Category Archives: Uncategorized

Plate 62 of the Bayeux Tapestry depicts a violent clash between armored soldiers on horses and foot. Below them, on the bottom border, lie fallen soldiers. Above the scene, in the upper border, are three birds and one bear-like animal (Wilson pl.62). There is no Latin text included in the panel. Apart of a series of panels depicting a battle, Panel 62 shows the Battle of Hastings, as William’s forces clash with Harold II’s English forces in 1066 in present-day England (History Learning Contributors). Clues about the historical meaning of the panel can be gathered from the details of armor of the soldiers. According to Wilson, the heavy armor of the men on the panel reveals it is a conflict between the aristocratic soldiers of both sides, “The whole scene must be interpreted as a conventionalized battle—a fight between the more aristocratic soldiers on each side. They are, with few exceptions, fully armed with mail-shirts and knightly armor” (Wilson 171). Additionally, it is important to note that all soldiers use spears, save one individual, who uses an arrow (Wilson, pl. 62). Thus, this panel is depicting soldiers not a part of the archery unit, supporting Wilson’s hypothesis that these forces are both aristocratic. Therefore, this part of the tapestry is indicating there was an aristocratic clash with both forces.

Plate 62, Wilson 171. Norman and English forces meeting in battle.

Additionally, it is important to note the inclusion of fallen soldiers, something not typical of Anglo-Saxon art. According to Wilson, “Dead soldiers are, however, rarely seen in Anglo-Saxon art” (Wilson, 171). This would support George Beech’s hypothesis that tapestry was not made in England, but rather, in France. Beech argues that according to the history in Historia Sancti Florenti Salmurensis, the tapestry was commissioned “by a certain Queen from over-seas” (Bloch 161). Thus, this evidence provided with the artistic style conflicting with the typical work of Anglo-Saxons, suggests the possibility that it was commissioned outside of England.
Panel 62 may also lend insight into military strategy of the time. While one interpretation of the panel leads to an exclusive illustration of the aristocratic portion of the armies, another reading suggests the single archer represented the full archery forces. Thus, the archers were protected by the fully-armed soldiers, who formed a line. Wilson’s also offers insights on this in his narration of the battle based on the tapestry, “The battle commences. The Norman calvary, backed by the archers, charge the English army, which consists of unmounted soldiers (including one archer who wears no armour) and which seems to be formed behind the legendary ‘shield-wall’” (Wilson).
Thus, the tapestry potentially reveals information about a perceived show-down between aristocratic forces in the battle, the origin of where it was made, as well as the battle strategies for both armies.

Bibliography
Bloch, H. (2007). Was the Bayeux Tapestry Made in France? The Case for Saint-Florent of Saumur by George Beech. Medieval Academy of America, 161.
Contributors. (2013). The Bayeux Tapestry. Retrieved from History Learning Site: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/bayeux_tapestry.htm
Wilson, David M. The Bayeux Tapestry: The Complete Tapestry in Color. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1985. Print.

Figure 1: Panel 71 of the Bayeux Tapestry

In my panel of the Bayeux Tapestry, panel 71, King Harold is killed. This is determined through translating the Latin on the panel Hic Harold rex interfectus est, or “Here King Harold has been killed” (Wilson 173). The big controversy over this scene is which figure is really King Harold. David M. Wilson states that “the killing of Harold is one of the scenes in the Tapestry most difficult of interpretation” (Wilson 194). Brooks and Walker argue against C. H. Gibbs-Smith’s opinion of which figure in this panel is really King Harold. “Brooks and Walker argue that Harold is indeed killed by an arrow in his eye but that he is shown again lying on the ground being cut in the leg by a sword” (Wilson 194). C. H. Gibbs-Smith, as well as Sir Frank Stenton believe that King Harold is the figure at the end of the panel that is being ridden down by a horseman. Guy of Amiens, the French Bishop, believes that “Harold was downed by four knights: Eustace of Boulogne, a son of Count Guy of Ponthieu, Walter Giffard and Hugo of Montford” (Rud 87). Some researchers doubt that Harold was really struck with an arrow in the eye. “The arrow is a later addition following a period of repair” (Wikipedia Contributors). The makers of Britain’s Bayeux Tapestry website feel that he is shown twice “first plucking an arrow from his eye, and then being hacked down by a Norman knight” (Britain’s Bayeux Tapestry). It seems that no one can really agree on which figure is King Harold. Which figure in this scene is really King Harold? This mystery of the Bayeux Tapestry may never be resolved, but we can certainly conclude that this is the panel portraying Harold’s death

Figure 2: Possibly King Harold pulling an arrow out of his eye

Bibliography:

“Battle of Hastings”. Britain’s Bayeux Tapestry at the Museum of Reading. 8 April 2014. Web.

http://www.bayeuxtapestry.org.uk/Bayeux31.htm

Rud, Mogens. The Bayeux Tapestry And the Battle of Hastings 1066. 1st ed. Copenhagen: Christian Ejlers Publishers, 2002. 87. Print.

Wikipedia Contributors. “Bayeux Tapestry.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 24 Mar 2014. Web. 8 Apr 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayeux_Tapestry&gt;.

Wilson, David. The Bayeux Tapestry. 1st. London: Thames & Hudson Ltd., 1985. 194-195. Print.

During the time of the Achaemenid Dynasty, Persians were able to conquer most of the known world.  Persian leaders, such as Cyrus, fought to conquer and control land and people from Ionia in Asia Minor, South to Egypt, and as far east as present day Afghanistan.  Instrumental in the Persian’s conquest were their weapons and battle tactics.  One of these lethal weapons was the Persian Bow.  With a range of around 500 feet—almost two football fields—the armies of the empire of Persia were able to rain down death from above.  Although they often took 18 months to manufacture, the Persian bow and the two major innovations it contained, was well worth the wait (“Iranian…”).

(Mshamma. Persian archers in ceremonial robe. The smaller size of their composite bows allowed for easier traveling.)

One of the contributors to the lethality of the Persian Bow was the fact that it was made of composite materials.  The bow had a wooden core.  Strips of horn were glued to the belly, while sinew was attached to the back.  Both of these measures were meant to reinforce the weapon. This technique was so effective, that it allowed the bows to have the same amount of power as much larger weapons of the same nature.  It packed a great amount of power in only a 48-inch frame (Dwyer and Khorasani 3-4).

Perhaps the best advantage to the Persian Bow was in its recurved design.  Traditional long bows of other periods were only a long, bent piece of wood.  The major drawback to this was the fact that the resistance was the same all the way through the draw.  Persian craftsmen bent the ends of their bows back towards the grip (as seen in the picture below). This, like its composite make-up, allowed the bow to pack more power than a traditional long bow.  More importantly, this innovation made it so that there was less resistance on the string the father back it was pulled. Tired archers were given a great psychological advantage and were allowed to stay deadly despite fatigue, because of this decrease in draw pressure (Dwyer and Khorasani 5).

(Dwyer and Khorasani. “Figure 1.”  The signature curve of the Ear (Guse) of the bow is what made it so easy to draw)

 Though the composite nature and the special curves of the bow gave it deadly capabilities, it would have been nothing without the arrows to go with it.  Perhaps the most important part of the weapon set, the shafts of the arrows were often made out of wood or reeds, the simplest of materials.  Reed material was preferred because it had great strength for how light it was (Dwyer and Khorasani 5).  The arrows were tipped with bronze or iron heads to pierce the armor of the Persian opponent (Shahbazi).  Together, the Persian Bow and its complementary arrows were a match made in military heaven. They truly were a destructive force that enemies both feared and respected throughout the Persian conquest.

Bibliography

Dwyer, Bede and Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani. “An Analysis of a Persian Archery     manuscript written by Kapur      Cand.” Revista De Artes Marciales Asiaticas 8.1 (Jan-June 2013):  1-12. EBSCO. Web. 4 Feb. 2014.

Shahbazi, A. Sh. “History of Iran:  Achaemenid Army.” Iran Chamber Society. Iran Chamber Society. 2014. Web. 4 Feb. 2014.

“Iranian Archer – Soldier Profile.” Military History Monthly. Current Publishing, 10 Nov. 2010. Web. 4 Feb. 2014.

Mshamma. “Persian warriors. Pergamon Museum/Vorderasiatisches Museum.” Photograph. Wikipedia. Wikipedia, n.d. Web. 6 Feb. 2014

Panel 70 of the Bayeux Tapestry can be seen as the epitome of what went on during the Battle of Hastings in 1066 (Wilson 194).  Bloodshed emanates from every inch of the cloth.  While it is clear that many men, as well as the British King Harold, are losing their lives, certain details still are not understood.  The basic who’s who in the tapestry can be discerned by historical hints based on weaponry and garb or by textual clues around the images.  Small events of the battle may still be unknown due to the lack of inscription or the loss of records.

(Plate 70, Wilson 194. Infantrymen and archers are dying all around.)

In the center of the panel is a man on horseback cutting down an enemy soldier.  Carnage envelops him on both sides.  The panel prior to the soldier shows him and his fellow cavalrymen charging the opposing infantry.  To highlight the butchery, it also contains an inscription reading, “Here the English and the French fell at the same time in the battle,” (Hicks 17).   The charge seems to be a synergistic attack between the cavalry and a group of archers.

In the bottom border, under the horseman, the archers have the angle of their bows held high, raining down arrows on their adversary in the next frame.  It seems that they have hit their mark in frame 71.  A man lies on the ground dying, while also having his leg hacked at by a horseman.  Next to him is his weapon, a battle-axe.  Also, the dead man seems to be wearing different, more vibrant colors than those around him.   This is a clue about his status.

Earlier in the tapestry Harold, Earl of East Anglia, is shown meeting with King Edward of England.  The man announcing Harold to the King is holding a battle-axe.  This is the first time that an Englishman is seen sporting an axe in the tapestry (Rud 55-56).  This sets a precedence in the coming panels of the piece in that a soldier seen wielding an axe is most likely an Englishman.  This allows the viewer to be able to discern who is who in the mass of soldiers in panel 70.  It also gives a great clue about the man dressed so fancily in the next panel.

It is known that in the final stages of the Battle of Hastings, William the Conqueror told his archers to aim high to rain down arrows on Harold (Rud 86).  This is interesting when one considers panel 70.  As said above, the archers in the bottom border were aiming high.  This is not a coincidence when one takes into account the man dying in panel 71.

Both the angle of the archers bows in panel 70 and the standout in color of the man’s clothes point to one thing.  The man dying in panel 71 is Harold, King of England.  One final thing that supports this is the inscription above this man.  It clearly says in Latin, “Here King Harold has been killed,” (Wilson 173).  Together, these three clues; be they text, coloring, or interpretation from earlier imagery, tell the viewer that panels 70 and 71 diagram the death of King Harold and many of his men.  Not all things in the Bayeux Tapestry are this easily deciphered though.

Detailed plate (pictured below) shows a Norman horseman cutting down an Englishman with a round shield.  The thing that makes it odd is that the man on horseback is sitting on the neck of his horse instead of in the saddle.  Seemingly all other cavalrymen in the tapestry are presented fighting firmly in their saddles.  This presentation is not a mistake.  It is most likely that this frame refers to a specific event during the course of the battle (Wilson 194-195).  Although this is reasonable to assume, the modern viewer cannot be sure whether this is the case, and if it is, which event is it.

(Detailed plate, Wilson 194. Notice the man is sitting on the neck of his horse)

The reason for this is that there is no known account of this specific event that survives (Wilson 195).  Perhaps it is sensible to infer that the audience at the time of the tapestry knew what this small abnormality meant.  However, today one cannot assume.  Certain details either are not transcribed or are lost in translation.  This is one of the constraints that one faces when trying to interpret classical and middle aged art.

The Bayeux Tapestry contains a world of information to the modern viewer.  Panel 70 gives a look into the final stages of the Battle of Hastings.  The archers narrowing in on King Harold and the carnage around them give the observer a look into the past.  While some things can be interpreted, others cannot.  The tapestry leaves modern man to wonder about things such as specific events that may have been known at the time.  Through both the known and the unknown, the Bayeux Tapestry has lent an air of excitement to scores of generations as well as many to come.

Works Cited

Hicks, Carola.  The Bayeux Tapestry:  The Life story of a Masterpiece.  London:  Vintage books, 2006. Print

Rud, Mogens.  The Bayeux Tapestry and the Battle of Hastings 1066.  Copenhagen:  Christian Ejlers, 2002. Print.

Wilson, David M. The Bayeux Tapestry. London:  Thames and Husdon, 1985. Print.

             In designing a fictional castle many things must be taken into consideration.  The defenses must be made impregnable. There must be a supply of food to nourish the defenders and the peasants who come inside the walls for safety.  A castle must also provide space for defensive weapons as well.

            Our fictional castle was located on a precipice surrounded on three sides by the ocean.  This left one road for attackers to use.  To prevent this, we designed two walls with portcullises that ran the length of the Scottish isthmus that housed our keep.  The first wall was composed of iron-reinforced wood; the second was composed of stone. 

            The castle itself had an inner wall and an outer wall surrounding it. Archers manned the outer, 30-foot, wall raining down fire arrows on our adversaries.  Trebuchets and catapults were situated on the inner, 60-foot wall. These provided a defense for our castle during an attack or siege situation.

            Located in the walls was a garden area that would provide our garrison with nourishment.  There were also fields for grazing for goats, sheep, and cows that could also be eaten.  In addition to this, holes, leading down to hidden caves, between the two walls provided us a route to get to the ocean to catch fish and collect other supplies.

            Together, these three attributes contributed to the safety of our people.  The blueprint provided an unassailable barrier between them and the enemy. Also, the fields and garden provided food for our people to survive a siege.  And finally, the width of the walls allowed our garrison and our people to create their own defense.

I am going to take a different approach to this assignment than I originally thought I would take. Rather than talk mostly about who two of the individuals in this section of the Bayeux Tapestry are, namely Leofwine and Gyrth Godwinson, I am going to look at how the lack of information about these two leaves a lot open for question.

Panel 64 of the Bayeux Tapestry has a total of seven Englishmanon the ground facing what apears to be only one Norman soldiers on horseback, but in viewing more of the tapestry, one can see that there are many more Norman soldiers on horseback surroundingthis group of Englishmen (Wilson, pl. 64). Two of the Englishmen stand taller than the others: The Englishman with his head turned and wielding the axe and the other is the Englishman with a moustache getting stabbed in the face by the Norman on horseback, according to Richard Gameson. These two individuals are believed to be Gyrth Godwinson, the Englishman getting stabbed in the face, and Leofwine Godwinson, the axe wielder. These are the brothers of King Harold Godwinson and both die in the Battle of Hastings as displayed by this panel.

Panel 64 of the Bayeux tapestry depicts the deaths of Gyrth and Leofwine Godwinson, brothers of King Harold Godwinson.

We understand that these two in particular die on October 14, 1066 because of the Latin inscription above the heads of the combatants. The Latin inscription, “Hic ceciderunt Lewine et Gyrth fratres Haroldi regis”translates as follows: “Here were killed Leofwine and Gyrth, the brothers of King Herold. (Wilson, p. 173)” Gyrth was the Earl of East Anglia and Oxfordshire while Leofwine was the Earl over the area from the eastern part of the Thames River, which covered from “Buckinghamshire and Surrey to Essex. (Wilson)” But there isn’t a lot of information about who they were and what they did as Earls or what their part in the battle of Hastings was. This was all I could find in the research I did on this subject. The information that would help us to understand more about Leofwine and Gyrth and information about many other individuals did not make it to us. Thanks to the tapestry we have at least this much information about them. and their story isn’t the only part of the history missing. There are other sections on the tapestry that leave everyone guesing what is meant by the symbols or who is represented by the characters.

Although it isn’t much, the tapestry has provided us with the information that these two individuals and many more died. We can back that up by the history of the battle of Hastings. Who are they? What else were they known for? We may never know. As of right now, that information has been lost and we may never know the whole story about these two men and the people who fought side by side with them.

Works Cited

“The Battle Of Hastings – Scene 3.” The Battle Of Hastings – Scene 3. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Apr. 2014. <http://www.bayeuxtapestry.org.uk/Bayeux28.htm&gt;.

“Battle of Hastings.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 23 Feb. 2014. Web. 03 Apr. 2014.

Gameson, Richard. “The Authority and Interpretation of the Bayeux Tapestry.” The Study of the Bayeux Tapestry. Rochester, NY: Boydell, 1997. 89. Print.

Jones, Kaye. “Appendix 1: Key People.” 1066: History in an Hour. London: HarperPress, 2011. 33-34. Print.

MacLeod, Dave. “The Bayeux Tapestry: Unpicking the Past.” BBC News. BBC, 17 Feb. 2011. Web. 03 Apr. 2014.

Wilson, David M. The Bayeux Tapestry: The Complete Tapestry in Color. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1985. Print.

Bodiam Castle in East Sussex, England, surrounded by a water-filled moat.
From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle

 8 April 8, 2014

  Breaking into the Castle

                Breaking into a castle can be a difficult task, you don’t just ram down the door like in many Hollywood movies. There are many considerations one must take when planning to break into a castle. They must consider special tactics such as attack methods, infiltration, logistics, and food/water supplies. The movies may make it look easy, but as you take a look back into the actual history, it becomes a lengthy, tiring pursuit.

                First thing to consider when preparing to take over a castle is considering your infiltration. We plan to have leather skin diving helmets in case we had a moat that we could protect ourselves with. Also, plan to persuade the locals to betray their lord because almost always peasants want to revolt. Our biggest plan would be having a friend in China who sends us gun powder to use. We would use this by dumping buckets of gun powder all around the walls of the castle. This will be put to use during the night to prevent the opposing team from sleeping.

                In the end the most important factor is making sure that our campsite is strongly defended. We don’t plan to have any of the men coming out to destroy our campsite, so we would ensure that we had patrols at regular time intervals to ensure that no one is sneaking in or out. To make sure of this we would have thick wood walls to build up our security. If they try to intervene, we plan to throw our waste at them.

                If the battle lasts longer than expected we plan to plant crops a short distance from camp to keep us well fed. We plan to control the outside water sources, as the castles will be contaminated from our tactics. Also we will loot/buy food from the locals as well. If that all fails we will intercept supply caravans that are meant for the castle. We will be prepared and ready to take down the castle.

It is very likely for the castles to have moats around the outside. Trebuchets would be valuable to shoot hazardous materials such as fragile containers with boiling oil or water, flaming arrows, human waste, and bodies. Ballistas, siege towers, and ladders would help to breach the tall walls. Battering rams, Archimedes screws, chisels, and wedges would be important tools to drill through the walls. Pontoons or boats would allow crossing the moats. The boats would also be used as a blockade to cutoff incoming supplies and ways for the insiders to escape.

Underground infiltration would be the best to overcome the moat. Going through the plumbing would be way to get inside. People could go through or they could send plague-infected rats through to spread disease. Poisoning the water supply would also prove hazardous to the insiders. Just as the Trojan Horse, we could send in a fake supply caravan, filled with armed soldiers. Mining is also an underground option to get inside the castle. Gundpowder is a handy tool to send through the mines.

The Bayeux Tapestry is a giant 230 foot long piece of embroidered cloth, depicting the entire Battle of Hastings. It was created in around 1066 A.D., and it served as a visual representation of what happened during that battle. Just to make things easier to understand, the soldiers on horseback are usually the Norman cavalry and the soldiers on foot are usually the English soldiers. On the top portion of the tapestry there is a borer that covers a couple of inches. In this particular border, nothing of importance is usually shown. There is a middle piece of this embroidery, which is where the main action and story happens. At the bottom of the piece is another border, like that of the top, but in this case the bottom often holds valuable information that pertains to the main action in the middle section.

Panel 72 from the Bayeux Tapestry, as taken from Wilson

In my particular piece, panel 72, it shows English soldiers fighting the Normans. There is lots of death, as depicted in the bottom margins. One particular thing that is out-of-ordinary in the bottom section is that of a man taking the armor off another fallen soldier. During this battle, if there were good suits of armor and weapons that could be salvaged, they would retrieve them.

A soldier’s armor being removed after he had fallen in battle

On the far right side of the panel, the reader can see the beginning of the phrase “et fuga verterunt Angli,” which translates to “… and the English have turned to flight.” In the right side of panel 72 and the panel following mine, one can see that the Norman cavalry are fiercely chasing the English soldiers. In these last two panels, panel 72 and 73, marks the end of the tapestry, or at least the pieces that remain today. There is probably more to the tapestry to show the very end of the battle, but those pieces have been lost.

Bibliography

Britain’s Bayeux Tapestry (n.d.). Retrieved April 8, 2014 from Bayeuxtapestry.org.uk: http://www.bayeutapestry.org.uk/

Ingram, J. (2008). The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Retrieved April 8, 2014 from Avalon.law.yale.edu: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/angsax.asp

Weaponry: Norman Arms and Armour. Historynet.com. (June 12, 2006). Retrieved April 8, 2014 from http://www.historynet.com/weaponry-norman-arms-and-armour.htm

Wilson, D. M. (1985). The Bayeux Tapestry. New York: Thames and Hudson Inc., Retrieved April 8, 2014

My piece of the Bayeux Tapestry shows an encounter between two separate groups. With all the weapons, commotion, two distinct sides, and confrontation, it is clearly a battle scene. There are horses falling over, and some are even toppling head over heels with their hind hoofs in the air. Their riders are also falling off. Men and horses lay dead and dying on the bottom of the tapestry with weapons strewn about (Wilson, pl. 66).

The two sides are distinctly different; their clothing sets them apart. One side has saddled horses, armor, boots, and helmets while the other side, the enemy, is simply wearing normal clothes, with “kite-shaped shields” as their only piece of armor (Wilson 192). The unarmored group is distinguishable by their facial hair. “Many of them have prominent moustaches and one (pl. 67) has a beard” (Wilson 193).

The complete Latin phrase that comes from my plate and a couple previous sections reads: “Hic ceciderunt simul Angli et Franci in prelio” (Wilson 173). This is translated as meaning “Here at the same time English and French fell in battle” (Wilson 173). The text on the tapestry helps us understand who is fighting with each other. The armored men on horseback are the French and the mustached men are the Englishh.

Weapons include long spears on both sides, swords for the French, and an axe is seen on the English side.

“The tumbling horses represents the so-called Malfosse episode, following William of Malemesbury who may well have been basing his narrative on the Tapestry” (Wilson 192). This seems as though the story is just a story. However, Rud informs us that it was real and that the English wanted to pursue their enemy, disobeying the order of the King. “They were driven up on to a hillock where they were soon overpowered” (Rud 84). Being at the bottom of the hill, not having a real plan, and going against their leader all contributed to the failure of the French army’s attack.

Works Cited

Rud, Mogens. The Bayeux Tapestry and the Battle of Hastings 1066. Copenhagen: Christin Ejlers Publishers, 2002. Print.

Wilson, David M. The Bayeux Tapestry. New York: Thames & Hudson Inc., 1985.

Horses tumble in a battle between the English and the French (Wilson, pl. 66).