Malfosse Incident (was Hastings 1066) LONG
Michael W Cook
couple of years ago.
© MWC2002
For this post, a detailed map of the Battle area in East Sussex would be
very useful, but by no means absolutely necessary.
-----------------------
The translation of the word Malfosse is 'Evil Ditch' and has for many years
been a fairly disputed incident. Most believe it happened after the fighting
had finished on the Field of Hastings in 1066, but some also believe it took
place during the battle.
As usual we have the regular sources to play with.
William of Poitiers is the first to mention the incident, although he
doesn't refer to it as Malfosse. He places the incident after the main
fighting had finished and links it with the pursuit of the defeated Saxons.
William of Jumieges only briefly mentions "The long grass hid from the
Normans an ancient bank (antiquum aggerem) where the Normans were suddenly
thrown with their horses, killing one another as they fell suddenly and
without warning, one on top of the other"
Florence of Worcester mentions nothing and neither does the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle or the Carmen de Hastingae Proelio by Guy, Bishop of Amiens.
The Bayeux Tapestry finishes at the end of the battle, however, some have
described the 'Hillock' scene during the fighting as depicting Malfosse.
Orderic Vitalis writes of a similar scene to that of Poitiers, using his
"paraeruptum uallum" and Jumieges' "antiquum aggerem".
He then wanders off giving his own description of events, naming senior
Normans who fell and other details not mentioned by anyone else.
This makes Poitiers account the most reliable of the contemporary writers
and nothing else of great interest about the incident is mentioned again
until the Battel Abbey Chronicle, written around 1180. The Chronicle repeats
Poitiers and Vitalis, and even goes as far as giving us the name 'Malfosse',
but doesn't give any further hints as to its location.
William of Malmesbury writing his Gesta Regum in 1125 mentions the 'Hillock'
scene, which is depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry, before the death of Harold.
This incident he mentions is similar to that which Poitiers describes at the
end of the battle. Malmesbury uses much of Poitiers account for the rest of
the Battle.
Henry of Huntingdon also places the incident in the middle of the battle,
and perhaps he also associated this with the 'Hillock' scene in the BT.
Otherwise, his descriptions are essentially very similar to Orderic Vitalis,
Jumieges and Poitiers, but his association with the middle of the battle
clearly comes from Malmesbury.
So, what we have here is a clear separate incident where the Norman cavalry
were pursuing some of the fleeing Saxons and fell into a sort of trap or
Saxon rearguard making a stand. The question that has been argued over is
where did this incident take place.
There have been five candidates for the location of Malfosse:
A. Lake Field/Little Park Farm - Freeman 1869
B. Oakwood Gyll/Gill - Chevallier 1963
C. Manser's Shaw - Baring 1906
D. Beech or Reder Stream - Lower 1853
E. George Meadow - Ramsay 1898
I will look at the 3 main candidates visited A B & C - Little Park Farm,
Oakwood Gyll and Manser's Shaw.
The first position visited was position C - Manser's Shaw.
This position was first noted by The Hon. F. Baring who argued this position
for the Malfosse in his paper 'Notes on the Battle of Hastings' in 1906 and
also in his 'Domesday Tables' published in 1909. Major-General E. Renouard
James immediately endorsed this in his paper 'The Battle of Hastings'
published by the Royal Engineers Journal, vol. V, No 1 in January 1907.
Baring was brought to the attention of the site by the then owner of Battle
Abbey, Sir Augustus Webster who considered Manser's to be a corruption of
Malfosse.
This position is also favoured by JFC Fuller in his book 'Military History
of the Western World' published in 1954. Stephen Morillo also mentions it in
his book 'The Battle of Hastings' and also R Allen-Brown in his paper 'The
Battle of Hastings' presented to the Battle Conference on Anglo-Norman
Studies in 1980. However, both Morillo and Allen-Brown do reserve their
doubts over Manser's.
I also have serious doubts on this position, because of its close proximity
to the Saxon lines. Also in the way the fleeing Saxons would have taken up
this position.
The most logical route to get there would be to head up the now present
Battle High St off Battle Hill before swinging west and down avoiding the
two streams cutting it off from the main battle arena. A route that could
also have been taken by the pursuing Norman's.
The route towards this position by cutting across from the Battlefield does
take you over several streams and it is very rough country, a clear line of
sight is not afforded at any time, at least not on foot. The ditches are
just that, ditches with a drop of up to 12 ft and a similar climb up the
other side, mostly full of Bramble. This is rough rolling country, sweeping
up and down and not the sort of terrain one could maintain a gallop on a
horse for any period. Once at the position of Manser's you almost hit a
ravine, which is now mostly surrounded by trees and bush.
The area to the north is now having some building work carried out as the
buildings encroach from the North Trade road, particularly around the
school. It can be seen on the British publication cover of Morillo's book
'The Battle of Hastings', it is to the south of the Orange building centre
right and may be checked with Renouard James map in Morillo's book p198.
------------------
The second position visited was position A - Lake Field/Little Park Farm.
Little Park Farm was first discussed with me by Bryn Fraser of
soc.history.medieval off the group.
The position was first favoured by Prof. EA Freeman in his huge work
'History of the Norman Conquest' published in 1869 and I have also been told
that Field Marshall Montgomery favoured this position in a paper he wrote on
the Battle of Hastings. But, I have never seen this or ever read of its
existence. Many locals in Battle also favour this position.
The site is to the E of Battle Church at the bottom of the field that lies
north of Marley lane, opposite the Chequers Public house. On the map by Gen.
E. Renouard James in Morillo's book this position is at the sharp contours
at the very eastern end of the Norman archer's line, 300 yards from the
summit of Caldbec Hill.
The approach is perfect in matching the Chronicles descriptions of ditches
etc. A good gallop downhill over steep, rough ground and a sharp fall into
the ravine/ditch. The ride down through Lake Field is very steep and once at
the bottom the whole area is now very heavily overgrown with trees and
bramble, it is untouched.
This position looked very good and there is a footpath running down the side
of the field, which links, to the London road running from Caldbec. However,
my doubts arise about this position due to its closeness to the main
Battlefield, and it is in an almost identical position to Manser's Shaw on
the opposite side of the battlefield with Harold's lines in between.
If one studies the positions at the start of the battle on Gen. E. Renouard
James's map in Morillo's book, these two ravines/ditches, Malfosse A and C,
cover both flanks of Harold's troops. They are at the very edge of the
battlefield. R Allen Brown actually mentions in his account of the Malfosse
that the incident at Manser's could well have happened actually during the
battle. This is possible as position A is roughly near where the false
retreats are alleged to have taken place in the afternoon. This does right
away rule out Manser's for the position of the Malfosse. These two
positions can also be checked on Renouard James's map in Morillo's book
p198.
-------------------
The third position visited was position B - Oak Wood Gyll/Gill.
The position was first proposed by CT Chevallier in a lecture delivered to
the Battle and District Historical Society on 27 February 1953. In 1957 Lt
Col Charles H Lemmon also supported Chevallier's position in his publication
'The Field of Hastings' which is still available today in it's fourth
edition reprint. However, it wasn't until 1963, following publication in the
Sussex Archaeological Collections, vol. 101, that historians have taken the
position seriously.
This position is today also favoured in the two latest publications on the
Battle of Hastings, Jim Bradbury's 'The Battle of Hastings' and Frank
McLynn's '1066: The Year of Three Battles'.
Oakwood Gyll/Gill is approx. 600 yards North from the summit of Caldbec
Hill, which makes it just over 1000 yards from the main battlefield. The
only part of this area that has not suffered any building works is the final
100 yards or so from Virgin's Lane down the hill to this Malfosse position,
this runs parallel with the B2100
The field is a little bumpy and falls away quite steadily as you go down
until the ditch. The ground then falls away very sharply into a very large
ditch before rising very, very steeply up about 25-30 feet to the other
side.
The ditch in parts is up to 15-20 feet in width at the bottom with the whole
feature of this ditch/ravine rising in an easterly direction from the B2100
road for about 150 yards steadily up the hill. The road has now cut off the
western end where it now sits up high above the position.
As I walked down the field I tried to imagine what the Norman's would have
seen coming down the hill in the dark. At a point just before it drops away
you are almost level with the opposite side where the Saxon's would have
been positioned, it then falls sharply away down into what is now mostly
brambles, small trees and shrubs, nobody ever goes down in here, the whole
area is untouched from the westerly road end eastwards up the hill.
This looked very promising as the Malfosse position to me. Even now there is
a good gallop down and the sudden sharp fall is on you. The terrain from
Battle is now all built over so we shall never know exactly what it was like
in 1066, but the last bit all matches what the Chronicles say, in fact the
description is perfect and one can well picture it when standing there.
In my opinion this was the site of the Malfosse incident and the scene of
great slaughter.
Before I visited these sites I always believed the position of the Malfosse
incident to be position B, Oak Wood Gyll. After visiting them all I still
believe this, it's position relative to the battlefield is perfect, just far
enough away for a remustering of men, and also along the most obvious line
of retreat from the field and Caldbec Hill.
Nearly all of the land from each site to the Battlefield has been affected
by building of some sort over the centuries. It is therefore impossible for
us to know what parts of this area were wooded at the time of the battle and
what was clear, what parts were shrubs and bramble and what was open field.
BUT, unless someone can organise a dig at any of these sites, it will always
remain a disputed subject.
I am more than happy to discuss any part of this.
Thanks for staying with it, if you did.
Kind regards
Michael
Michael W Cook
mwc...@crusader-productions.com
Castles Abbeys and Medieval Buildings
http://www.castles-abbeys.co.uk
-
Vaughan Sanders
"Michael W Cook" <mwc...@crusader-productions.com> wrote in message
news:B8F0954D.395B%mwc...@crusader-productions.com...
> This is an updated version of an article I posted to soc.history.medieval
a
> couple of years ago.
>
> © MWC2002
snip
>
> William of Jumieges only briefly mentions "The long grass hid from the
> Normans an ancient bank (antiquum aggerem) where the Normans were suddenly
> thrown with their horses, killing one another as they fell suddenly and
> without warning, one on top of the other"
If you are qouting WJ from the GND, it is actually Orderic's addition, WJ
doesn't mention it.
(Van Houts, Orderic is the first author to describe the Malfosse incident)
Orderic says "that almost 15,000 men perished there".
All the Godwines were dead, who do you think their commander was to be able
to stage a rally like this, or do you think it had been planned in advance.
WP, seems to be saying that it wasn't just an accident.
"However confidence returned to the fugitves when they found a good chance
to renew battle, thanks to a broken rampart and labyrinth of ditches".
Jamie
Michael W Cook
Sanders at vaughan...@virgin.net wrote on 28/4/02 9:57 am:
> "Michael W Cook" <mwc...@crusader-productions.com> wrote in message
> news:B8F0954D.395B%mwc...@crusader-productions.com...
> snip
>>
>> William of Jumieges only briefly mentions "The long grass hid from the
>> Normans an ancient bank (antiquum aggerem) where the Normans were suddenly
>> thrown with their horses, killing one another as they fell suddenly and
>> without warning, one on top of the other"
>
> If you are qouting WJ from the GND, it is actually Orderic's addition, WJ
> doesn't mention it.
> (Van Houts, Orderic is the first author to describe the Malfosse incident)
As mentioned in my other post, I screwed up.
You are quite correct WJ doesn't mention it.
Chevallier's has the Chronicles listed in order in his paper for SAC 101.
I foolishly cut corners without checking, and made exactly the same mistake
which led to Allen Brown's condemning of the paper.
> Orderic says "that almost 15,000 men perished there".
> All the Godwines were dead, who do you think their commander was to be able
> to stage a rally like this, or do you think it had been planned in advance.
> WP, seems to be saying that it wasn't just an accident.
> "However confidence returned to the fugitves when they found a good chance
> to renew battle, thanks to a broken rampart and labyrinth of ditches".
>
> Jamie
>
Yes, you are quite correct.
It's good someone knows the sources as well, I apologise for the mistake,
and thank you for pointing this out. To mention Chevallier and to then make
the same mistake - naughty of me.
Regards
Michael
a.spencer3
Michael W Cook <mwc...@crusader-productions.com> wrote in message
news:B8F0954D.395B%mwc...@crusader-productions.com...
a
> couple of years ago.
>
to do. Hope it received due acclaim from wherever - whether you're right or
not!
Surreyman
Michael W Cook
at a.spe...@ntlworld.com wrote on 29/4/02 9:11 am:
Thank you for your most kind comment.
It was very interesting to do, but damn muddy in places ;-)
I am going to re-write it again and add all the Chronicles.
Regards
Kreepykoop
archaeological field work has been carried out at Hastings? Do you think that
such field work could yet enhance our interpretation of the battle?
(As an occasional lurker here and on shm, it makes a pleasant change to see
the battle being discussed without the malign input of a certain predatory
troll).
Vaughan Sanders
"Kreepykoop" <kreep...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020510101748...@mb-fj.aol.com...
As far as I know, of the three major battles fought in the space of 4 weeks
in 1066, there is no archaeological evidence for any of them.
(Fulford Gate, Stamford Bridge, Hastings).
There is however archaeological evidence at Riccal, the landing place of
Harald Hardrada on the Humber/Ouse according to Florence.
Forensic evidence has shown the skeletons to be Scandinavian, most showing
battle wounds, possible as many as 600 including women and children.
Presumably this took place after the battle at Stamford Bridge, when the
remnants of Hardrada's army tried to escape in their Longships.
Alternatively the Godwines could have let them go, and they buried their
dead at Riccal before leaving, but the women and children would not seem to
fit into this scenario.
This begs the question how did the Godwines trap Hardrada's fleet of between
300 to 500 ships.
Jamie
Michael W Cook
kreep...@aol.com wrote on 10/5/02 3:17 pm:
> Having an (amateur) interest in battlefield archaeology, I wonder how much
> archaeological field work has been carried out at Hastings? Do you think that
> such field work could yet enhance our interpretation of the battle?
I very much doubt it would really.
The only evidence I'm aware of is a Saxon hand-axe head, found near the
North Trade Road. There was also a Saxon coin hoard found by the Watlington
Road out of Battle, which some say could have been part of Harold's pay
chest.
Eleanor Searle, translator of the Battel Abbey Chronicle, in a footnote
mentions that bones from a burial pit were discovered in the vicinity of
Oakwood Gyll, when the land was put under the plough for the first time.
Searle says that the romantic chronicler immediately linked these with
Malfosse. Yet if they weren't from Malfosse, Searle doesn't offer us an
explanation why the Normans would have dragged these bodies for burial
nearly a mile from the battlefield - Unfortunately she died several years
ago.
There has been little work on the battlefield, and I don't really think it
would enhance our interpretation much if there were, heavens, folk have
argued enough about it as it is over the years, without some new finds to
throw a spanner into the works ;-)
The problem is, like with most battlefields, where do you dig or survey ?
At Hastings, over half of the site has been interfered with by building of
some sort or another. Even with what remains, the chances of finding very
much is pretty slim. The chronicles tell us of the bodies of the dead being
stripped - that's standard fare and would have cleared most articles. Even
after the battle when the Abbey was built, I'm sure the Monks would have
swept the site for relics and buried any bones etc which may have been left
or overlooked.
The only thing worthy of finding would probably be a burial pit, but that
could be absolutely anywhere. Not even Tony Robinson and the archaeological
heretics on Time Team could fool us with this one ;-)
I can just see it now;
"So this arrowhead COULD have been the actual arrow that killed Harold"
Ahhhhhhhhh !!!!!!!
> (As an occasional lurker here and on shm, it makes a pleasant change to see
> the battle being discussed without the malign input of a certain predatory
> troll).
Your comments are most welcome, thank you for posting them.
Regards
Michael