[115] The distinction between archers and crossbowmen is of little or no consequence, the missile being common to both.
[116] My opponents complain that in the former passage Mr Freeman assigns this task to 'the heavier foot' only; but my point is that no palisade is here mentioned, and no attack on it by any infantry, heavy or light, and no weapons assigned to that infantry of any use for the purpose.
[117] This is an excellent instance of what I said as to Mr Freeman's 'imaginary' references to the now famous palisade. I have challenged my opponents to disprove my statement that none of Mr Freeman's own authorities says anything here of a palisade. And, of course, they cannot do so.
Here is another instance in point. We read on pp. 486-7 that Robert of Beaumont was specially distinguished in the work of breaking down the 'barricade' (see also supra, p. 273). But when we turn to William of Poitiers, the authority cited, we find no mention of a 'barricade', but read only of him 'irruens ac sternens magnâ cum audaciâ'. As the writer had just described how the Duke 'stravit adversam gentem', we see that Robert, in his charge, laid low, not a barricade, but 'adversam gentem'.
This brings me to an extraordinary case of mediaeval plagiarism. The author of the Ely history has applied this description of Robert's exploits to the Conqueror himself at Ely (Liber Eliensis, pp. 244-5). The passages 'Exardentes Normanni—deleverunt ea', 'Egit enim quod—magna cum audacia', 'Scriptor Thebaidos vel Æneidos', et seq., are all 'lifted' bodily from William's narrative of the Battle of Hastings and applied to the storming of the Isle of Ely!
[118] Norm. Conq., iii. 467.
[119] 'The Norman infantry had now done its best, but that best had been in vain' (Ibid., 479).
[120] Norm. Conq., iii. 481.
[121] Ibid., 767-8.