weaknesses are the distance from the coast, which makes a third-hour start difficult and, unless the medieval mile was longer than the statute mile, puts the site outside Florence of Worcester's nine miles, and the lack of any identified Norman hill, fosse, ravine or Norman-side place-names. Several of the failures are failures to identify a feature and have not been tested against a measured profile.

The tick for the Hoar Apple Tree carries most of the case, and it is the least independent of the 21. If the Chronicle is describing where Harold gathered his army and not where the battle was fought, the evidence here points to Heathfield as a muster point and not as the battlefield. No excavated evidence of a battle has been reported at Heathfield, which is also true of every other candidate.