1066 Harold's Death at Hastings - was it an arrow?

All the sources confirm King Harold Godwinson was killed at Senlac Hill in October 1066. They also agree his death effectively marked the end of the battle of Hastings, one of the most important events in English history. The story was given lasting pictorial resonance through the Bayeux Tapestry. So most of us learned at school that the remains of the English army fled after Harold and his two brothers were killed, the king, famously, by an arrow in his eye. But was this true? 

What does the Tapestry show?

A number of problems accompany the familiar narrative. First, there are two figures shown in the relevant part of the Bayeux Tapestry. One seems to be holding an arrow in his right eye, while another, just adjacent, is being attacked on the ground. It is not clear which one is Harold. They can’t both be him as they are dressed differently and one carries a shield while the other carries an axe.

In other Tapestry scenes with long inscriptions, names are often not close to the figures they represent. It has been pointed out that in the earlier scene of Harold’s supposed oath to William, for instance, Harold’s name appears over William’s head. The phrase ‘Hic Harold rex interfectus est’ is split across both figures. So it’s hard to be dogmatic about this supposed scene of Harold’s death. 

Another problem concerns the Tapestry itself. The arrow piercing the figure in question is not original. It was added during 19th-century French ‘repairs’. In fact 18th century reproductions show this figure holding a spear above his head. The more recent stitching not only turns the shaft into an arrow but lowers its angle as it runs behind his head. Close study of the embroidery’s stitching and pre-repair engravings reveals that at least seven modern arrows have been added - all longer than they would actually have been in medieval times. There are also 17 empty stitch-holes now running in a straight line from the head of the falling Harold in the centre of the scene.

Clearly the Bayeux Tapestry is not holy writ and cannot be relied on to represent events as historical truth. It has been changed by restorers for reasons which are unclear, yet probably reflect the prevailing wisdom brought on by later propaganda. Like all historical evidence the Tapestry, more accurately an embroidery, is best treated with respect tinged with a degree of scepticism.

Contemporary sources

That brings us to a third problem which is always a worry for historians. The closest contemporary sources don’t refer to any arrow in the eye for Harold. No arrow is mentioned in the Carmen de Hastingae Proelio, (Song of the Battle of Hastings) attributed to Guy of Amiens and written sometime before 1068. Nor is it referred to by the Norman commentator William of Jumièges, who wrote early in 1070 and says only that "Harold himself was slain, pierced with mortal wounds."

Other near contemporary sources provide a more detailed account of Harold’s death. They report William and three French knights broke through the English shield wall at the top of the slope, and literally took Harold apart, gruesomely eviscerating him and cutting off his head and legs. This tradition that Harold died by being hacked to pieces reappears in some accounts from the period. So where does the legend of the arrow come from? And why was it created? 

It is first mentioned by Baudri of Borgueil writing in the first decade of the 12^th century, 40 years after the battle. He describes Harold dying from a laetalis arundo (lethal arrow), but given he was keen on classical allusion, he may have taken the phrase directly from Virgil. Several later (12^th and 13^th century) sources also mention it. The Norman writer Wace, who held religious office in Bayeux and may have seen the Tapestry, says the king was grievously wounded ‘above the right eye’. Even the English sources William of Malmesbury and Henry of Huntingdon pitch in with Harold being ‘struck in the eye’. 

So why the change? The answer may be due to qualms about the bloody event when the history was being re-written. It was not mandatory to kill kings or other important figures at the time. If not captured for ransom, they might be allowed to withdraw and escape. But at Hastings this would clearly not have suited the Normans. Allowing Harold to leave the battlefield at dusk with much of his army, and then to resupply and reinforce, could have been disastrous for William. He was determined to end the matter decisively and unequivocally. Harold had to be killed there and then. 

Contemporary Norman propagandists might have counselled a new spin on events, especially if William himself had been one of the killer/mutilators. An arrow in the eye smacked of divine providence - an anonymous bolt from the sky ending Harold’s life. Subsequent accounts would have found this version sitting more happily with the emerging chivalric traditions of the time.

Power of propaganda

The Norman spinners were keen on myths. Together with undue reverence by later writers for the presumed truth of the Bayeux Tapestry, these sources have carried a lot of influence among historians across the centuries. And while such chroniclers as the relatively less biased, (and half English) Orderic Vitalis may have been critical of William once he was safely dead, their narrative, including a self-justifying complicity myth, has perhaps enjoyed too much respect through history. 

In particular the idea that Harold, from the powerful Anglo-Danish Godwin clan, promised the English crown to William, probably in 1064 when he was in Normandy, is doubtful. First, William had a very weak claim on grounds either of family descent or possession, the usual Anglo Saxon criteria. Next it was simply not Harold’s to promise, whatever he felt compelled to say at the time (William was holding two family members hostage). Earlier, in 1051, Edward, feeling hemmed in by the Godwin family, may have vaguely agreed not to stand in William’s way. But this can hardly have been cast iron and in any case Edward was now dead. Though beloved of Norman propagandists, if Harold had been forced to sign some oath under duress, it would simply not have counted.  

English royal succession rules at that time varied with circumstances and people, and it is true that William and Harold were each of part Danish descent. But under both Norse and Anglo-Saxon custom a candidate would above all have needed approval from the Council of magnates and senior clerics, the Witan. William would simply never have secured it – there’s no evidence at all for any backing for him in England. In contrast, Harold, whose sister Edith was the widow of the reclusive Edward, and who had himself effectively been doing the job of king for 10 years, received the unanimous support of the Witan a day after Edward’s death. 

It's possible that the young claimant Edgar Aetheling, who had returned a few years earlier from Hungary, might have taken the throne. And he was in fact proclaimed English king after Harold’s death at Hastings. He had a good shout on genealogical grounds as the grandson of Edmund Ironside, but seems not to have been blessed with the other qualities necessary, including obviously, experience - so important in times of crisis. He might conceivably have played the role of a puppet, but if considered, this idea was discarded early on. Unusually perhaps, he lived on into old age.

So almost certainly no arrow in the eye. A paucity of contemporary written source material from the Anglo-Saxon side has meant we have tended to lean on the Tapestry - and on some 12^th century Norman propagandist writers - for a version of events. But just because it’s written down doesn’t mean it’s true, as my old history professor used to emphasise. A sound lesson, and one to be repeated throughout this series.