1066 and all that...

[unmerged(8691)]

King Harold, King Harald and Duke William. We know who ultimately won but it was a close run thing. What if Hadrada had been more prepared? What if Godwinson had been more patient? What if Williams ships had been caught at sea by the Saxon fleet? Discuss...

 

[unmerged(8691)]

And I've just realised this should be in the pre 1419 area. Mods?

 

[Havard]

I would prefer the pre-1419 forum but... Could we get the start of this discussion copied over here?

Anyway - I'll start with Harald and the Surprise

Harald landed by the Tyne, and quickly moved the following capture of York

"Then after the fight went Harald, King of Norway, and Earl Tostig into York with as many followers as they thought fit; and having procured hostages and provisions from the city, they proceeded to their ships, and proclaimed full friendship, on condition that all would go southward with them, and gain this land." ~ Anglosaxon Chronicles

Then they continued south:

"But Harald, King of Norway, and Earl Tostig, with their forces, were gone from their ships beyond York to Stamford Bridge . . . because it had been promised them for a certainty, that there, from all the shire, hostages should be brought to meet them." ~ Anglosaxon Chronicles

I'd say the main reason Harald lost at Stamford Bridge was the surprise by Harold's fast movement to the north. By surprising the invading army they caught them unprepared and thus won the day.

What would be really interresting is to see how a battle between a victorious Harald and Willy the B would haave turned out

 

[STGeorge]

No No NO Harold!!!

Its not some bloody school essay!!! Blah blah discuss!!

I put it to you sir, "WHAT DID THE SAXONS EVER DO FOR US?"

House of Wessex
Egbert (802-39)
Aethelwulf (839-55)
Aethelbald (855-60)
Aethelbert (860-6)
Aethelred (866-71)
Alfred the Great (871-99)
Edward the Elder (899-925)
Athelstan (925-40)
Edmund the Magnificent (940-6)
Eadred (946-55)
Eadwig (Edwy) All-Fair (955-59)
Edgar the Peaceable (959-75)
Edward the Martyr (975-78)
Aethelred the Unready (978-1016)
Edmund Ironside (1016)

wessex restored
Edward the Confessor (1042-66)
Harold II (1066)

in short bar Alfred the great, what a bunch of nobodys, Hasbeens!! christ even their initials spell doom, A & E Accident and Emergency!!!

Just look at these find & Glorious collection of Norman blooded nobles:
How can any man say this bunch are boring!!!
 
William I the Conqueror (1066-87)
William II Rufus (1087-1100)
Henry I Beauclerc (1100-35)
Stephen (1135-54)
Empress Matilda (1141)
Henry II Curtmantle (1154-89)
Richard I the Lionheart (1189-99)
John Lackland (1199-1216)
Henry III (1216-72)
Edward I Longshanks (1272-1307)
Edward II (1307-27)
Edward III (1327-77)
Richard II (1377-99)
Henry IV Bolingbroke (1399-1413)
Henry V (1413-22)
Henry VI (1422-61, 1470-1)
Edward IV (1461-70, 1471-83)
Edward V (1483)
Richard III Crookback (1483-5)

I rest my case....................

 

[unmerged(8691)]

I'd say the main reason Harald lost at Stamford Bridge was the surprise by Harold's fast movement to the north. By surprising the invading army they caught them unprepared and thus won the day.]

I agree on the fast movement being part of it, however I firmly believe a good commander would have put scouts out whilst in enemy territory.

What would be really interresting is to see how a battle between a victorious Harald and Willy the B would haave turned out [/B]

That would have been interesting, I have to agree.

 

[unmerged(8691)]

Re: No No NO Harold!!!

Originally posted by STGeorge
Its not some bloody school essay!!! Blah blah discuss!!

I put it to you sir, "WHAT DID THE SAXONS EVER DO FOR US?"

House of Wessex
Egbert (802-39)
Aethelwulf (839-55)
Aethelbald (855-60)
Aethelbert (860-6)
Aethelred (866-71)
Alfred the Great (871-99)
Edward the Elder (899-925)
Athelstan (925-40)
Edmund the Magnificent (940-6)
Eadred (946-55)
Eadwig (Edwy) All-Fair (955-59)
Edgar the Peaceable (959-75)
Edward the Martyr (975-78)
Aethelred the Unready (978-1016)
Edmund Ironside (1016)

wessex restored
Edward the Confessor (1042-66)
Harold II (1066)

in short bar Alfred the great, what a bunch of nobodys, Hasbeens!! christ even their initials spell doom, A & E Accident and Emergency!!!

Just look at these find & Glorious collection of Norman blooded nobles:
How can any man say this bunch are boring!!!
 
William I the Conqueror (1066-87)
William II Rufus (1087-1100)
Henry I Beauclerc (1100-35)
Stephen (1135-54)
Empress Matilda (1141)
Henry II Curtmantle (1154-89)
Richard I the Lionheart (1189-99)
John Lackland (1199-1216)
Henry III (1216-72)
Edward I Longshanks (1272-1307)
Edward II (1307-27)
Edward III (1327-77)
Richard II (1377-99)
Henry IV Bolingbroke (1399-1413)
Henry V (1413-22)
Henry VI (1422-61, 1470-1)
Edward IV (1461-70, 1471-83)
Edward V (1483)
Richard III Crookback (1483-5)

I rest my case....................

The problem with your so called 'Norman' list is that most of them were actualy Plantaganets...

 

[unmerged(8691)]

ST George: You seem very anti English for a patriotic man...

 

[unmerged(8691)]

Re: No No NO Harold!!!

Originally posted by STGeorge
Its not some bloody school essay!!! Blah blah discuss!!

Oh and by the way, that was humour. If you don't have a sense of humour stay out of my thread. This is supposed to be a healthy debate, not an area dedicated to ranting about nothing...

 

[Havard]

Originally posted by Harold, King

I agree on the fast movement being part of it, however I firmly believe a good commander would have put scouts out whilst in enemy territory.

My point is that the norwegians didn't regard the territory as enemy territory... they had captured York and subdued Yorkshire and the surrounding area and the reason they were at Stamford bridge was, according to the Anglosaxon Chronicles:

"...because it had been promised them for a certainty, that there, from all the shire, hostages should be brought to meet them."

Thus, they were summoning to meet hostages from the conquered in their newly conquered territory, and believed the approaching army of Harold to be these hostages. It is based on this I say the surprise of Harold's fast arrival was the decisive factor...

 

[unmerged(8691)]

Originally posted by Havard


My point is that the norwegians didn't regard the territory as enemy territory... they had captured York and subdued Yorkshire and the surrounding area and the reason they were at Stamford bridge was, according to the Anglosaxon Chronicles:

"...because it had been promised them for a certainty, that there, from all the shire, hostages should be brought to meet them."

Thus, they were summoning to meet hostages from the conquered in their newly conquered territory, and believed the approaching army of Harold to be these hostages. It is based on this I say the surprise of Harold's fast arrival was the decisive fator...

Thats true, but it was promised by the Ealdormen of York, sympathisers of the Norwegians. The King had not promised anything, therefore should have still been considered enemy territory. Harold did move a lot faster than expected, but could only move within the time constraints allowed by foot soldiers of the day, therefore it was still 'possible' for him to show up, and therefore Hadrada (in my opinion) should have anticipated his arrival.

 

[STGeorge]

[The problem with your so called 'Norman' list is that most of them were actualy Plantaganets...]

Yes true but the Plantaganets...were the joining of Anjou and of Normandy. (Norman blooded)

[ST George: You seem very anti English for a patriotic man...]

No just Anti-Saxon........

[Oh and by the way, that was humour. If you don't have a sense of humour stay out of my thread. This is supposed to be a healthy debate, not an area dedicated to ranting about nothing...]

Humour? yes you could say it was humour "if you were Germanic of sorts"
Very dry, with one subtle missing ingredient....."anything funny in it"

Now im up for your "debate"

 

[STGeorge]

Originally posted by Harold, King


The King had not promised anything, therefore should have still been considered enemy territory. Harold did move a lot faster than expected, but could only move within the time constraints allowed by foot soldiers of the day, therefore it was still 'possible' for him to show up, and therefore Hadrada (in my opinion) should have anticipated his arrival.

Sorry Havard, but i have to agree with Harold on this one, Hadrada should never been caught so unprepared. I heard that after York, Hadrada was losing the unity of his men, and by some accounts many were "slipping away" on private land grabs. For all his fame, perhaps reality showed a different leader, even if they were in supposed "friendly territory" it shows a degree of over confidence even arrogance to think he was untouchable, two very dangerous qualities for a leader of an Invasion force to have.

 

[unmerged(8691)]

Originally posted by STGeorge
[The problem with your so called 'Norman' list is that most of them were actualy Plantaganets...]

Yes true but the Plantaganets...were the joining of Anjou and of Normandy. (Norman blooded)

[ST George: You seem very anti English for a patriotic man...]

No just Anti-Saxon........

[Oh and by the way, that was humour. If you don't have a sense of humour stay out of my thread. This is supposed to be a healthy debate, not an area dedicated to ranting about nothing...]

Humour? yes you could say it was humour "if you were Germanic of sorts"
Very dry, with one subtle missing ingredient....."anything funny in it"

Now im up for your "debate"

"Norman blooded" - no, Plantaganet blooded, they were the top dogs here, not the Normans.

Anti Saxon is anti English, the term English comes from Anglo-Saxon!

 

[unmerged(8690)]

Re: No No NO Harold!!!

Originally posted by STGeorge
Just look at these find & Glorious collection of Norman blooded nobles:
 

John Lackland?? King John??
Who was sent to rule Ireland but managed to alienate the Irish so badly he was forced to come home after only six months.
He twice failed to overthrow his brother, he was excommunicated and had to pay tribute, managed to alienate the French, his own common people and his nobles.
He failed to suppress a rebellion, and died while being invaded by the French.
Not boring, but hardly fine and glorious by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[unmerged(8690)]

For the most accurate and definitive account of the battle, check out the following link.
Ye olde battle of 'Astings.

 

[STGeorge]

Originally posted by Harold, King


"Norman blooded" - no, Plantaganet blooded, they were the top dogs here, not the Normans.

Anti Saxon is anti English, the term English comes from Anglo-Saxon!

The Plantaganet's (Angevin Line) draw direct blood line to William the Conqueror........lets face it when it came to survival & mainland politics, Saxons were out of their depth. Saxons were old world players in a new feudal society...one which the Normans & their decendants excelled at.


The term English & England come from the Angles (southern Denmark) which they use to describe themselves in their new land, its not saxon. The Saxons and the Jutes adopted it, as it wasn't too disimiliar to their own words & language, hence Anglo-saxon and eventually Anglo-Norman.

As for English, im english but i have very little anglo-saxon in me, according to your theory all the kings after Harold cannot technically call themselves English or any person not belonging to the anglo-saxon race, you included. My sense of patriotism (which you question) comes from my feeling of national identity now, based on history, tradition and culture (which in a small part the saxons are part of). To say im unpatriotic because i dislike an invading, germanic people is just stupid. I hold more allegiance to the Britons who your beloved saxons displaced. And inturn your saxons were utterly conquered and subjugated into a new English identity, one that combined many cultures but with a single national identity, under new kings and in the name of ENGLAND.

Anglo-Saxons, Britons, Angles, Jutes, Danes and Normans (with some old roman thrown in) became middle English, eventually becoming late-modern English, which im am proud to call myself.

 

[STGeorge]

Re: Re: No No NO Harold!!!

Originally posted by The Dragon

John Lackland?? King John??
Who was sent to rule Ireland but managed to alienate the Irish so badly he was forced to come home after only six months.
He twice failed to overthrow his brother, he was excommunicated and had to pay tribute, managed to alienate the French, his own common people and his nobles.
He failed to suppress a rebellion, and died while being invaded by the French.
Not boring, but hardly fine and glorious by any stretch of the imagination.

What of Æthelred II, the Unready (978-1016 AD)

He had ineffective reign, which was notable for little apart from an attempt to constantly buy off the Viking invaders with money. The relentless invasions by the Danish Vikings, coupled with their ever-escalating demands for more money, forced him to abandon YES ABANDON his throne in 1013. He fled to Normandy for safety (how ironic), but was later recalled to his old throne at the death of Svein Forkbeard (what a name! its almost Sevque!)

what a farce!!

 

[unmerged(5678)]

Your guys may find thisessay of interest.

Conclusion: "With these contradictory strands, no wonder we don't know who we are, but I believe, in spite of 1066, we are at best Vikings with some of the stolidity, reliability, even dullness of the Anglo-Saxons, and, well, pardon my Anglo-Saxon, fuck the Normans and the collaborators. I really do believe that at last, like the House of Lords, they've had their day."

 

[unmerged(8691)]

Originally posted by STGeorge


The Plantaganet's (Angevin Line) draw direct blood line to William the Conqueror........lets face it when it came to survival & mainland politics, Saxons were out of their depth. Saxons were old world players in a new feudal society...one which the Normans & their decendants excelled at.

Where did you get this from? The Saxons were far from out of their depth, the rulers of Europe were sending their sons to the Saxon courts to learn how it was done!

The term English & England come from the Angles (southern Denmark) which they use to describe themselves in their new land, its not saxon. The Saxons and the Jutes adopted it, as it wasn't too disimiliar to their own words & language, hence Anglo-saxon and eventually Anglo-Norman.

So, just as I said then, Anglo-Saxon. Which part of 'Anglo' (Angle) don't you understand?

As for English, im english but i have very little anglo-saxon in me, according to your theory all the kings after Harold cannot technically call themselves English or any person not belonging to the anglo-saxon race, you included. My sense of patriotism (which you question) comes from my feeling of national identity now, based on history, tradition and culture (which in a small part the saxons are part of). To say im unpatriotic because i dislike an invading, germanic people is just stupid. I hold more allegiance to the Britons who your beloved saxons displaced. And inturn your saxons were utterly conquered and subjugated into a new English identity, one that combined many cultures but with a single national identity, under new kings and in the name of ENGLAND.

Only you can comment on why it is you think you are patriotic. However I disagree with your comment 'utterly conquered and subjugated' because they weren't. The class system which continued until very recently (in my opinion still does) is because this did not happen. If it had, there would be no class system after the invasion. By the way, it didn't end in 1066, the war carried on for years.

Anglo-Saxons, Britons, Angles, Jutes, Danes and Normans (with some old roman thrown in) became middle English, eventually becoming late-modern English, which im am proud to call myself.

Again, only you can comment here, we all feel differently on this as it is current.

You seem to feel as though Saxon rule was useless and ineffectual. The fact of the matter is though that the Saxons held sway over the whole of Britain, something the Normans lost the moment they arrived. And if alienating the people is considered effective rule then the Normans got that absolutely spot on...

 

[unmerged(8691)]

Re: Re: Re: No No NO Harold!!!

Originally posted by STGeorge


What of Æthelred II, the Unready (978-1016 AD)

He had ineffective reign, which was notable for little apart from an attempt to constantly buy off the Viking invaders with money. The relentless invasions by the Danish Vikings, coupled with their ever-escalating demands for more money, forced him to abandon YES ABANDON his throne in 1013. He fled to Normandy for safety (how ironic), but was later recalled to his old throne at the death of Svein Forkbeard (what a name! its almost Sevque!)

what a farce!!

Ineffective, I agree with you there as he was nothing more than a Norman puppet...

Also, unready is a mistranslation of ill advised. And of course his advisors were mostly Norman...