• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Harrying Of The North

Kondoru

Beloved of Ra
Joined
Dec 5, 2003
Messages
10,639
What about the Harrying of the North?

I was reading about the New Forest and how it was lies that the area was cleared of villages.

But Im not sure what happened around that time in the North of England.
 
What about the Harrying of the North?

I was reading about the New Forest and how it was lies that the area was cleared of villages.

But Im not sure what happened around that time in the North of England.
William 1 was absolutely one of those people who would cut off his nose to spite his face. Some historians reckon it took 200 years for the North to recover. The Stephen and Matilda era was another episode of mutual self destruction - but that's my point - decimating the peasants led to economic decline, starvation and anarchy. Subsequent monarchs took note, generally speaking. Hence the relatively mild treatment of Wat Tyler's lot.
 
"Hi guys, what's going on in this thread?"

prince-william-2.jpg
 
Things had just got sorted out after William the Bastard and his Harrying then the Black Death came along. Things recovered a bit then Henry the Eighth killed shedloads of people after the Pilgrimage of Grace. It’s grim up North.
 
Well, If I may say (imho) that if Edwin and Morcar had got their backsides and forces in a bit more of a shift and had come South quick enough to help King Harold at Hastings, then its highly likely this harrying wouldn’t have ever happened...
 
Well, If I may say (imho) that if Edwin and Morcar had got their backsides and forces in a bit more of a shift and had come South quick enough to help King Harold at Hastings, then its highly likely this harrying wouldn’t have ever happened...
Not 100% sure Harold would have lasted too long even if he had stuffed Bill at Hastings. Too many sharks circling.
 
... No, can’t agree, he’d destroyed Hardrada at Stamford Bridge, and with The Bastards scalp at Hastings, who would have had the nads to challenge Him in battle, for the foreseeable?
Two massive victories over a pair of the most famous and ruthless warriors in Europe, would have been seen not only as Devine “ approval” but as cementing a reputation as probably England’s greatest warrior King.
Plus, Edith ( Edwin and Morcar’s sister) was already pregnant, so Harold had already proven his ability secure the succession...
 
I agree but i wonder if one of his brothers might have been tempted to unseat him. Anyway it’s pointless speculation. I always have a bit if a pang of regret thinking about Harold, he was so unlucky at the end.
 
Oh yes, I’m a bit of a 1066 ‘ what if’ anorak - I do enjoy a bit of historical alternate history... I’d be very surprised if Gryth or Leofwine would have dared or even wanted to challenge for the throne- its almost impossible to guess or judge the personality of people nigh on a 1000 years ago, however, they had stayed totally loyal to Harold, through the crisis of 1065 and Tostig’s exile, until they died with the King in 1066.

Hastings, whilst not a battle with anywhere near the “majesty” military flair or scale of a Cannae or Marathon, imho was probably the most important battle in British history, and quite possibly one of the very most important in World history.

A victory for Harold and the entire direction of English society structure, its attitudes and outlook, political focus, religious direction, etc would be entirely and utterly different, and we would live in an entirely different World- most likely without the Empire ever existing at all...just imagine that!
If only Harold had waited another week before marching to confront the Bastard and his thieving supporters!
 
Oh yes, I’m a bit of a 1066 ‘ what if’ anorak - I do enjoy a bit of historical alternate history... I’d be very surprised if Gryth or Leofwine would have dared or even wanted to challenge for the throne- its almost impossible to guess or judge the personality of people nigh on a 1000 years ago, however, they had stayed totally loyal to Harold, through the crisis of 1065 and Tostig’s exile, until they died with the King in 1066.

Hastings, whilst not a battle with anywhere near the “majesty” military flair or scale of a Cannae or Marathon, imho was probably the most important battle in British history, and quite possibly one of the very most important in World history.

A victory for Harold and the entire direction of English society structure, its attitudes and outlook, political focus, religious direction, etc would be entirely and utterly different, and we would live in an entirely different World- most likely without the Empire ever existing at all...just imagine that!
If only Harold had waited another week before marching to confront the Bastard and his thieving supporters!
I live not far from Stamford Bridge and the local history group was going to set up a project to find the 'true' site of the battle. There is an area of land called Battle Flats (now a housing estate) where it is traditionally thought the combat took place. However, no evidence has ever been found. I was involved in an archaeological dig on an adjacent piece of land where there was evidence of a roman villa but no battle. Not too far away is the village of Buttercrambe, which has an ancient hill fort close by the river Derwent and could possibly be an alternate site.
 
I’m trying to recall the telly history programme* where the presenter illustrated the Harrying with a map of the UK. On it, he’d shown the areas where the tax income listed in Domesday Book had dropped by a large percentage.

It was possible to see the movement of William’s army through the country as a swathe of red across the land; the red areas being described in Domesday as - IIRC - “waste”.

* lt might have been Richard Holmes in Series 2 of the superb War Walks.

maximus otter
 
Last edited:
If it had happened in the South it would be all over the history books.

North...hardly a mention.
 
My review of a book on Norman Ireland, as well as harrying the Irish they engaged in constant internecine wars.

Life In Medieval Ireland: Witches, Spies and Stockholm Syndrome by Finbar Dwyer
C-format, paperback | 232pp | ISBN: 9781848407404 | Release Date: June 2019 €11.95.


This is a popular history of Norman Ireland covering the period between the late twelfth and fourteenth centuries. It is a story of dispossession of the native Irish by arriving Norman colonists, of alliances, backstabbing, wars, famine and plague. There never was a truly peaceful period as the Normans engaged in Civil War and Ireland was invaded by Edward the Bruce. The dispossessed Gaels retreated to their mountain fastnesses but often emerged to slaughter the invaders and burn towns.

But there is much of interest to Forteans as well. We have feuding Franciscans killing each other in a fracas between Anglo-Norman and Gaelic Irish Friars at a meeting in Cork in 1291, maybe someone passed the mead the wrong way around the table. Fighting clerics were not unusual in Ireland at the time as the Hospitaller Order in Dublin often sent warrior monks into the Wicklow mountains to subdue Irish raiders.

The Knights Templar were also powerful in Norman Ireland controlling ports and access to inland waterways. Their immediate access to ships may have allowed some members of the order to escape (with treasure no doubt) when they were suppressed in Ireland as no ships are listed among the items seized by Royal Officials. The accused faced a panel of Three Dominican and Two Franciscan judges in a trial that lasted for six months. No verdict is recorded and the Templar Brothers were eventually released and given a stipend of two pence a day. Better than burning at the stake as so many of their Brethern did elsewhere.

Times of famine resulted in cases of cannibalism. In 1295 the poor of Dublin were reported to have eaten the bodies of executed prisoners. On 27 June 1331 the people of Dublin were saved from starvation when several hundred whales beached themselves at the mouth of the Liffey. There are no reports of anyone trying to save the whales (other than salting down their remains).

Tales of witch trials usually resulted in the execution of servants rather than any person of status. Alice Kyteter who had four husbands die in suspicious circumstances came close to facing the gallows/stake but connections saved her.

Heresy trials in some cases came about due to the marrying of old Gaelic beliefs with Christianity. A mythical Irish hero Aedh Eanghach would save the Irish, but he gained his powers from Mother Nature.A reaction to the Christian Church supporting the Norman Invaders. For preaching such a creed, Adam Dubh O’Toole was burned at the stake in Dublin in 1328. The heresy continued to gain currency as two more men were burned at the stake in 1353 at Bunratty by order of the Bishop of Waterford.

An entertaining popular history based on surviving records than myths. 8/10.
 
Hastings has always fascinated me. A pivotal moment in history and probably art and literature as well.

I can’t remember where I read the theory, but the idea was that Harold was unnerved by William’s possession of the papal banner, indicating that William had the Pope’s blessing. As a result he decided to effectively do nothing but stand on the hill awaiting the outcome which would be God’s will.

IMHO if he had ordered a general advance following the panic in William’s left (?) wing when they fell back and the Saxon right(?) wing advanced then a general panic may have ensued. The lack of decisive action isn’t typical of Harold. Horses won’t stand against an infantry charge and Harold’s housecarls were a formidable bunch and would probably have been fronting the advance.

The idea that this retreat was a Norman ploy doesn't (to me) stand up. Maybe if there was a second retreat but that isn't certain.

And if William was a bastard what about his brother Bishop Odo?!
 
Well, If I may say (imho) that if Edwin and Morcar had got their backsides and forces in a bit more of a shift and had come South quick enough to help King Harold at Hastings, then its highly likely this harrying wouldn’t have ever happened...
They were busy. Arguing. Siding with, t'others.
 
I live not far from Stamford Bridge and the local history group was going to set up a project to find the 'true' site of the battle. There is an area of land called Battle Flats (now a housing estate) where it is traditionally thought the combat took place. However, no evidence has ever been found. I was involved in an archaeological dig on an adjacent piece of land where there was evidence of a roman villa but no battle. Not too far away is the village of Buttercrambe, which has an ancient hill fort close by the river Derwent and could possibly be an alternate site.
Dry interesting...yes I was in Stamford Bridge some years ago... I was driving a 1970 Morris Oxford, bought unseen on Ebay from Edinburgh to home in Reigate, and stopped off on route. Had a nice chip supper in a cafe almost opposite the battle memorial.
I spent some time in a local pub and did try to engage some locals in where the battle was, and kinda strangely most either had no idea, or even denied knowledge of said battle... maybe it was a bit of “game” the Southerner!?
 
Dry interesting...yes I was in Stamford Bridge some years ago... I was driving a 1970 Morris Oxford, bought unseen on Ebay from Edinburgh to home in Reigate, and stopped off on route. Had a nice chip supper in a cafe almost opposite the battle memorial.
I spent some time in a local pub and did try to engage some locals in where the battle was, and kinda strangely most either had no idea, or even denied knowledge of said battle... maybe it was a bit of “game” the Southerner!?
The pub was probably either the Bay Horse which is next to the chippie, or The Swordsman which is next to the river and gets its name from the legend of a giant viking swordsman who held up Harold's advance on the bridge (eventually dispatched by a spear shoved upwards from under the bridge!). Incidentally, the main road through Stamford Bridge is the A166, I think it was very short sighted of the authorities not to make it the A1066!
 
Hastings has always fascinated me. A pivotal moment in history and probably art and literature as well.

I can’t remember where I read the theory, but the idea was that Harold was unnerved by William’s possession of the papal banner, indicating that William had the Pope’s blessing. As a result he decided to effectively do nothing but stand on the hill awaiting the outcome which would be God’s will.

IMHO if he had ordered a general advance following the panic in William’s left (?) wing when they fell back and the Saxon right(?) wing advanced then a general panic may have ensued. The lack of decisive action isn’t typical of Harold. Horses won’t stand against an infantry charge and Harold’s housecarls were a formidable bunch and would probably have been fronting the advance.

The idea that this retreat was a Norman ploy doesn't (to me) stand up. Maybe if there was a second retreat but that isn't certain.

And if William was a bastard what about his brother Bishop Odo?!
...it was supposed to have been the succession “oath” extracted under duress- as brilliantly portrayed on the Bayeux Tapestry, just look at Harold’s body language and face- when he was a “ guest” of William in 1064- that was said to weigh heavily in some men’s minds...but as it was a forced one, was regarded apparently by Bishops Ealdred and Stigand as null, and most importantly the Saxon kingship was not something that could be “betrothed” or guaranteed even by the King to the Athelings - the Witan would generally have to be in agreement too, therefore Harold’s “ promise” was pretty much worthless in Saxon eyes...

The Popes support for William was purely self interest- the Vatican had been looking to bring the rather “Celtic” English Church into line with Rome for some time and basically justified backing the Normans smash and grab accordingly, and I’m sure that fact that the Normans were the dominant military force in Italy had nothing to do with that decision!

It is also reported that Gryth did offer to take the army South to confront William, releasing Harold from this “oath” initially, but Harold refused stating it was his place as King to do so- and I don’t think that Harold’s speed of response and willingness to bring the Normans to battle indicated that he was happy to sit on hill and await Gods “judgement”-there are mentions in at least one variant of the ASC that the Normans came upon Harold before all his forces had gathered...
IMHO I think he maybe, just maybe thought that he could pull off a second Stamford Bridge, strike swiftly, strike hard- and or at the very least contain them until the full forces of the North and the Southwest arrived and the Saxon fleet could be brought around the coast to also attack the Normans via their beachhead; after all Harold could play for a draw, which he very nearly achieved.
 
Hastings has always fascinated me. A pivotal moment in history and probably art and literature as well.

I can’t remember where I read the theory, but the idea was that Harold was unnerved by William’s possession of the papal banner, indicating that William had the Pope’s blessing. As a result he decided to effectively do nothing but stand on the hill awaiting the outcome which would be God’s will.

IMHO if he had ordered a general advance following the panic in William’s left (?) wing when they fell back and the Saxon right(?) wing advanced then a general panic may have ensued. The lack of decisive action isn’t typical of Harold. Horses won’t stand against an infantry charge and Harold’s housecarls were a formidable bunch and would probably have been fronting the advance.

The idea that this retreat was a Norman ploy doesn't (to me) stand up. Maybe if there was a second retreat but that isn't certain.

And if William was a bastard what about his brother Bishop Odo?!
Oh yes you’re right there- the collapse of the Breton left wing was an incredibly good opportunity for Harold to order a general advance, and I think with William being seen to get cut down, and the entire Saxon line slamming into the collapsing Norman line and probably rolling it up would have meant a rout, that even William couldn’t have stopped, and a stunning Saxon victory.

It is suggested that as Harold was on foot, rather than on horseback and therefore didn’t either see this in time, or didn’t have time to order the line to stay put, that it was an initiative by either Gryth or Leofwine, leading to only a portion of a charge, in which at least one of the brothers was killed. Of course Harold had picked ( or been forced into) an excellent defensive position ( not unlike Waterloo in some respects) so it may have been incredibly difficult decision to abandon it, especially as every Norman attack had failed.

Then again it’s easy for me, an armchair warrior to surmise what “ should” have been done- it’s hard to really imagine and appreciate the sheer terror, noise, and brutality of one of the hardest fought battles in British History.
 
...it was supposed to have been the succession “oath” extracted under duress- as brilliantly portrayed on the Bayeux Tapestry, just look at Harold’s body language and face- when he was a “ guest” of William in 1064- that was said to weigh heavily in some men’s minds...but as it was a forced one, was regarded apparently by Bishops Ealdred and Stigand as null, and most importantly the Saxon kingship was not something that could be “betrothed” or guaranteed even by the King to the Athelings - the Witan would generally have to be in agreement too, therefore Harold’s “ promise” was pretty much worthless in Saxon eyes...

The Popes support for William was purely self interest- the Vatican had been looking to bring the rather “Celtic” English Church into line with Rome for some time and basically justified backing the Normans smash and grab accordingly, and I’m sure that fact that the Normans were the dominant military force in Italy had nothing to do with that decision!

It is also reported that Gryth did offer to take the army South to confront William, releasing Harold from this “oath” initially, but Harold refused stating it was his place as King to do so- and I don’t think that Harold’s speed of response and willingness to bring the Normans to battle indicated that he was happy to sit on hill and await Gods “judgement”-there are mentions in at least one variant of the ASC that the Normans came upon Harold before all his forces had gathered...
IMHO I think he maybe, just maybe thought that he could pull off a second Stamford Bridge, strike swiftly, strike hard- and or at the very least contain them until the full forces of the North and the Southwest arrived and the Saxon fleet could be brought around the coast to also attack the Normans via their beachhead; after all Harold could play for a draw, which he very nearly achieved.
There is the theory that the oath never happened, purely Norman propaganda. The Anglo Saxon Chronicle doesn't mention any visit by Harold in the year in question apparently, although sources are sparse. And of course the tapestry was an instrument of propaganda.

Did Harold know about the granting of the papal banner to William before he saw it at Hastings?

As you say, What Tyler it’s all very easy from an armchair but battles at that time were incredibly brutal and any control of forces must have been difficult. Look at the differing accounts and times given for events at Waterloo although there was less smoke at Hastings.

Always thought Harold had a raw deal, as his enemies wrote most of his history. Rather like another interest of mine Hannibal, all the surviving accounts are by his enemies.
 
The large number of Bretons (and Flemish and probably various other non-Normans) in the army is interesting as Alan the Breton ended up running huge tracts of England after Hastings. So perhaps there is a bit too much focus on the Norman iron fist and not enough on the other chancers who were involved.
 
The large number of Bretons (and Flemish and probably various other non-Normans) in the army is interesting as Alan the Breton ended up running huge tracts of England after Hastings. So perhaps there is a bit too much focus on the Norman iron fist and not enough on the other chancers who were involved.
Yes, I think William promised a whole load of thugs and chancers land and titles if they helped him and he won. In a more diplomatic age Harold may have been able to buy some of them off.

By our standards none of the protagonists were nice people. The Godwin's return to the West Country after their exile was marked by slaughtering some of the inhabitants. Harold's father and his brother Tostig were deeply unpleasant. IMO Harold was the best of a bad bunch.
 
Yes, I think William promised a whole load of thugs and chancers land and titles if they helped him and he won. In a more diplomatic age Harold may have been able to buy some of them off.

By our standards none of the protagonists were nice people. The Godwin's return to the West Country after their exile was marked by slaughtering some of the inhabitants. Harold's father and his brother Tostig were deeply unpleasant. IMO Harold was the best of a bad bunch.
Yes, agree there- though there is much to admire about Harold, it’s no doubt that he was a “Man of His Time”- and quite the ruthless warlord as and when required; eg was throwing Tostig “under the bus” in ‘65 to avoid a civil war, or to give Himself the chance of a fairly quiet kingdom when Edward passed?

And of course there’s the episode of Edward the Exile- although Harold seems to have been instrumental in returning Him to England in 1057, his sudden death ( ok, not that unusual in the 11th cent) before getting to see King Edward, has and does seem a little, well “ unfortunate”... could it be that Harold saw the Exile has not having the strength or ability to rule- being almost entirely foreign in outlook and temperament, and most probably not being able to hold England together? Who knows?. Accidents happen...

IMHO, there’s little doubt that Harold was the best Man for the job in Jan 1066; virtually Sub-King since 1055, a proven, battle hardened and successful General, politically able, with a prominent reputation in Europe, and again, proven ruthless enough to kick his Brother out; all “good” qualities required of a strong King.
No saint definitely, but yes, I think it’s fair He probably was the very best of a bad bunch!
 
Back
Top