Here's an entertaining little dash (https://www.medievalists.net/2022/10/arrow-king-harold-eye/) through the sources about the arrow in the eye story by revisionist battle historian Michael Livingston. I won't ruin the conclusion, as his narrative works like a whodunnit and, like many a detective story, you have to decide if you are satisfied with the denouement. I find it classic Livingston - excellent case weakened by a wild leap or two and a bit too much certainty in his conclusion. See what you think.
very interesting article and I have never been an eye supporter :)
The author clearly doesn't understand how probability works, but appart from that it's interesting.
I think one of the issues is the distinction between whether the Tapestry showed an arrow in somebody's eye or not and the separate matter of the origin of the story that Harold was shot in the head/eye. If the Tapestry didn't show the arrow, how did the story arise? Would English historians have mixed up the two Harald/Harolds? An Italian writer, perhaps. But would he be more likely to have heard a Scandinavian account or a Norman one?
If you look at the tapestry, you will see a caption "Hic Haroldus rex interfectus est" — "here king Harold is killed". Under "Haroldus" is a man with an arrow in the eye. But a contemporary source (William of Poitiers, if I remember correctly) says that Harold was cut down with a sword and that is depicted under "interfectus est".
Quote from: DavidMcCann on Nov 05, 2022, 12:33 PM
If you look at the tapestry, you will see a caption "Hic Haroldus rex interfectus est" — "here king Harold is killed". Under "Haroldus" is a man with an arrow in the eye. But a contemporary source (William of Poitiers, if I remember correctly) says that Harold was cut down with a sword and that is depicted under "interfectus est".
Indeed, but the interpretation of the Tapestry and how it fits with the written sources is rather more convuluted as a whole. The article actually covers this very well, even if I would have come to a slightly different conclusion.
When contemplating possible cause of death, it is important to remember that Harold, if not King, was at least a leading nobleman.
It would not do to have such an exceptional individual die in a common manner.
:P