How did Harold II, the king of England, die in 1066 in the battle of Hastings? - Quora
Quora
The answer to this question starts by looking at the possible sources.
There are 5 contemporary sources: 4 manuscripts and the Bayeux tapestry.
Three of these manuscripts (William of Poitiers, William of Jumieges, Ordericus Vitalis) mention Harold's death at Hastings, but not how he died
The 4th source, Carmen de Hastingae Proelio (song of the battle of Hastings), by Guy, Bishop of Amiens, describes Harold's death in detail. What version of his death you subscribe to depends on the value you place on this source vs. the Bayeux tapestry (more about that later).
Guy tells us that when the Normas broke through the shield wall the battle devolved into chaos, with small pockets of housecarls fighting the Normans on the hill. Duke William spots Harold on the hill with a small pocket of Housecarls defending his position. William, who boasted earlier that he would best Harold in single combat, was wary of Harold phenomenal strenght (which he has seen first hand during his campaign in Brittany). Instead he dispatches a ''hit squad'' of 4 of his best knights (Walter Giffard, Guy de Montfort, Hugh of Ponthieu and Eustace of Bologne). These four knights hacked Harold to death during the final assault, Guy tells that Harold was struck in the breast, his head chopped off, a lance run through his belly, and finally one of his legs cut off (which might be a euphemism for castration). In summary, brutally hacked to death, according to Bishop Guy. A fittingly brutal end to a brutal day of combat.
As for the value of this source, it appears Carmen is a pretty good source, it's details of the crossing of the channel, for instance, line up well with other contemporary accounts.
So we have 4 manuscripts, 3 of which only meant Harold's death, 1 of which mentions him being hacked to death, and none of which mention anything about an arrow.
As for Bayeux, there are several arguments that can be made against it's veracity as a source. One can begin by arguing that the argument from visual evidence is inconclusive to start, because we don't rightly know whether it's actually Harold who is portrayed with an arrow in his eye. Furthermore, one could argue that the entire tapestry shouldn't be taken as a naturalistic representation, but rather as iconographic or allegorical. There are multiple examples of the tapestry not conforming to reality, such as two brothers of Harold falling next to each other (in reality they fell on completely different times of the day).
The plot thickens when you start to look at possible origins of the arrow story. We know that Harald Hardrada was killed at Stamford Bridge by an arrow. It's also likely that Harold's brother, Leofwine, was killed by an arrow during the battle of Hastings, and we know that the time of their deaths was (accidentally) switched by some authors, further adding to the confusion. So we have a King Harald (Harold?) dying of an arrow, and a possible mixup with the deaths of Harold and Leofwine. The accounts of Stamford Bridge are often said to contain elements of Hastings, but the reverse is just as likely. It's possible that elements of Stamford Bridge were mixed into the battle of Hastings, like the King dying of an arrow, which then made it's way into the account of William of Malmesbury, and consequently the Bayeux Tapestry.
On that note, one should consider that death by arrow is usually a thing of chance, and often seen as a form of divine providence. Indeed, blinding (by arrow) is often seen in Medieval lore as a punishment (of kings) for transgressing against the divine order. One could imagine the arrow not so much being an actual event, but rather a lesson, that Harold was struck down for his transgressions, like not keeping his oath to William (though this oath probably never existed).
As I said, it depends on how you weigh the Carmen versus the Bayeux tapestry. Now I'm not a historian, but the Bayeux tapestry has always seemed unclear to me when it comes to Harold's death, and the story of the arrow to the eye seems, in my eyes, 'too good to be true'. It fits Williams purpose of his divine right to rule perfectly, and as a story it perfectly matches up to the allegorical elements of his death. The more likely possibility, in my view, is that Harold was brutally hacked to death on the battlefield in a rather unchristian way, rather than struck down by divine providence.
Written Jun 12, 2015
Unfortunately, anyone who knew for sure has been dead for more than 900 years at this point. The popular arrow-in-the-eye story is possibly depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry, but this isn't certain:
We don't know for sure that the figure holding the arrow is Harold. (He is most likely either Arrowface or the guy falling down next to the horse on his right, though. He could be both, although the two figures are dressed differently.)
The arrow may have been added to the tapestry later. There is some evidence that Arrowface may have originally been clutching a spear.
Even if that is Harold with an arrow sticking out of his face, that may not have been what killed him. It could have been that guy on the horse with the big sword.
We also don't know who commissioned and produced the tapestry or what their motivations were for doing so. Even if we could say beyond any doubt that the tapestry does depict Harold being killed by an arrow to the eye, there's no way to know for sure that this is an accurate depiction of his death.
The only way to know for certain would be to locate the intact body of Harold, authenticate it, and let forensic investigators determine the cause of death. This is likely impossible.
219 Views