Purpose of the Research
This research examines the events of 1066 — including the Norman landing and the Battle of Hastings — through a structured analysis of early manuscript evidence, topographical correlation, and on‑site field investigation. The purpose is to assess whether the traditional reconstruction centred on Battle Abbey fully aligns with the earliest surviving sources.
The methodology outlined here explains how evidence is selected, analysed, and constrained, rather than arguing for specific conclusions.
The research follows a manuscript‑first approach. Interpretations are derived from the earliest available written sources before reference is made to later narrative traditions.
The guiding principle is that later accounts must be tested against earlier evidence, not the reverse.
A full listing of primary materials is provided on the Primary Sources page
Manuscript Selection Criteria
Manuscripts were selected based on:
- Proximity in time to the events of 1066
- Independence of textual tradition
- Presence of geographical or topographical references
- Availability of reliable scholarly editions or facsimiles
Each manuscript is treated individually, with attention paid to scribal context, provenance, and potential political or ecclesiastical influence.
Translation and Philological Method
Where texts survive in Latin or Old English, translations were produced or checked using:
- Line‑by‑line comparison with established editions
- Reference to historical lexicons and glossaries
- Particular attention to geographical and landscape terminology
- Explicit notation of ambiguous or contested terms
Where multiple readings are possible, these are documented rather than resolved artificially.
Detailed manuscript discussion appears on the
Manuscript Evidence pages
Treatment of Contradictions
Contradictions between manuscripts are treated as evidence, not errors. Divergences are analysed in relation to:
- Regional perspective
- Political context
- Ecclesiastical affiliation
- Scribal agenda
No attempt is made to harmonise conflicting accounts unless the evidence supports doing so.
Topographical Correlation
Geographical descriptions found in the manuscripts are compared against:
- Modern topographical mapping
- Elevation and contour data
- Known routeways, valleys, ridgelines, and access points
- Historical landscape reconstructions
This analysis focuses on physical constraints such as movement, visibility, and defensive positioning rather than later symbolic associations.
Results are presented in detail on the
???? Landing Site Analysis page
/landing-site-analysis
and the
???? Battlefield Topography page
/battlefield-topography
Fieldwork
Fieldwork forms an integral part of the research and includes:
- Repeated site visits
- Photographic documentation of terrain features
- Assessment of slopes, ridgelines, and approach routes
- Comparison of physical geography with manuscript descriptions
Field observations are used to test, not replace, textual evidence.
Relationship to Published Research
This website draws on research published in:
- Secrets of the Norman Invasion: One
- Secrets of the Norman Invasion: Two
These volumes contain extended manuscript analysis, maps, and commentary. The website provides a structured and accessible presentation of the core evidence and methodology.
Further information is available on The Books page
Limitations and Uncertainties
This research acknowledges:
- Ambiguity in medieval language
- Gaps in the archaeological record
- Changes in landscape and coastline since the 11th century
- The provisional nature of historical reconstruction
These issues are addressed openly on the
Limitations & Uncertainties page
/limitations-and-uncertainties
Invitation for Scholarly Review
This project is ongoing. Historians, archaeologists, manuscript specialists, and other researchers are invited to examine the evidence, challenge interpretations, and contribute to further study.
Academic correspondence is welcomed via the
???? Peer Review & Academic Correspondence page
/peer-review