-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Sadly you are mistaken Gupta, recent DNA test's reveal that we are more celto-saxon in decent than Viking.......the northern scottish isles being the last viking stronghold for Pure viking blood!
I quite agree with you on the house of lords!!! and our monarchy!!! long live the republic!!!
Is this the same DNA test results that proved the 'vast majority' of Scotland have the same DNA as southern England...
So either the Scots have all moved down here, or they're not Celts... *hides under table in anticipation of a Scottish backlash*
Although I am rather distressed at not having some Viking blood in me, I always thought that Viking/Saxon blood would be a fine combination.
As for the house of lords, I find myself agreeing with St George (dammit). And there I was thinking that this thread was turning into a slanging match between the two of us...
I can't be wrong - I didn't say anything! I only quoted Rathbone's essay (worth reading the whole thing and his novel 'The Last English King' if you haven't already).
I don't think he was talking about blood lines, more about culture. BTW don't forget that the Normans were Vikings, though they did intermarry with the local population a lot. You should also note that many of those who came over with Billy the Bastard were mercenaries from all over - very few Normans
I don't think he was talking about blood lines, more about culture. BTW don't forget that the Normans were Vikings, though they did intermarry with the local population a lot. You should also note that many of those who came over with Billy the Bastard were mercenaries from all over - very few Normans
Isn't he talking more about culture than genetics?
Yeah - and we want them Isles back!
Re: Re: Re: No No NO Harold!!!
And yes, he didn't seem to improve that much over the years, but I wasn't trying to persuade you that the Saxons were wonderful, natural leaders etc. etc., I was merely noting that your claim that the Normans were all a "fine and glorious bunch" (in which group you specifically included such noteworthies as John Lackland) was not, perhaps, terribly accurate. Quite the reverse, in fact.
Your patriotism does you proud, but do you not think it may have clouded your judgement somewhat?
He was only TEN when he was thrust upon the throne, for heavens sake.
And yes, he didn't seem to improve that much over the years, but I wasn't trying to persuade you that the Saxons were wonderful, natural leaders etc. etc., I was merely noting that your claim that the Normans were all a "fine and glorious bunch" (in which group you specifically included such noteworthies as John Lackland) was not, perhaps, terribly accurate. Quite the reverse, in fact.
Your patriotism does you proud, but do you not think it may have clouded your judgement somewhat?
Interesting article. I particularly enjoyed the delicate subtlety of this phrase:
"Then came the Normans who were, and are, like their leader, bastards."
I bought the book a while ago, but haven't had the time to read it yet. Too many books, not enough time...
Re: Re: Re: Re: No No NO Harold!!!
Dragon (of wessex) my scaley friend...........By the very fact that they were devious and cunning.......ruthless and single-minded makes them that and more in my eyes..........Core hasn't Harold told you yet...."i love that"
England needed men like that to stand against the new ravages of Europe!!
Dragon (of wessex) my scaley friend...........By the very fact that they were devious and cunning.......ruthless and single-minded makes them that and more in my eyes..........Core hasn't Harold told you yet...."i love that"
England needed men like that to stand against the new ravages of Europe!!
Ain't that the truth!
But I'd make time for that one - not the best book I'veever read, but one of the most enjoyable ones. Will confirm all your pre-existing predjudices too. Which is nice.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No No NO Harold!!!
Hmm. Much like our modern day heroes, Hitler, Stalin, Maggie T.....er no. something wrong here.
Hmm. Much like our modern day heroes, Hitler, Stalin, Maggie T.....er no. something wrong here.
Yep its a good read, particly liked the "look back and tell me all about it aspect".
Hanny
Hanny
The Saxon policy of buying off invaders or having to constantly react as opposed to being pro-active in defending themselves (harold showing any balls to do so).....is quite frankly primative and cowardly in the case of Æthelred II. You can in truth say that that Harolds (saxons) lack of foresight in building defendable castles probably aided William in conquering england so quickly. There was no forified pockets of resistance or secure supply line for any rebels. Protect themselves from saxons, hah, i laugh in your general direction, they are keystones for securing land and dominance over a people. The saxons were a defeated people, thanks to their kings!
Running to the Hills, i refer to Williams later campaigns 1067-1072 including Harolds illegitimate sons landing from ireland in somerset! (most of the resistance was Celtic) William defeated all before him, Bleddyn of Wales, York surrendered, Malcolm of Scotland made peace. On all of these campaigns William erected castles securing his rear as he went. Lets face it by 1070 the Normans had broken any saxon spirit of resistance, except for the Anglians (angles, not saxons) in the fens, under the command of Earl Morcar (dane). By 1072 england was under total Norman rule.
Your point about the battle, i agree it was close, very close, but if the saxons had put in place adequate defences or structure (not just material) in the north and south the Vikings and the Normans would have suffered, imagine if Harold had arrived on the field of hastings with a full strength army (even though saxons outnumbered the Normans by 1000men), with castles at his rear(but he didn't) thus proving the lack of foresight or provision in defending his kingdom (the saxons didn't move with the times they learnt nothing) royal seal & mints and a formed legal system is very nice but whats the point if you cant defend those institutions.
Im interested in why you think Harold lost the Battle!! (even though i have heard you recount the battle over the past 6-7 years of knowing you)
Last edited:
In fairness to Harold, he didn’t have an awful lot of time to start a castle building programme.
As for why he lost the Battle – I’ve often read two explanations
1.) That his (left?) wing broke ranks in pursuit of the Normans and was swallowed up by them
2.) That his soldiers weren’t used to fighting cavalry.
As for why he lost the Battle – I’ve often read two explanations
1.) That his (left?) wing broke ranks in pursuit of the Normans and was swallowed up by them
2.) That his soldiers weren’t used to fighting cavalry.
Yes, when he faced the Normands, he faced a completely new type of warfare...The "Panzerblitz" of his time...