Kindle Price:	$2.99
Sold by:	Amazon.com Services LLC

Read with our free app

You've subscribed to ! We will preorder your items within 24 hours of when they become available. When new books are released, we'll charge your default payment method for the lowest price available during the pre-order period.

Update your device or payment method, cancel individual pre-orders or your subscription at
Your Memberships & Subscriptions

There was an error. We were unable to process your subscription due to an error. Please refresh and try again.

Follow the authors

The Battle of Hastings 1066: The Uncomfortable Truth: Revealing the True Location of England's Most Famous Battle Kindle Edition

by John Grehan (Author), Martin Mace (Author) Format: Kindle Edition

4.3 75 ratings

See all formats and editions

This historical study upends the traditional narratives surrounding the Norman Conquest by revealing the true location of its most important battle.

The Duke of Normandy’s victory at the Battle of Hastings on October 14th, 1066, was one of the most important events in English history. As such, its every detail has been analyzed by scholars and interpreted by historians. Yet one of the most fundamental aspect of the battle—the ground upon which it was fought—has never been seriously questioned, until now. Could it really be that for almost 1,000 years everyone has been studying the wrong location?

In this in-depth study, the authors examine both early sources and modern interpretations, unravelling compulsive evidence that historians have chosen to ignore because it does not fit the traditional narrative of this foundational event. Most importantly, the authors investigate the archaeological data to reveal the exact terrain on which history was made.

Editorial Reviews

About the Author

JOHN GREHAN has written, edited or contributed to more than 300 books and magazine articles covering a wide span of military history from the Iron Age to the recent conflict in Afghanistan. John has also appeared on local and national radio and television to advise on military history topics. He was employed as the Assistant Editor of Britain at War Magazine from its inception until 2014. John now devotes his time to writing and editing books.

Martin Mace has been involved in writing and publishing military history for more than twenty-five years. He began his career with local history, writing a book on the Second World War anti-invasion defences and stop lines in West Sussex. Following the success of this book, he established Historic Military Press, which has published a wide range of titles. In 2006 he began working on the idea for Britain at War Magazine, the first issue of which went on sale in May 2007. This publication has grown rapidly to become the best-selling military history periodical on the high street. Martin now devotes his time to writing and editing books.

Product details

ASIN ‏ : ‎ B00A7CKL3M
Publisher ‏ : ‎ Pen & Sword Military (February 19, 2013)
Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 19, 2013
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 13604 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
Print length ‏ : ‎ 334 pages

Best Sellers Rank: #733,312 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
- #83 in 1066-1485 History of UK
- #105 in Medieval Military History
- #653 in History of Medieval Europe

Customer Reviews:
4.3 75 ratings

Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.

Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.

Videos

Help others learn more about this product by uploading a video!

Upload your video

About the authors

Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.

John Grehan
Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.
Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more
See more on the author's page
Martin Mace
Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.
Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more
See more on the author's page

Customer reviews

4.3 out of 5

75 global ratings

How customer reviews and ratings work

Sort reviews by

Top reviews from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

benark

Kindle Edition

Reviewed in the United States on December 22, 2012

Verified Purchase

I read this after reading Nick Austin's book on the same subject. Both author's propose that the official location of the 1066 Battle of Hastings is in error.

After reading both, I think that Grehan's work is both better argued and written. The author presents the results of research on what primary sources exist, as well as an analysis of the geography of the area. The author also analyzes contemporary work in this (literal) field, including Austin's.

The author also presents a section on notes, which contain both references and commentary. The notes provide some context to the entire geopolitical events surrounding the Invasion of England.

A very good read, and nicely done.

7 people found this helpful

Helpful

Albert A. Laville III

Very Interesting. Even if the Battle was fought on ...

Reviewed in the United States on November 7, 2014

Verified Purchase

Very Interesting. Even if the Battle was fought on another hill, it does not change the result.

2 people found this helpful

Helpful

Merlin Douglas Larsen

Four stars, instead of five, for inexcusable gaffs, but an entertaining, informative read

Reviewed in the United States on March 27, 2014

Verified Purchase

The introduction was a pleasant surprise. "With a single uttered command, the Normans urged their horses up the slope to engage the English. It was the start of the Battle of Hastings. The date was 14 October 2006."

"And you were there," said the old B&W Walter Cronkite historical dramatizations I saw in grade school. I can say, "Yes I was." On Saturday the 14th, I fought for the English. On Sunday the 15th, I fought for William. I was with Leofwine's right battle on Saturday, and with the Breton left on Sunday.

The authors are obviously brother "fans" of the subject of the Norman Conquest. So any controversial treatise on the battlefield is going to grab my attention right now.

By Chapter Two, I knew the authors were in trouble. When editing fails to catch something as egregious as this (right after note 20) -

"Apart from his [Harold Godwinson's] family connections - Edward was, after all, his brother-in-law and his father had married Ulf, who was Canute's brother-in-law - he had become increasingly important to Edward."

- you know that what follows will probably contain more undue focus on a limited thesis, while paying somewhat slapdash lip service to the wider historical details. It smacks of spinning the tale out to book-length verbiage in order to get people to pay for a book; all the while the actual point of writing yet another book on the battle of Hastings is nothing more, really, than finally claiming the next hill over as the actual battle site instead of the traditional one. This could adequately be done in a lecture-length paper at some symposium and not require a book that repeats all of the rest of this well-worn tale, while making assertions with the known facts that are embarrassing evidence of very poor final editing before publication.

The next whopper asserted this:

"Harald [Hardrada], who was the grandson of Canute ..."

Cnut was Danish, Harald was Norse, for starters, i.e. in no known way related. Cnut was born c. 985 - 995; Harald Hardrada was born c. 1015.

All of the text spent on the Norse invasion could have been dismissed with a paragraph, so that we can be brought to the authors' point, which is that Caldbec hill is the site of the battle of Hastings, not Senlac hill, or Battle hill, upon which stand the ruins of Battle Abbey.

Although we are forewarned, and often reminded, by the authors that the study of the Norman Conquest is fated to always be speculative and subjective ("The reconstruction of medieval battles is largely a matter of reasoned conjecture. Or one can say, `It's anyone's guess.'", runs the quote at the head of Chapter Four), this book treats us to the authors' point of view about pretty much all of the little details on the subject, which, in my opinion, dilutes the impact and focus of their thesis. The assertion, for example, that Stamford bridge was an "astonishing victory" comes at the end of a narrative which makes the battle out to be one very different from the narrative supplied by Jim Bradbury, a source that the authors quote often (it was Jim Bradbury's theory that Caldbec hill just might be the real "Battle hill", which put the authors onto their book project). They have concocted an image of the battle which selects an interpretation of the details and evidence and ignores or discards the rest: the very fault that they so clearly point out in other scholars and enthusiasts.

"At nightfall the ships left St Valéry harbour (which was in the territory of Count Guy of Ponthieu) ..."

Actually, I believe St Valery was in the county of Eu, William's vassal. The Somme formed the southern boundary of the county of Ponthieu. But that's a quibble compared to other contextual faux pas.

There is quite a bit of repetition in this book, where precisely the same points are made again and again, citing different writers of other treatises on the Norman Conquest. Although other elucidations accompany these returns to the same points, it struck me as somewhat annoying to keep reading, for example, of William's penance, the delayed removal of archbishop Stigand, the questioning of papal approval of the Norman invasion, and other discredited ideas of other authors. Once to make a point is enough and probably ought to be organized such that it occurs in a systematic way and not returned to piecemeal.

Summing up at the end of Chapter 8, they say: "Though the general view is that Harold moved down from Caldbec Hill there is no consensus as to why he did this. It seems a strange act to undertake if he intended to fight a defensive battle, as Caldbec Hill offered him greater advantages against the Norman knights. If he was moving to attack the Normans and was taken by surprise whilst on the march at Battle Hill then it means that he had set off without sending any scouts forward to observe the movements of the enemy, which seems extraordinary. No commander would be so foolish."

Actually, in all ages of warfare many or even most commanders are foolish. Even Roman generals sometimes failed to observe their training, e.g. those sent to apprehend Spartacus are asserted to have not even fortified their camp, an egregious breach of military procedure. Medieval "generals" are reputed to be worse than most.

I agree that in this case, Harold Godwinson would not advance without scouting ahead. So the answer as to why he chose "Battle hill" over Calbec hill must be a military consideration. There are several that could explain his move out of the staging area to a position a mile forward of it.

1. The sources clearly say that the English army engaged at the battle of Hastings was far less than what was already mustered and available, perhaps even only a third of it. The very best troops numbered easily 7-10K men. Those arriving late, or less trained, including all of the locals, would have clustered in the trees without order and cohesion. As William surprised Harold in advancing to battle, Harold did not have time to completely organize his total forces, so he advanced to the next ridge (Battle hill) with the best fyrd and his housecarles to buy time for the rest of his army to get into array. Battle hill was probably higher and steeper before the leveling off of its top to build Battle Abbey. So the lower slopes, which are all that exist today, were not where Harold's advanced, best troops lined up. They occupied the top of the hill, and therefore presented a much stronger defensive position than it appears they could have established with the hill's subsequent contours. A good commander of good troops could reasonably expect to be able to "use up" his enemy from such a position, then remount and scurry back to the stronger, original camp on Caldbec. What Harold had not counted on was the tenacity of the Norman cavalry. He never drove them off enough to break off contact. That would have been a serious miscalculation. Deeming the attempt too risky, Harold would have opted instead to move up the rest of his men, but as the sources tell us, "the place was too narrow" in the opinion of many and they deserted the battlefield instead. The rest, depleted and demoralized, could not be moved from the shelter of the Andresweald and stood there watching the battle below all afternoon; or until William's army finally moved up and engaged them, facing pockets of resistance here and there, but mostly pursuing those who fled. This running battle through the trees would easily take in several miles of terrain, including masses of men and horses reaching as far as the north slopes of Caldbec hill and beyond.

2. Another military consideration that explains Harold's occupying of a less daunting hill could be a decision to show aggression. This is not, of course, mutually exclusive of the "buying time" theory, both could apply. The English army was massed into a compact area, the Normans were strung out for miles, this meant that Harold had an opportunity to overwhelm the Norman vanguard if he moved quickly and aggressively, to counter William's swift and surprising advance to engage in battle. There is the possibility that Harold misjudged the readiness of his army to move and found out that the bulk of it had not followed him out of the forest. "Too late to turn back now!" He had intended to strike into the vanguard of the Norman army with overwhelming numbers of organized units, backed up by reinforcements in a "column of battalions" order of battle, i.e. he was attacking, not sitting on the defensive. But the outcome produced the same scenario as above, with his vanguard separated from the bulk of his army back on Caldbec.

3. Dr Stephen Morillo (an authority often quoted in this book), has the English army already on the march toward the advancing Normans, when Harold's scouts rush back and inform him that the Normans are in fact almost in contact. Very soon after that, the vanguards of both armies come within sight of one another, on the slopes of Caldbec and cresting Telham. Harold could have then ordered a continued advance to the "hammerhead" ridge of Battle hill, but "deeming it too narrow, many deserted him" instead, and he wound up with only his core army. The rest, mostly rustics, retreated back into the forest edge just behind Caldbec hill. This theory presupposes both order in Harold's army, and disaffection in most of his troops, which follows the original sources that assert this to have taken place.

But I prefer my first theory, because it fits the almost-consensus that Harold was caught by surprise by the Norman advance and did not have the time to organize an all-out attack, as suggested in my second theory.

"It is utterly inconceivable that a commander would abandon as good a position as Caldbec Hill in favour of an inferior one. Things like that just don't happen."

Again, things like that happen all the time, that's why battles are lost. Battles where no mistakes are made and forces enjoy a parity result in a draw or a standoff.

In Chapter 9 also they ask, again: "If, as has been recorded, the opposing forces spotted each other from the high grounds of Telham Hill and Caldbec Hill, why would Harold move his army all the way down to Battle Hill simply to adopt a defensive position?"

The answer is in military expediency. As I already offered some very plausible reasons why Caldbec, the better defensive position, was abandoned by Harold, the answer remains the same each time the authors ask "why?" Because Harold was not committed to a defensive battle. Whether because of hubris or miscalculation or desperation or some complex of these emotional responses to the unexpected nearness of his foes, Harold chose to go immediately on the offensive.

"By concentrating in such a strong position Harold could bide his time until his army was fully assembled and then he could attack William at his own time of choosing. It was not a place he would abandon just because the enemy had marched into view."

Agreed, which is why taking up position on Battle hill makes sense, if Harold's troops were still disorganized, as he discovered or already knew, and the Normans would be upon him before he had gotten his whole army into battle order. A sudden show of force/aggression would buy time for the rest of his army to get into array.

(Now I am repeating myself! *grin* But this subject is just too much fun.)

I particularly enjoyed the diagrams "C" and D", which place the armies on Caldbec hill. It looks impossible for the Normans to carry that position!

Chapter 10 The Archaeology, is possibly the most fascinating part of the subject of trying to locate the battlefield, yet it is by far the shortest chapter. This is indicative of the problematic nature of the subject: nothing to report yet. The authors call for a dig of "Malfosse" at Oakwood Gill. They also establish a caveat if nothing substantial is found in the proposed dig: early occupants of the site would have disposed of all the bodies. Perhaps.

Chapter 11 Rewriting History, gets into the authors' attitude toward the subject. It seems unnecessarily provocative a title. For example, they say: "Despite extensive excavations around Battle Abbey there is no evidence of it being the site of a major battle. A great many items from that period have been recovered yet none are of a military nature." This is picking a fight, setting up a straw man, since the authors already pointed out in Chapter 10 that the copious finds on and around Battle Abbey date to the later centuries and not the Norman Conquest. "A great many items from the period" (1066, the 11th century) have NOT been "recovered". A few items from the period of the battle of Hastings have been recovered.

"The fact that Battle Abbey was built on what is now called Battle Hill does not indicate that it was the site of the battle because the most likely reason for its construction was as a vital component in the defence of the road to London from the low-lying beaches of Sussex. Its construction had nothing whatsoever to do with either a commemorative or penitential act by William, other than possibly retrospectively to satisfy the envoys of Pope Alexander."

Of course the Abbey built where it was is an indication of where the battle was fought. To assert that the abbey's location does not indicate such a thing is inaccurate, and a disingenuous discarding of an original source wholesale, The Chronicle of Battle Abbey. If there were no assertions that the abbey was built because of William's vow, and where it was built because of where William commanded it to be built, then yes, to speculate that the abbey's location might be an indication of where the battle took place would not be an indication of anything but some author's speculation without evidence.

But we do possess a "forged" documentation of the origins of Battle Abbey. The authors of this book are pleased to discount that chronicle as spun out of whole cloth without basis in history. Yet rumor and legend had to be behind the Chronicle of Battle Abbey in order for the faked written document to have any basis in asserting rights and privileges at all.

And legend usually has a basis in an original fact. It gets all twisted out of shape, that's what legend is. Sorting the most probable history out of the surviving, burgeoning legendary material is the job of historians, and it is fun work. The authors of this book obviously had a great deal of fun creating it. They like their version every bit as much as I enjoy mine.

But I don't think that the Vatican stood by and silently allowed William the Conqueror and his propagandists to assert that the pope had backed the Norman invasion and sent a banner to lead that invasion in the interests of the church. And the history is silent upon this accusation by the authors. Silence in itself is evidence that the Vatican did in fact send a banner and backed William's side. Later, penances were imposed and the abbey was begun (four years is not a long time to "delay" the beginning of construction) and Stigand was deposed (again, four years is a very brief time to overcome objections and defenses), etc. Later (13th century) dismissal of the objections of Battle Abbey over the reduction of its privileges is no evidence that the Chronicle itself was disbelieved, only that later kings had interests that they would not allow an abbey to flout or infringe.

"Placing the battle at a point less than a mile away does not amount to re-writing history. What we hope to have demonstrated, though, is that there were many good reasons why the battle might, and probably should, have been fought on Caldbec Hill and that the unqualified assumptions of generations of writers on the subject are no longer valid."

Then why title the last chapter "Rewriting History"?

But really, why be simplistic about an all-day fracas? Does trying to follow the spreading chaos of a disintegrating confrontation pose too much of a challenge? The authors have fallen for the same blunder as their peers and predecessors: trying to make the battle of Hastings simplistic. In fact (sic) no battle is simplistic, that's why all separate accounts of them differ so widely. A "Malfosse incident" could be repeated two or more times. And later historians will conflate them into a single incident and locale and argue about "when" it occurred. Likewise, a single hill or (hillock) is unlikely to be the "site" of a battle which raged off and on during the daylight and early nighttime hours. Rather, the entire region roundabout will be the "site" of the battle(s). The English army, starting out at the muster point, will get fragmented beginning with king Harold's advance into the open and stationing his best troops (those already organized) to perhaps buy time, or for some other military consideration or complex of considerations. Then the battle turns into a conglomeration of pockets of resistance and routs and pursuits, spreading over miles. Surely there were enough Englishmen in the "two-thirds" of Harold's army, which had never been engaged up to that point, to turn about in the deepening gloam of evening and counterattack their rash pursuers, bringing on the authors' "Malfosse" at the north side of Caldbec hill. Earlier, during the first pursuits of the Bretons by the English right wing, there were scenes which could be explained by depictions in the Bayeux Tapestry. But these ought not to be assumed as unique or singular in nature, since multiple locations all around the district of Battle can be (and have been) pointed to as suitable for these events to have taken place there.

The battle of Hastings did not take place "at a point", it took place during an entire day and part of the following night, and spread itself out over miles of territory - certainly enough ground to take in both Caldbec and Battle hills.

One thing the authors do not address in their examination of the "hillock" scene in the Bayeux Tapestry (the second to last picture in the photographs section, at the end of the E-book), is the evident nature of the confrontation. Although the Normans are suffering horrifying casualties - horses tumbling over on their riders - it is the English fyrd which is getting done to death and is surrounded and in a panicked state. This is made obvious by the greater number of English warriors being killed in the scene, compared to the Normans, and the frightened stance depicted on the English figures.

Finally, to return to my main point about the confusion of battles being the "key" to understanding the conflicts in the details: The "Hillock" scene could easily be the battle ON Caldbec hill, all the while, out in the open, Harold's advanced force on Battle hill is surrounded and slowly done to death. At what point did the Normans get around/past Harold's army and launch an attack on the rustics watching from the Weald? With all of the main "actors" engaged in the advanced combat on Battle hill, who would have even noticed the other less significant fight? We could be seeing two main "points" of conflict going on simultaneously in the Bayeux Tapestry. How would that contribute to the "histories" later? Surely the plethora of eyewitness accounts that went into the brief, even paucitous accounts of Wm of Poitiers, Guy of Amiens, and even more-so the later 12th century Anglo-Norman accounts, would be largely discarded or conflated into something that could actually be sensibly written out. Instead of "reading" the Bayeux Tapestry as a chronological sequence of a single event, we might be better served to see it as a simplistic representation of something that was in fact very complex and widespread and repetitive, going on simultaneously, in other words, not capable of any "consensual" treatment at all.

20 people found this helpful

Helpful

Stephen C Fletcher

caldbec not Senlac

Reviewed in the United States on February 13, 2019

Verified Purchase

the authors make some good points but many of the arguments are circular and the lack of alternate proofs allows them to make unsubstantiated claims.
see "the road to Hastings 978-1066 by Fletcher for a more critical review of the battle and its causes

7 people found this helpful

Helpful

Greg Fisher

Three Stars

Reviewed in the United States on June 15, 2016

Verified Purchase

Not all that compelling of an argument.

7 people found this helpful

Helpful

Annette M Mongar

Great book

Reviewed in the United States on January 25, 2023

Verified Purchase

I enjoy books that are factual books and different points of view on historical events. This book is at the top of the list.

One person found this helpful

Helpful

Top reviews from other countries

X93250617

Very refreshing

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on February 14, 2013

Verified Purchase

Whilst not perfect in some of the arguments put forward that the Battle of Hastings was fought on Caldbec Hill rather than Battle Hill, this book does provide a lot of food for thought. I think the only real way of knowing is by excavating on and around Caldbec Hill to try and find some artefacts from the day; nothing has been found on Battle Hill, so unless they were good at cleaning-up after battles in those days (were the Normans afraid that they massacred most of the English elite so they destroyed the evidence?!!), some artefacts would have surfaced over the years of building on the site. We are talking about a line of troops half a mile long, at least 7000 on each side. That was no skirmish!

Ultimately though, we'll never really know as nothing was written down, no photographs were taken at the time of the battle, no TV cameras were there to record the battle taking place. We just have a pretty wall-hanging (Bayeux Tapestry) that can't be taken literally (it was produced by the victors and anyone who knows military history will know that the victor always shows the "facts" in their favour), a few writings from monks (the only people who could write in those days, but they weren't there, so how did they know what happened?).

Interesting reading about how different people piece all this together though.

5 people found this helpful

Hereward the Wakeful

A very compelling argument

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on May 2, 2023

Verified Purchase

If the only two realistic alternatives were Battle Hill and Caldbec Hill then I would come in hands down on the side of the latter. Everything about the argument stands on good old common sense. And when in doubt common sense has to be your guide.
However...I then searched out the Time Team Special on the Battle of Hastings on YouTube and rewatched that programme from years ago. Firstly let me say that those investigations found no relevant archaeology on either Battle Hill or Caldbec Hill. Rather disappointing!
What they did do was to take an aerial Lidar reading of the topography of the area, stripped away all subsequent building and created a graphic representation of the land as it was in 1066. In their view Caldbec Hill was too broad to be held by the Anglo-Saxons, Battle Hill had all the defects already well pointed out in this book but just to the immediate south of it there existed a narrow neck of land atop a steep rise set between impassable marsh land on each side. In other words a defensive position far superior to either of the other two. Intriguingly what is thought to be a battle axe was found in that now built-up area in the 1950s.
Now I know one has to be careful especially with Time Team's wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am school of archaeology but I thought this suggestion had some merit and I would like to see it shot out of the water before I go back to unequivocally supporting Caldbec Hill...despite it's apparent lack of archaeology.

One person found this helpful

Robert Pearce

History in the making. It’s just a shame that English Heritage are not on board

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on July 31, 2022

Verified Purchase

Should be available for schools

Kindle Customer bryan

Mystery worth considering.

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on November 8, 2016

Verified Purchase

The battle must have been somewhere and not in front of the abbey .got to be calbec hill ( in my humble opinion) good idea it makes sense and time team didn't convince me either.

ian preston

Interesting read

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on December 25, 2016

Verified Purchase

An interesting read but a bit repetitive. It would have benefitted from some photos of the various battle sites and some better maps. One wonders why there have been no archaeological digs in the other potential battle sites.

Buy for others

Buying and sending eBooks to others

Follow the authors

Image Unavailable

The Battle of Hastings 1066: The Uncomfortable Truth: Revealing the True Location of England's Most Famous Battle Kindle Edition

Customers who bought this item also bought

Editorial Reviews

About the Author

Product details

Videos

About the authors

John Grehan

Martin Mace

Customer reviews

Top reviews from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

Top reviews from other countries