This scene from the Carmen is the one that most interests popular historians. The death of King Harold is described from line 533 to line 554.
Because the manuscript Carmen in Medieval Latin miniscule lacks any punctuation, this scene is open to multiple interpretations of who exactly killed King Harold. The received translation of the Carmen has William the Conqueror himself leading the charge of four united to kill the king. I've decided this is nonsense as no other record of the Norman Conquest suggests that Duke William himself killed King Harold. That is the kind of fact that would have been established early if either true (unlikely) or politically compelled by an egomaniac duke (even less likely).
The composer of the Carmen is sane, even-handed and not given to flights of flattery (unlike some later Norman chroniclers), so I don't think he would make a scene of the duke killing the king if that isn't how the battle was described to him. Instead, I think earlier translators erred in ignoring the intent of the word alter in line 537. It can mean another or it can mean one of two.
Eustace of Boulogne is the first to respond to the duke's summons. It would be a waste of a word to distinguish the next person from Eustace or highlight him as another among four. The composer of the Carmen doesn't waste words. Every word has meaning that contributes to the story being told. Also, the final line confirms that four came to the summons. For this reason I think alter used here must mean one of two Hughs.
One of the two Hughs was the heir to the very home of Guy de Ponthieu (later Bishop Guy de Amiens) and a kinsman. Hugh de Ponthieu was a nephew of Bishop Guy de Amiens, and someone the bishop would want to distinguish. He therefore styles his kinsman Hugh as Alter ut Hectorides - One of two like Hector - to give him a bit of martial classical polish. This distinguishes him from the eager Hugh, possibly Hugh de Monfort or Hugh de Avranche, of the line that follows. The fourth was the younger Walter Giffard.
Each of the four plays a role in the death, so that King Harold falls to lance, sword, pike and axe. It would make no sense to have three other killers and four distinct blows if the author wanted to give William the Conqueror credit for King Harold's death.
The death of Harold was already in dispute in 1067, as the Carmen's composer notes at line 542, so he would have been cautious in writing a record of the battle that he then hoped would be read throughout the world.
It seems likely quite a mob of allied cavalry responded to the duke's summons for an assault on the summit. The resulting melee may have been variously reported.
Alternatively, Guy de Amiens may have been anticipating other claims for the credit of killing King Harold. The story of an arrow striking down the king first emerges from Amatus of Monte Cassino in 1080. The Italian archers at the Battle of Hastings may have wanted credit for the famous victory. This would explain why the Carmen at line 543 says "Through great carnage is the martial claim proven."
Certainly the archers and crossbowmen were critical in overwhelming the superior numbers of Saxons in the shield wall and fyrd. Even if there were 12,000 - as the Carmen suggests - their pikes, swords and axes, and even their spears, would have been ineffectual against allied artillery firing at them all through the morning, as described in the Carmen, decimating their ranks from a safe distance. The terror of death raining down on them while they stood helpless must have been maddening. Saxons had never confronted crossbow bolts before, capable of piercing their shields and chainmail. Even the Norman arrows were steel tipped and barbed for maximum penetration and damage, and they had spent all year manufacturing sufficient arms for the attack. Having provided the strategic advantage which assured victory for the Normans, the allied archers from Italy may have sought credit for the death of King Harold as well.
The Bayeux Tapestry does not clarify things much here. There are two figures potentially identified as Harold in the scene titled "Here King Harold is killed".
![]()
One might have an arrow in his eye, although it is suggested this was added later. The other is being cut down by a knight, and possibly having his leg cut off. The Carmen would support the later image as being King Harold. The Carmen depicts Harold as fighting bravely to the last.
Interesting to note the French already stripping the dead of anything of value in the lower margin of the Tapestry, again consistent with the narrative of the Carmen.
Because the manuscript Carmen in Medieval Latin miniscule lacks any punctuation, this scene is open to multiple interpretations of who exactly killed King Harold. The received translation of the Carmen has William the Conqueror himself leading the charge of four united to kill the king. I've decided this is nonsense as no other record of the Norman Conquest suggests that Duke William himself killed King Harold. That is the kind of fact that would have been established early if either true (unlikely) or politically compelled by an egomaniac duke (even less likely).
The composer of the Carmen is sane, even-handed and not given to flights of flattery (unlike some later Norman chroniclers), so I don't think he would make a scene of the duke killing the king if that isn't how the battle was described to him. Instead, I think earlier translators erred in ignoring the intent of the word alter in line 537. It can mean another or it can mean one of two.
535. Advocat Eustachium, liquens ibi praelia Francis,
He [Duke William] called Eustace to him, leaving the French to clear the field,
536. Oppressis validum contulit auxilium.
To unite in aid of conquering the summit.
537. Alter, ut Hectorides, Pontivi nobilis heres,
One of two Hughs, like Hector, the noble heir of Ponthieu,
538. Hos comitatur Hugo, promtus in officio.
Another Hugh accompanied him, eager to serve.
539. Quartus Gilfardus, patris a cognomine dictus.
Giffard made a fourth, called by his father’s surname.
540. Regis ad exicium quatuor arma ferunt.
These four came armed for the destruction of the king.
Eustace of Boulogne is the first to respond to the duke's summons. It would be a waste of a word to distinguish the next person from Eustace or highlight him as another among four. The composer of the Carmen doesn't waste words. Every word has meaning that contributes to the story being told. Also, the final line confirms that four came to the summons. For this reason I think alter used here must mean one of two Hughs.
One of the two Hughs was the heir to the very home of Guy de Ponthieu (later Bishop Guy de Amiens) and a kinsman. Hugh de Ponthieu was a nephew of Bishop Guy de Amiens, and someone the bishop would want to distinguish. He therefore styles his kinsman Hugh as Alter ut Hectorides - One of two like Hector - to give him a bit of martial classical polish. This distinguishes him from the eager Hugh, possibly Hugh de Monfort or Hugh de Avranche, of the line that follows. The fourth was the younger Walter Giffard.
Each of the four plays a role in the death, so that King Harold falls to lance, sword, pike and axe. It would make no sense to have three other killers and four distinct blows if the author wanted to give William the Conqueror credit for King Harold's death.
The death of Harold was already in dispute in 1067, as the Carmen's composer notes at line 542, so he would have been cautious in writing a record of the battle that he then hoped would be read throughout the world.
It seems likely quite a mob of allied cavalry responded to the duke's summons for an assault on the summit. The resulting melee may have been variously reported.
Alternatively, Guy de Amiens may have been anticipating other claims for the credit of killing King Harold. The story of an arrow striking down the king first emerges from Amatus of Monte Cassino in 1080. The Italian archers at the Battle of Hastings may have wanted credit for the famous victory. This would explain why the Carmen at line 543 says "Through great carnage is the martial claim proven."
Certainly the archers and crossbowmen were critical in overwhelming the superior numbers of Saxons in the shield wall and fyrd. Even if there were 12,000 - as the Carmen suggests - their pikes, swords and axes, and even their spears, would have been ineffectual against allied artillery firing at them all through the morning, as described in the Carmen, decimating their ranks from a safe distance. The terror of death raining down on them while they stood helpless must have been maddening. Saxons had never confronted crossbow bolts before, capable of piercing their shields and chainmail. Even the Norman arrows were steel tipped and barbed for maximum penetration and damage, and they had spent all year manufacturing sufficient arms for the attack. Having provided the strategic advantage which assured victory for the Normans, the allied archers from Italy may have sought credit for the death of King Harold as well.
The Bayeux Tapestry does not clarify things much here. There are two figures potentially identified as Harold in the scene titled "Here King Harold is killed".
Interesting to note the French already stripping the dead of anything of value in the lower margin of the Tapestry, again consistent with the narrative of the Carmen.