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.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.
I always knew it as the HARROWING of the North.
Not 100% sure Harold would have lasted too long even if he had stuffed Bill at Hastings. Too many sharks circling.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...
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.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!
The counterpoint - 'The Julianing of the South'.
And you wouldn't have quite so many SSB's thinking the Normans were a good thing.If it had happened in the South it would be all over the history books.
North...hardly a mention.
They were busy. Arguing. Siding with, t'others.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...
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 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 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.
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!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!?
...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...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.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?!
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....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.
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.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, 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?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.