The riddle of a knight from an ancient tapestry

The Bayeux Museum in Normandy exhibits the so-called Bayeux Tapestry, which is a national treasure of the French Republic. Tapestry - a monument of medieval art of the 11th century, is embroidery on linen about 19 inches (about 50 cm) wide and 231 feet (about 70 m) long.



The tapestry depicts scenes from the preparation for the Norman conquest of England and the Battle of Hastings, during which the Normans defeated the Saxons and conquered England. This tapestry is considered a historical source of incredible value, very meticulously reflecting historical details.

There is a funny story associated with this tapestry. During the Victorian era, embroiderers made a replica of the tapestry that was exported to the UK. When copying, prim Englishmen added panties to naked men, which was the reason for endless jokes.



But, most importantly, there is a fragment on the tapestry that is knocked out of the historical context, and is, in my opinion, a big mystery. Here's this snippet:



As we can see, on it, most likely a Norman knight on horseback, who got out of the saddle and sat on the neck of his horse in order to reach the enemy with his sword. The question is, why did he do it? Heavy chain mail and armor are visible on the rider, and he has a lot of weight. Most likely, the horse's neck will not support the weight of a knight with a weapon and will simply break. The mistake of the master who made the tapestry, in my opinion, is out of the question. Making tapestry is a very expensive thing, the rest of the historical details are depicted very carefully and accurately. And the embroidery of a fragment itself requires a lot of work and time, which excludes an error.

What are your opinions, my friends?

Thanks.

Is it possible that he is dismounted, and beside the horse? As for his weight, anyones guess, armour, or mail adds 60lbs, could be a bit less with mail. So, could a 220lb man break a horses neck if he sat that far up, maybe he sacrificed the horse?

Not really clear as to what his position reference the horse (and what a small head the horse has!).

Look at his legs. It looks like he is standing beside the horse and his right leg is placed between the front legs of the horse. Or is the small head of the horse meant to show some distance, as in the horse has fallen and is on its side?

Cheers

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2
Not really clear as to what his position reference the horse (and what a small head the horse has!).

Look at his legs. It looks like he is standing beside the horse and his right leg is placed between the front legs of the horse. Or is the small head of the horse meant to show some distance, as in the horse has fallen and is on its side?

Cheers

Looks like his feet are on the ground too.

a reply to: RussianTroll

Given the arrows in his shield and the one in his neck/head I'd say it's a human who refused to die.

That's some axe he is carrying, it's human nature to aim for the big guy first.

A sword from horseback and unsaddled, plus about 1/3 to half the size of the enemy's weapon? That calls for talent or drastic measures. Can't imagine his balance was on point but it seems there's a story behind this scene. It could be a memorable scene of stupidity or brilliance?

It's all off btw, a swing from the right hand across the neck swung backhandedly, uncomfortable in most close combat situations and leaves one totally vulnerable and why the hell does a two-handed axe man have a shield anyways?

Btw this was the early days of the best cavalry and the best horses, they knew how to treat them and drug them too. Under the circumstances one of those horses may support a human well on it's lower neck/shoulders.

Other than that not a clue, interesting though!

He didn’t necessarily ride around while seated on the horse’s neck.
Not that I believe it would break the horse’s neck. If you slide up on a horse like that it drops it head down and stops cooperating, it doesn’t just tough it out until it’s neck snaps.

Maybe one soldier told a story about his comrade
“Mate, you should’ve seen Jaques. He couldn’t reach this one limey who kept ducking behind the horse’s head so he just slipped out of the saddle and ‘WHAM’, right through the collarbone”

And the embroider said, “mate, I’m gonna stitch that in there”

a reply to: Breakthestreak

That's genuinely my thinking, a trick based on knowledge of horses. That's a small horse for the time but it's posture alludes to what you say.

I'd record it if I saw such a move

a reply to: [post=26112032]RussianTroll[/post

The rider is still above the front hips just forward of the saddle. A horse can handle that and I’ll bet the axe man didn’t see that coming as he wound up to strike.
Pretty brilliant defensive/offensive move I’d say.
Axe man thought he had an easy kill because of the axes reach and got himself dead for it. LOL
Seems legit to me RussianTroll.....

Cheers.....😎

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2
Not really clear as to what his position reference the horse (and what a small head the horse has!).

Look at his legs. It looks like he is standing beside the horse and his right leg is placed between the front legs of the horse. Or is the small head of the horse meant to show some distance, as in the horse has fallen and is on its side?

Cheers

If a knight, and this is most likely King Harold himself, as this image is described in Simplicissimus, stands in front of a horse, then why is the horse's leg in front of his right leg?

a reply to: RussianTroll

It is an odd depiction. One could also ask why the opponent is as tall as a man on a horse, if the knight is mounted.

Cheers

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2
a reply to: RussianTroll

It is an odd depiction. One could also ask why the opponent is as tall as a man on a horse, if the knight is mounted.

Cheers

There are many mysteries. By the way, as far as I know, in those days horses were small, and people were almost our height.

a reply to: RussianTroll

Untrue, people were tiny in comparison height wise, ask to visit the catacombs next time yo visit an old church and you'll see what I mean. Or better yet check the demographics of the fallen in war, it's all well documented.


Horses wise I don't know but I do know that the French had/have the best horses of the time, the kind that aren't shy of blood or trampling.

Look it up, it takes a little evil to get horses that way.

originally posted by: RussianTroll
The mistake of the master who made the tapestry, in my opinion, is out of the question.

That is your mistake, because it is obviously a mistake.

Both men have their feet at the same level and the horse's front legs are higher. Unless he was riding a pony that wasn't going to happen and there is no way, on the horse or off it, that his right leg would have ended up between it's front legs and he still be able to fight.

Occam's razor, embroiderer error.

a reply to: daskakik

Stitching can be removed, in fact this tapestry is known to had later work done to include accuracy.

I'm not saying you're wrong just that it would have been a terrible oversight. That said the scene is a bit broken. We need one of those time travellers but they're too busy recording empty streets and claiming it's the end of the world.

1066 mate, mad # happened like people riding ponies to war on their neck, plus it was the end of the world for 1000's. Go their future/past time travellers!

originally posted by: RAY1990
I'm not saying you're wrong just that it would have been a terrible oversight.

Yes, but that is still the most likely scenario.

Could you imagine having to fight with your right leg between the front legs of a pony? Don't know why but I imagined Eddie Izzard's voice saying that as I typed it.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: RAY1990
I'm not saying you're wrong just that it would have been a terrible oversight.

Yes, but that is still the most likely scenario.

Could you imagine having to fight with your right leg between the front legs of a pony? Don't know why but I imagined Eddie Izzard's voice saying that as typed it.

Perhaps he was behooved to horse around.

Cheers

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2
That wasa exactly my own reaction, on close inspection.

Much more interesting is the old controversy about whether "Here King Harold was killed" refers to the man standing under the word "Harold", pulling an arrow out of his eye, or to the man standing under "was killed", and being chopped down by the sword of a knight on horseback.

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2
I do think you mean pony around.

Is that even a thing?

a reply to: DISRAELI
How close did you get?