1066 English War of Succession stuff

[hagagaga]

Summary of common knowledge about this war:
Edward the Confessor dies without heir. His brother-in-law gets crowned, his mother's most powerful relative, the Duke of Normandy, gets what in CKII terms, is probably the equivalent of a strong claim. The king of Normandy, being the successor to Cnut, who also held the English throne, gets what would probably be the equivalent of a weak claim. Both of those guys press their claims, with Norway pulling the new English king's brother in as an ally, but getting killed in battle, while Normandy ultimately succeeded.

How significant was Tostig's assistance to Harald III Hard-Counsel (and yes, I refer to Edward the Confessor's father as the modern English "Aethelred Ill-Counsel" too be consistent between the two etymologically-related nicknames).

Were the Norwegian/Northumbrian forces really caught drunk and unarmed at Stamford Bridge?

Would Harold Godwinson have actually been able to call up the fyrd at Hastings (it seems pretty uncontroversial to assert that if he had those additional troops, he would have probably won the battle)?

 

[Eusebio]

1) Difficult to say. Considering how badly he had alienated the northern Earls I doubt he was a political asset.
2) I don't know about drunk and unarmed, but the Norwegian army was definitely caught unawares. Harold's march up north was at an impressive speed.
3) I'm not sure what you mean? Harold did have the fyrd at Hastings. The battle was such a close-run thing that of course more troops would have tilted the balance.

 

[Fornadan]

Harald Hardrada set out in the morning with part of his army to meet the local dignitaries of York to settle the government of that city. They left their mail behind but had their shields and weapons (obviously, otherwise there would have been no battle)

 

[Gordy]

Summary of common knowledge about this war:
Edward the Confessor dies without heir. His brother-in-law gets crowned, his mother's most powerful relative, the Duke of Normandy, gets what in CKII terms, is probably the equivalent of a strong claim. The king of Normandy, being the successor to Cnut, who also held the English throne, gets what would probably be the equivalent of a weak claim. Both of those guys press their claims, with Norway pulling the new English king's brother in as an ally, but getting killed in battle, while Normandy ultimately succeeded.

How significant was Tostig's assistance to Harald III Hard-Counsel (and yes, I refer to Edward the Confessor's father as the modern English "Aethelred Ill-Counsel" too be consistent between the two etymologically-related nicknames).

Were the Norwegian/Northumbrian forces really caught drunk and unarmed at Stamford Bridge?

Would Harold Godwinson have actually been able to call up the fyrd at Hastings (it seems pretty uncontroversial to assert that if he had those additional troops, he would have probably won the battle)?

"Badly advised" would be a better translation.

 

[JodelDiplom]

"Badly advised" would be a better translation.

same thing isn't it? "Ill-counseled" and "badly advised" that is.

 

[Gordy]

same thing isn't it? "Ill-counseled" and "badly advised" that is.

But not "ill-counsel" which suggests that he is giving the bad advice. Plus "ill-counselled" is borderline archaic itself.

 

[JodelDiplom]

But not "ill-counsel" which suggests that he is giving the bad advice. Plus "ill-counselled" is borderline archaic itself.

I'm not saying "ill-counseled" is the better translation, just that it's no worse than your proposal "badly advised". Archaic maybe, but certainly not incomprehensible to a person who cares about old Aethelred.

 

[hagagaga]

3) I'm not sure what you mean? Harold did have the fyrd at Hastings. The battle was such a close-run thing that of course more troops would have tilted the balance.

Alright. I read somewhere that he chose not to bring the normal levies to Hastings.

 

[stevieji]

Alright. I read somewhere that he chose not to bring the normal levies to Hastings.

Most of the army was made up of the fyrd - only about 3,000 were professional housecarls. Various calculations have been made of the potential size of the army. There was a distinction made between the 'general fyrd', which would only normally be required to act as local militia - in defence of their local area - and the 'select fyrd', which is equivalent to what we might call the levy.

It has certainly been suggested that by pausing in London and gathering reinforcements, including the general fyrd, the total force might have been increased by two or three thousand. The army would also have been better rested, which may also have been a factor in the defeat. The problem was the Normans were generally running amock on the south coast and the King's primary duty was the defence of his people, so Harold probably didn't feel he had that option.

 

[yerm]

I'm not saying "ill-counseled" is the better translation, just that it's no worse than your proposal "badly advised". Archaic maybe, but certainly not incomprehensible to a person who cares about old Aethelred.

Ill council implies some level of negative intent or deceit. Bad council does not necessarily. That's the basic difference between the two. I think "Ill Advised" would probably be the ideal depiction, since that term still sees modern use.

 

[stevieji]

Ill council implies some level of negative intent or deceit. Bad council does not necessarily. That's the basic difference between the two. I think "Ill Advised" would probably be the ideal depiction, since that term still sees modern use.

Quite an odd discussion this. It was a joke - a disrespectful twist on his name Aethelred, which means, literally, 'noble counsel'. Because he was considered a bad ruler he was called 'Unraed', which means either 'no counsel' or 'bad counsel'. The exact contemporary meaning isn't really so important, because it's just an Old English pun.