jecture, that the rest were non-combatants. The expression of Orderic " quinquaginta milia militum cum copia peditum ," 50,000 combatants with plenty of footmen, points to a similar distinction : Dr. LINGARD,[1] it is true, says that these passages plainly prove that the "milites " fought on horse back ; but the very observation shows that some doubt existed as to whether they did or not,and, if we accept the historian's decision as final, we must conclude that William 's army consisted of 50,000 horse soldiers besides 10,000 foot soldiers. But can we imagine 50,000 horses were transported across the Channel? or that 50,000 horse were drawn upon the uneven ground facing Battle Abbey ? or that forage could be found for 50,000 horses in a country full of forests and morasses? If " miles" be simply a combatant, and the word itself has no other meaning, the whole difficulty vanishes. In the Bayeux Tapestry we read " Willelm Dux alloquitur suis militibus," Duke William addresses his soldiers. " Militibus" surely here does not exclude foot soldiers.
When I first studied the Ordnance map, I was of opinion that the three divisions of William 's army descended from Telham ridge by those separate spurs which can be traced in the model, (Mr. SAVERY'S) but an examination of the ground shews that to have been almost impossible ; and I am persuaded that only light troops could have advanced in such a way. Still the Normans, doubtless, occupied the two western spurs so as to prevent the Saxons advancing by either, though it was along the third and most westerly alone -
- ↑ Lingard's History of England, i.,441.
