Recently this summer I visited Scarborough(E.Yorkshire) with my girlfriend on the way home we decided to detour slightly and visit the scene of arguably one of the most violent battles in British history...Stamford Bridge (25th Sept, 1066).
When we arrived there, we struggled even to locate anything to commemorate the climactic and hugely-important battle and, when we finally did(near the S-bend over the bridge- the newer one nearby, not the long-gone 'original') we were peed off to find just one small and briefly-written plaque bolted into a huge pillar near a car park...like an afterthought!
Though Harold's other gruelling all-day and evenly-fought bloody battle (Hastings) deservedly gets huge attention, this bruiser deserves much more high-profile attention?
It's like we supposedly patriotic English/British are ashamed of our Anglo-Saxon past? Barely more mention than Scarborough council's tourist board's clueless ignorance regarding their own town's utter sacking in Sept 1066 by Hardrada's southward-bound invasion fleet of 300 shipfuls of hardened viking warriors, which then sailed up the Humber and fought two major pitched battles(Fulford Gate 20th Sept & Stamford Bridge five days after)?
Had it not been for this brutal, day-long struggle on 'battle flats' at Stamford near York(which saw the deaths of over 80-90% of the fearsome Norwegian King Harald hardrada's invasion army, including he himself plus Tostig, 'turncoat' brother of the English King) - the second of three huge battles during 1066 - King Harold would have been ready for William(not exhausted and depleted), on the south coast(over 230miles away), with a fresh, full and prepared Saxon army & navy- with archers(and not still straggling along the 'great north road' hastening to follow and join Harold in the south).
Had this been so, and bearing in mind that the English fought a ferocious and even battle at Hastings all day anyway, it is likely that the Normans would probably have been battered back into the sea before disembarkation, assuming the Saxon fleet hadn't scattered them first, which clearly would have drastically altered English/British history?
And what mention in our history books of the hugely important achievements of Kings Edward the Elder and Athelstan- Alfred the Great's son and grandson respectively?
It may be difficult to do the period in detail, due to the lack of primary sources, but the period 400-1100 is incredibly important for England (the Aenglish people !?) and should not be ignored.
When you see the incredible craftsmanship of items like the Aelred Jewel and the book decorations (even if they all tend to get incorporated within popular books of "Celtic" decorations - no other influences being acknowledged), there is so much that could be included within this period to bring it to life.
I sometimes wonder if it isn't a form of bizarre political correctness, rather than historical laziness for a difficult period, that is prepared to teach the various histories of the peoples that now make up this good land - but not teach about the native English peoples (or at least the Anglo-Saxon element of the native peoples here) ? If the natives didn't feel so threatened (officials trying to pretend they don't exist) then some could be more relaxed about the way this country is developing - and not take it as a take-over.
"If the natives didn't feel so threatened (officials trying to pretend they don't exist) then some could be more relaxed about the way this country is developing - and not take it as a take-over."
A lot of people feel that takeover is what we are looking at
Frank Field MP
"If we are not careful, we will be transformed into a global traffic station and that is not what most people mean by being part of a country."
The anglo-saxons were a military dictatorship and if there is at least one good thing about a military dictatorship it is that they prevent invasions and the anglo-saxons failed miserably at this. Asking what if the norwegians and normans didn't attack at the same time is like complaining that it is raining, of course it was planned and the anglo-saxons failed to predcit this and prepare, they didn't even have a navy capable of preventing the normans and norwegians getting across the sea in the first place. Alfred the great may have been one of the better kings, but again to expect that every anglo-saxon king was like alfred the great is like expecting a person never to lie or steal in their life. Quit whining, the anglo-saxons were nothing special and failed miserably compared to their Norse and Charlemagnean neighbours. Their culture was responsible for the dark age and kept most of europe until the franks and norse advanced beyond it.
I fail to see how being ashamed of our anglo-saxon heritage has anything to do with not wanting to find out more about them. Of course we want to find out more about them. You asked that since you agree with me and believe no one wants to learn about anglo-saxons because they want to look only at the good things that happenned in history and not the bad things. Well we history is also about preventing history from repeating itself by looking at the mistakes people have made, for instance embracing certain corruptive elements in anglo-saxon culture.
So, what caused the anglo-saxons to be such a dismal failure? I believe it had to do with their technology, no cavalry, no decent navy, no castle complexes, no administrative system to centralise and organise the creation of a navy, no large cities. What I don't know is why they persisted in being so uncivilised. Novgorod during the 900s had a population of around 100000, whilst London had a population of only around 15000, whilst their farmland was much more productive and they had the same access to the sea.
Originally posted by zwaraaaa: The anglo-saxons were a military dictatorship and if there is at least one good thing about a military dictatorship it is that they prevent invasions and the anglo-saxons failed miserably at this. Asking what if the norwegians and normans didn't attack at the same time is like complaining that it is raining, of course it was planned and the anglo-saxons failed to predcit this and prepare, they didn't even have a navy capable of preventing the normans and norwegians getting across the sea in the first place. Alfred the great may have been one of the better kings, but again to expect that every anglo-saxon king was like alfred the great is like expecting a person never to lie or steal in their life. Quit whining, the anglo-saxons were nothing special and failed miserably compared to their Norse and Charlemagnean neighbours. Their culture was responsible for the dark age and kept most of europe until the franks and norse advanced beyond it.
I fail to see how being ashamed of our anglo-saxon heritage has anything to do with not wanting to find out more about them. Of course we want to find out more about them. You asked that since you agree with me and believe no one wants to learn about anglo-saxons because they want to look only at the good things that happenned in history and not the bad things. Well we history is also about preventing history from repeating itself by looking at the mistakes people have made, for instance embracing certain corruptive elements in anglo-saxon culture.
So, what caused the anglo-saxons to be such a dismal failure? I believe it had to do with their technology, no cavalry, no decent navy, no castle complexes, no administrative system to centralise and organise the creation of a navy, no large cities. What I don't know is why they persisted in being so uncivilised. Novgorod during the 900s had a population of around 100000, whilst London had a population of only around 15000, whilst their farmland was much more productive and they had the same access to the sea.
You're the bitter poster who's whining! You clearly have an axe to grind- that's your view, but in your innaccurate, unresearched and caustic inconclusions I think you're talking out of your anti-English backside. That's my view.
The avaricious, overhyped and ruthless Normans usurped the English throne by military force(when England was weakened by two recent major pitched battles already).
England had long been a very wealthy economy, busy agricultural and trading tradition and had a complex taxation assessment system(equal to or indeed more advanced than Europe by the time of Edward the Confessor), high-quality coinage and strong laws.
Culturally, England had been well advanced in the arts of detailed and quality embroideries/tapestries, producing beautifully-illuminated and ornate manuscipts (Bede) and jewellery (Alfred's 'brooch')- the former being a particular target of the vikings.
The skilful art of sword-making was well-practised and food urns and ornate pots were being made here.
It was also powerful militarily, as Kings such as Alfred the Great(who's navy DID beat the vikings many times in engagements), his son Edward the Elder(whose 'Reconquest' from the vikings 910-18 was totally successful, and whose issue married into many continental royal families) and grandson Athelstan (highly admired on the continent and in Scandinavian sagas) proved at the colossal battle of Brunanburh(937).
Edmund Ironside(1016)- mounted in battle- almost defeated Canute and the Danes but for the battlefield betrayal of Earl Edric Estroena, and Harold II(1066) proved that the Anglo-Saxons were a major military power(mounted or not), in 1063 against the Welsh and at Stamford Bridge in 1066(Sturlasson says that just one of the Anglo-danish Housecarls were "better than two of Harald's [hardrada's] best men")...and very nearly at Hastings also, which even the Norman hagiographers grudgingly admit.
As for your hopeless assumption about horses and Anglo-saxons;
There were "stud farms [in England] by the end of the 10thC" ('Weapons & Warfare in A/S England'- Sonia Chadwick-Hawkes)... "because they are mentioned in wills from then onwards"
King Ceolwulf of Mercia is mentioned in a charter of 875, who allowed parts of Worcester diocese to feed a stud farm. If this 'farming out' of horses to church lands was usual in England, then it might explain why the Vikings were able to seize horses so easily- by targetting and sacking churches which did this!
The Danes shipped a fleet over the Channel in 892 - with a large no. horses!
King Athelstan(924-39) declared that each landowner must provide him with 'two well-mounted men for every plough' in his possession, and that no horse should be sent overseas except as gifts(similar to the Frankish laws of thelate 8thC & early 9thC's)
The introduction of the office of "staller" (orig. Norse or Norman Comes Stabuli ??)- which suggests a keeper/trainer of a stable- may have been introduced by either Canute(via his scandinavian provinces?) or King Edward(via his Norman influences in exile?). Of the eight known stallers(ie.Osgod Clapa, who ret'd to England in 1049 from a 4yr exile to ravage or invade) five had exercised military functions connected with King's horses!
Pre-Canute(1016-35) England, warhorses had always been important vehicles for war(Alfred at Ashdown, Edmund Ironside during 1016 & Harold II in Wales & Stamford), but Canute's Scandinavian influence shifted the emphasis from them and onto the navy and the proud Germanic fighting tradition of the infantry warrior (Housecarls were introduced by Canute and his father, Swein Forkbeard).
Kings Alfred, Athelstan and Edmund 'Ironside' had fought battles on horseback at Ashdown(871); Brunanburh(937)? and Ashingdon(1016) respectively- as did Harold(and Tostig) in Wales in 1063 and at Stamford Bridge in 1066.
Go vent your pathetic bitterness and immaturity out on some anti-English board, until you leave school.
Well, zwaraaaa certainly seems to have a jaundiced view of an extremely successful monarchal system. The Anglo-Saxons are recognised nowadays as one of the first peoples to understand how coinage and commerce could be applied in a market economy (albeit rudimentary); the burhal system was a major reworking and innovation upon the Roman forts system for widespread defence of a growing realm; art and craft enjoyed a revitalisation...
The Anglo-Saxons (with the exception of Alfred) appear to be tarred with the barbarian brush to this day mostly because of the romantic view many have of the Romans and that it could only have been a time of post-Roman Empire collapse and decline. Collapse and decline there most definitely was but the Anglo-Saxons were one of Europes most successful monarchies in the wake of the Romans.
Rather like the later reign of Stephen (A Norman) who also always seems to get "a bad press", this period needs to be constantly revisited in the light of new archaeological finds.
I severely doubt that Charlemagne would have been looking to marry off one of his children to a child of Offa's if his kingdom was not highly regarded at the time and that is predominently how to view past societies; in their own terms.
I feel an essay coming on here...I like the Anglo-Saxons...Where have my Campbell books gone?
"You're the bitter poster who's whining! You clearly have an axe to grind- that's your view, but in your innaccurate, unresearched and caustic inconclusions I think you're talking out of your anti-English backside. That's my view.
The avaricious, overhyped and ruthless Normans usurped the English throne by military force(when England was weakened by two recent major pitched battles already)."
The only Saxon king of a unified England was Edward the confessor and he was the last and least Saxon king and he recognised how much of a failure England would be under Saxon rule and tried to hand over power to William, before being usurped by Harold who was part of a family that despised Edward and nearly threw the kingdom into ruin. Saxon England before hand, was never completely unified. You also ignored my irrefutable point that the saxons were incompetent for not building a navy or fighting a war on 2 fronts.
I'm not saying the Normans were great and wonderful, they were about as tyrannic as the Anglo-saxons, they were just better at it.
Sorry if I cut short my criticism of your argument here, but I really cannot be botherred since you have just made such a huge error. If you can disprove this last point or concise the rest of your argument I will bother reading the rest.
"Well, zwaraaaa certainly seems to have a jaundiced view of an extremely successful monarchal system. The Anglo-Saxons are recognised nowadays as one of the first peoples to understand how coinage and commerce could be applied in a market economy (albeit rudimentary); the burhal system was a major reworking and innovation upon the Roman forts system for widespread defence of a growing realm; art and craft enjoyed a revitalisation..."
All well and good, but it didn't work. I would gather that the Norwegian and Danish economy was just a fraction of the Saxon economy and on the defensive it would have been easier to protect the coasts and provide a reactionary force to invasions by the vikings. Even after the saxons were mostly conquerred they failed to adopt danish technology and react to something which threatenned their existence.
I didn't ignore your innaccurate 'point's(rants more like)- I just also cannot be bothered to argue here- as on another half-dozen history boards with bitter and pompous morons like YOU- with little clue as to historical balance or research, hence my cutting this dialogue short.
Ignorant idiots like you refuse to acknowledge or accept findings when ou trip over them. Keep rambling to yourself. Go get counselling for your chip, then maybe re-read your history books.
I don't get it? If the anglo-saxons were better, why did the Normans do a better job of protecting England from invasion than them? Why didn't they forsee fighting a war on 2 fronts and have the competence to react thusly and use the latest in military technology? If they had so many horses, why didn't they use them? Apparently they loist the battle of hastings because their ranks broke formation and to chase down a feinted retreat, why did they lack discipline?
Any historian would either realise I am right or have answers to these very simple realitic questions.
Why you are not thanking me for my criticism I do not know.
If I dare risk a mor moderate intervention. It is now seriously doubted wheterh Edward the Confessor did in fact "promise" the throne to William. See Ian Walker's excellent bigraphy of Harold, The Last Anglo-Saxon King for a powerful argument about the crisis of 1064-66. He argues convincingly to me that Edward wanted Harold to succeed.
One of the problems for me with the modern TV history programmes is that they have encouraged a spate of "better than" arguments. Does it really matter that the Normans were "better" than the Anglo-Saxons, and who says they were anyway. The Anglo-Saxons were not the dark age barbarians of popular myth. They were a sophisticated society who were able to defend themselves for nearly 500 years against a series of Viking incursions (with horses). By contrast, the Normans lasted a mere 100 or so years. And Hastings was a damned close affair. Harold II could have been our greatest king had he had a bit of luck (and worn a better helmet!)
Both cultures and peoples, Anglo-Saxons and Normans have contributed hugely to our modern English nation and culture. We should celebrate them both not argue about who was "better"! (IMHO)
As usual, victors get to write the history, which arrogant, clueless and pompous indoctrinated morons suck in(the above poster is at least two of those adjectives)- denying anything they don't like and totally ignoring anything positive about the opposing culture.
Staying on the same theme, but looking at a different times:
The Greeks were actually more advanced than the Romans, but the Romans triumphed in the end, and took their technology.
The Chinese were also more advanced than Genghis Khan and his mongol horde, but Genghis triumphed in battle.
William's victory was so so close, and Harold getting badly wounded, (not killed by the arrow, I have read that he pulled the arrow out of his eye), but this injury obviously made him defenceless, and also unable to lead the army. This must have sapped a lot of Morale of the Saxons.It was a lucky shot.
With more Saxons arriving all the time it was touch and go for the Normans. I do believe that the Saxon defence could have been organised better, Maybe delayed the attack for another 24 hours, so more infantry and possibly archers could have joined the Saxon line. Harold should also have implemented a more anti-cavalry strategy.
It was even admitted by the rapacious, manipulative Normans that Hastings was a very long, closely-fought and 'unusual' battle.
It was only the chance arrowshot that broke the English, as happened in medaeval armies. The arrival of reinforcements for Harold were too unreliably intermittent to affect the half-mile wide battlefront.
His archers were still walking the 240m south to Hastings(via London?) from York, after the colossal victory at Stamford(they must have been northern archers, as Harold's mostly-mounted army of thegns and housecarls only took 4/5 days to reach Stamford). Being poor, they couldn't afford horses and so it may have taken them the best part of a month to reach Hastings?
Bretwalda? Dark age barbarians? I never even used the word barbarian, you must not be talking about me. You were indeed mediating since you can't have been talking about me, you clearly decided not to contest the irrefutable facts and reasonning as you agree with me 100%.
The nature of reality is such that no matter how much you pretend facts do not exist, this does not change the facts. If someone becomes insane and believes he can fly using mind powers, he will not since his idea does not correlate with the laws of physics. Anyone who disagrees with the truth I have merely communicated to you there fore wishes to turn history into fantasy. The Saxons, Norse and the Normans were simply military dictatorships and the Saxons despite having the entire of England plenty of time, wood and labour to build a protective navy (and the other factors which all opponents to the truth have ignored completely and condescendingly like someone with the mental age of a child) and being on the defensive lost.
Zwaraaa, I have no idea who you are, how old you are or what you do, but you are evidently no student of history. The study of history is about expressing cogent arguments supported by salient facts. This allows for very different interpretations of same facts tha nevertheless could be equally true. This is especially the case the further back the period in question due, generally, to the reduced hard facts known and the fewer number of reliable sources. History is about opinion, and the study of it about expresing those in such a way as to persuade others and make them think about their own views more critically maybe.
It is not about ranting and stuffing your own opinions down everyone else's throat.
I can respect your opinion about the Anglo-Saxon monarchy, its strengths and weaknesses, but I expect you do do likewise about mine and other peoples'. Maybe, just maybe we have a point.
The Normans most certainly were a military dictatorship as you rightly point out, but I don't think the same can be said of the Anglo-Saxon monarchy. This arose from the Germanic tradition of the king as war-band leader, but over time in England had evolved. True, the king was still the recognised war leader, and it helped to have a good one, but by the 11th century it was no military dictatorship. The king could call upon his ealdormen and they in turn on their thegns, and of course he had his household troops, but much of the English army was the fyrd which could be called by popular assent (true attendance was not optional!) but it could not serve indefinitely. The definition of a military dictatorship is surely a regime that maintains itself in power through reliance upon oppression through military might. This the later Anglo-Saxons never did.
You may well disagree, but if you do please provide reasoned arguments to demolish mine, not a simple rant.
"This allows for very different interpretations of same facts tha nevertheless could be equally true."
This isn't a diplomatic religious debate if they contradict then only one can be true. Your disagreeing with this proves you have a child-like mentality. You know I'm right. See, it works!
