But although the evidence of the Bayeux Tapestry, Mr Freeman's own supreme authority, remains absolutely unshaken, it must not be supposed that I rely on that evidence alone. I attach as much importance as ever--and so will, I think, all prejudiced persons--to the other portion of my argument, that if there had been a barricade playing so important a part in the battle that Mr Freeman found it needful to mention it at least a score of times, it is practically inconceivable that all the authorities I enumerate should have absolutely ignored its existence. Judging from Mr Freeman's own experience, it would be simply impossible to describe the battle without mentioning the 'palisade'. It is very significant that when we turn to a real feature of the English line, namely its close array, we find the above authorities as unanimous in mentioning the fact as they are in ignoring that 'curious defence',[38] those 'intricate barriers', as Mr Archer terms them, 'upon the hill'.[39] The fight has raged so fiercely around this 'palisade' that I have been obliged to discuss it at somewhat disproportionate length. But to sum up, we have now seen, firstly, that the alleged palisade was a new 'development', and needs, as such, special proof of its existence; secondly, that of Mr Freeman's proofs, one at least must admittedly be abandoned, while he himself has impugned the other;[40] thirdly, that the evidence, both positive and presumptive, is altogether opposed to the existence of a palisade. In the narrative of the battle we shall find Mr Freeman interpolating the alleged defence solely from his own imagination, such references proving, on inquiry, to be imaginary and imaginary alone.[41] THE SHIELD-WALL It is a pleasure to find myself here in complete agreement with Mr Freeman. In his very latest study of the battle Mr Freeman wrote as follows: The English clave to the old Teutonic tactics. They fought on foot in the close array of the shield-wall.[42] Mr Archer says they cannot have done so.[43] There was also, according to Mr Freeman, a barricade, in front of--and distinct from--the shield-wall, being a special development which, he tells us, 'the foresight of Harold' had introduced on this occasion (pp. 444, 468). The barricade is denied by me, the shield-wall by Mr Archer. Whichever of us is right, Mr Freeman's accuracy is, in either case, equally impugned. It is essential to remember that Mr Freeman, throughout, treated the palisade and the shield-wall as _separate and distinct_. Thus he wrote so late as 1880: Besides the palisade the front ranks made a kind of inner defence with their shields, called the shield-wall. The Norman writers were specially struck with the close array of the English.[44]