William de Poitiers

William de Poitiers is much loved by historians, probably because of his understanding how the Norman Court worked, because he was chaplain to William who used flowery classical language on almost any occassion described. However there is little merit in terms of dealing with the Battle of Hastings and Landing sites in his work ‘Gesta Guillelmi’, because there is nothing that is specific to identify the sites, just a lot of non specific repeats of other peoples comments. Wiki says:

‘There are no surviving manuscripts of the 'Gesta Guillemi'. André Duchesne published an edition in 1619, although even his (now lost) manuscript was missing its beginning and end. Its present form covers the period from 1047 to 1068, and both starts and finishes mid-sentence. There is also some retrospective material concerning affairs in England after Cnut’s death (1035). Orderic Vitalis says that it originally finished in 1071. The Gesta Guillelmi is most valuable as a source for the Battle of Hastings, probably based on first-hand oral evidence.’

Poitiers effectively covers himself by stating that he is relying upon spoken tradition and it is possible to see that much of the detailed text of other writers is missing, including the opening sequence, the death of Harold, the malfosse incident, in which he says ‘the Normans passed it in the battle’, as well as who was responsible for what during the battle, although he does comment:

‘The English were greatly helped by the advantage of the higher ground, which they held in serried ranks without sallying forth, and also by their weapons of war, which easily penetrated shields and other protections.’

There is no specific topographical detail except that it was a steep hill upon which they fought and provides incorrect evidence according to other writers on the subject that they fought on the top of the hill. Hence many people adopted this work to describe where the event took place, but not providing any evidence that they fought on the top of a hill. In fact many issues that exist work their way back to this particular work for missinformation sadly, such as Heritage England’s web site claim. It is therefore not of great assistance in evaluating the Norman Invasion and battlefield sites, but more useful as a Norman critique of the official view, based upon the view that the battle took place where the Abbey now stands. The Gesta Guillelmi  is included here, because historians like his work so much it needs to be dealt with, because Poitiers states incorrectly, as virtually the only person to say in writing the Norman fleet landed at Pevensey and then Hastings. The predominance of two hundred years as the preferred document for history teachers in the UK is sure to raise hackles in the older guard. However  it is our job to call a spade a spade when there is little of value in the text except glowing accounts of those fighting on the Norman side and should be expected from someone who was so close to William whilst he was alive.

This text cannot therefore be wholly correct, but given it was written around three years after the Carmen, Wace and the Chronicle of Battle Abbey’s initial 14 folios, it is probable, and I might add in our view certain, that the translation of ‘Penuesellum’ was a straight Latin language translation mistake. Either he wrote ‘Pebesellum’ as the landing site in the many copies that followed, until it was translated and used when the document was found in the 1600s, or it was adjusted  at some stage believing like many others that it was. However, it is doubted because there is no references relevant to the Hastings port at the landing site. Whilst claiming it was written at the time of the Invasion it was almost certainly a later version of the original given his impecable record in all other works. Jumieges noted that the original document that he wrote used the source name ‘Pebesellum’ which is only two characters different from that used by Poiters. ‘Penuesellum’ was indeed Pevensey, but now we have established that ‘Pebesellum‘ was the correct landing site on the opposite bank of the Combe Haven river from Hastings, leaving little room for doubt, given confirmation by the Bayeux Tapestry as well as the Chronicle of Battle Abbey and Wace. Not to mention the boats in the Combe Haven valley.

It is likely that historians will re-assess Poitiers account of the Battle of Hastings in years to come and it will probably eventually be excluded from serious analysis, because it adds nothing to our total knowledge. We must expect this when re-evaluting all the major documents from the period. Those that involved people who did not attend themselves were distorted by politics and the will of the dominant authority, drawing upon those elements of other writers that suited their purpose.