Why did the Normans Slaughter so many Brits?
Prof. Marvel
everthing in sight.
Why was this necessary?
EG Land
Bryn Fraser
<repo...@fuse.net> writes
>When the Normans came ashore in 1066 at Pevensey, they started killing
>everthing in sight.
>
>Why was this necessary?
Have you been to Pevensey in October?
Absolutely nothing to do...
>
--
Bryn Fraser
--
We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.
Edward R. Murrow
--
http://www.finhall.demon.co.uk
http://www.thefrasers.com
Julian Richards
It was necessary to gain the initiative and draw the Saxons into
battle as soon as possible and to get Harold to be there in person. If
Harold had merely sent his brothers, then even after a successful
battle, William would have faced another, deeper in enemy territory,
with fewer men and possibly against a more organised defence.
The Saxons could have waited out the Normans who would exhaust both
the local provisions and the patience of the hired guns whilst at the
same time the Saxons would be building up their own armies.
--
Julian Richards
julian-richards "at" ntlworld.com
"My son has asked for a pair of Nike trainers.
He's ten years old, he should make his own"
"I bought a CD of whale music. Imagine my
disappointment when I got home to discover
that it was actual a cover version by a tribute
band of dolphins"
Prof. Marvel
"Julian Richards" <s...@sig.co.uk> wrote in message
news:i81msvka5q3uj3j0u...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:36:16 -0500, "Prof. Marvel"
> <reporter@(removethis)fuse.net> wrote:
>
> >When the Normans came ashore in 1066 at Pevensey, they started killing
> >everthing in sight.
> >
> >Why was this necessary?
>
> It was necessary to gain the initiative and draw the Saxons into
> battle as soon as possible and to get Harold to be there in person. If
> Harold had merely sent his brothers, then even after a successful
> battle, William would have faced another, deeper in enemy territory,
> with fewer men and possibly against a more organised defence.
>
> The Saxons could have waited out the Normans who would exhaust both
> the local provisions and the patience of the hired guns whilst at the
> same time the Saxons would be building up their own armies.
>
>
> --
>
> Julian Richards
> julian-richards "at" ntlworld.com
>
Fine, this makes sense, although I'm not sure William was aware that Harold
was at Stamford bridge.
Prof Marvel
Julian Richards
<reporter@(removethis)fuse.net> wrote:
>Fine, this makes sense, although I'm not sure William was aware that Harold
>was at Stamford bridge.
Certainly he didn't know when he left Normandy. Whether he did before
the battle, I don't know. Perhaps not even then. The strategy of
drawing on the Saxons is applicable whether Harold had been in London
all the time or not. Had Hardrada not come, the battle would have been
far costlier for Normans, perhaps too costly.
The risks were enormous for William. It was believed to be too late in
the year for a sea crossing. The risk of going to battle with the
Saxons was huge, defeat would have been quite likely without Stamford
Bridge. Even then, the risks involved in then holding on to power were
great. If that were so, then why would William take such a risk and
chance everything? Like all medievals, he must have surely believed
that God was on this side and thus he did truly believe that he had a
valid claim and so the idea that he had really been promised the crown
would seem likely. He put everything on 13 black and won so who are we
to disagree?
--
Julian Richards
julian-richards "at" ntlworld.com
"My son has asked for a pair of Nike trainers.
Paul J Gans
>"Julian Richards" <s...@sig.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:i81msvka5q3uj3j0u...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:36:16 -0500, "Prof. Marvel"
>> <reporter@(removethis)fuse.net> wrote:
>>
>> >When the Normans came ashore in 1066 at Pevensey, they started killing
>> >everthing in sight.
>> >
>> >Why was this necessary?
>>
>> It was necessary to gain the initiative and draw the Saxons into
>> battle as soon as possible and to get Harold to be there in person. If
>> Harold had merely sent his brothers, then even after a successful
>> battle, William would have faced another, deeper in enemy territory,
>> with fewer men and possibly against a more organised defence.
>>
>> The Saxons could have waited out the Normans who would exhaust both
>> the local provisions and the patience of the hired guns whilst at the
>> same time the Saxons would be building up their own armies.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Julian Richards
>> julian-richards "at" ntlworld.com
>>
>Fine, this makes sense, although I'm not sure William was aware that Harold
>was at Stamford bridge.
>Prof Marvel
William's only real chance of winning was to draw Harold into
a pitched battle and winning a major victory. William was
outnumbered and on enemy soil.
The area he despoiled was primarily Harold's own possessions.
Make sense?
---- Paul J. Gans
Prof. Marvel
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:bqfgf3$qfm$2...@reader2.panix.com...
Huh? This discussion isn't about real estate.
Prof Marvel
Prof. Marvel
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 04:42:00 -0500, "Prof. Marvel"
> <reporter@(removethis)fuse.net> wrote:
>
> >Fine, this makes sense, although I'm not sure William was aware that
Harold
> >was at Stamford bridge.
>
> Certainly he didn't know when he left Normandy. Whether he did before
> the battle, I don't know. Perhaps not even then. The strategy of
> drawing on the Saxons is applicable whether Harold had been in London
> all the time or not. Had Hardrada not come, the battle would have been
> far costlier for Normans, perhaps too costly.
Oh, the Normans surely would have lost weren't it for Stamford Bridge, which
was my whole point about Tostig Godwineson. And was there really a need to
quickly draw Harold to battle? Harold had waited months for this very thing.
Surely, Williams spies informed him of this. King Harold needed no impetus
to quickly attack.
>
> The risks were enormous for William. It was believed to be too late in
> the year for a sea crossing. The risk of going to battle with the
> Saxons was huge, defeat would have been quite likely without Stamford
> Bridge. Even then, the risks involved in then holding on to power were
> great. If that were so, then why would William take such a risk and
> chance everything? Like all medievals, he must have surely believed
> that God was on this side and thus he did truly believe that he had a
> valid claim and so the idea that he had really been promised the crown
> would seem likely. He put everything on 13 black and won so who are we
> to disagree?
>
>
Huh? Slaughtering innocents is not God's work. This wasn't part of the
Crusades. The English peasants he slaughtered were Christian like himself.
Moreover, he simply purchased the Pope's blessing/banner by way of certain
promises. The idea that Harold broke a solemn vow and so thousands of
Englishmen must be put to the sword is ridiculous, something only a mad man
would come up with...come to think of it, maybe that best explains the Duke
of Normandy.
Prof. Marvel
(sent this by private mail in error)
C A Candy
Prof. Marvel <reporter@(removethis)fuse.net> wrote:
>
>"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:bqfgf3$qfm$2...@reader2.panix.com...
>> William's only real chance of winning was to draw Harold into
>> a pitched battle and winning a major victory. William was
>> outnumbered and on enemy soil.
>>
>> The area he despoiled was primarily Harold's own possessions.
>>
>> Make sense?
>>
>> ---- Paul J. Gans
>
>Huh? This discussion isn't about real estate.
It's entirely about real estate - namely, William wanted England but had
multiple rivals (in Harold and Harold) for the same plot. Land was power,
in a society where the major economic engines are either agricultural or
pastoral.
Reflecting that, magnates had certain duties that they had to
carry through on as part of the social framework of being a lord,
especially a king. One of those duties was that of defense - Harold, as
King of England, was duty-bound to defend the lands that he was sovereign
of. Moreover, these were his personal lands, which added another layer of
duty to defend them to that of those attached to his crown.
If he cannot defend his lands, he is failing to carry out his duties...
and by extension, is unworthy of the crown he holds. This in turn allows
those who give him homage and fealty the opportunity to claim he is
failing to uphold his part of the relationship, and they are therefore
free to support someone who can - with the fellow doing the despoiling
being the most obvious choice, as if he can despoil a land, he likely can
protect it. Depending on who you talk to, this was part of the chevauchee
strategy of Edward III and his successors during the fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries - a demonstration that he can destroy at will, or
choose not to destroy if given the loyalty of those threatened. It is
very difficult to avoid reacting rashly when your current and future
livelyhood is being burned up at the same time as your legitimacy as a
monarch.
Cheers,
Chris
------------------
Christopher Candy
Department of History
University of Durham
43 North Bailey
Durham DH1 3EX
United Kingdom
+44 191 334 1045
C.A....@durham.ac.uk
C A Candy
Prof. Marvel <reporter@(removethis)fuse.net> wrote:
>
>"Julian Richards" <s...@sig.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:kifmsvggv9634cg5u...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 04:42:00 -0500, "Prof. Marvel"
>> <reporter@(removethis)fuse.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Fine, this makes sense, although I'm not sure William was aware that
>Harold
>> >was at Stamford bridge.
>>
>> Certainly he didn't know when he left Normandy. Whether he did before
>> the battle, I don't know. Perhaps not even then. The strategy of
>> drawing on the Saxons is applicable whether Harold had been in London
>> all the time or not. Had Hardrada not come, the battle would have been
>> far costlier for Normans, perhaps too costly.
>
>
>Oh, the Normans surely would have lost weren't it for Stamford Bridge, which
>was my whole point about Tostig Godwineson. And was there really a need to
>quickly draw Harold to battle? Harold had waited months for this very thing.
>Surely, Williams spies informed him of this. King Harold needed no impetus
>to quickly attack.
You have it backwards - Harold had every reason to wait. William made it
across because Harold had sent the naval forces home. Meanwhile, Harold
was making his way south after a bruising fight - remember, the northern
Saxons had gotten thrashed just a few (three, if I recall?) days before
Stamford Bridge. If Harold had called out the navy again, he could have
cut off William from any possible escape or resupply from Normandy, while
gathering far more troops rather than those he raced south with to engage
William with. William had everything to lose if Harold showed patience,
so had to do everything possible to make Harold commit rather than
gathering the resources to do the job right.
>Huh? Slaughtering innocents is not God's work. This wasn't part of the
>Crusades. The English peasants he slaughtered were Christian like himself.
>Moreover, he simply purchased the Pope's blessing/banner by way of certain
>promises. The idea that Harold broke a solemn vow and so thousands of
>Englishmen must be put to the sword is ridiculous, something only a mad man
>would come up with...come to think of it, maybe that best explains the Duke
>of Normandy.
You're bringing modern morality into this. Technically, if William is the
proper, anointed king, those supporting Harold - and those living on his
personal lands are prime examples - are supporting a usurper against the
anointed. God's chosen. It's the sort of thing that can get you
excommunicated or interdicted. Now, if they run to William and join his
army, that's okay... but if they oppose him, they are committing the same
'sin' as Harold.
Civilians in all eras often find themselves the targets of military
action. It was regularly lambasted by ecclesiastics and chroniclers, and
carried right on through regardless because it has a distressing tendency
to work. William did it after his coronation as well, in the Harrying of
the North - a large-scale burning and pillaging of the northern counties
after rebellions and threatened support for Danish intervention. The
reasoning behind it was that they were a: traitorous and b: the only means
by which an effective military opposition could be supported. And it
worked - the Danes did not invade once they realized the support base for
feeding and supplying them had been burned out. Harsh? Yes. Worthy of
condemnation in modern terms? Yes. All too common in that period, and
with full moral justification? Well, by the standards of the time... yes,
pretty much.
Paul J Gans
>"Julian Richards" <s...@sig.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:kifmsvggv9634cg5u...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 04:42:00 -0500, "Prof. Marvel"
>> <reporter@(removethis)fuse.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Fine, this makes sense, although I'm not sure William was aware that
>Harold
>> >was at Stamford bridge.
>>
>> Certainly he didn't know when he left Normandy. Whether he did before
>> the battle, I don't know. Perhaps not even then. The strategy of
>> drawing on the Saxons is applicable whether Harold had been in London
>> all the time or not. Had Hardrada not come, the battle would have been
>> far costlier for Normans, perhaps too costly.
>Oh, the Normans surely would have lost weren't it for Stamford Bridge, which
>was my whole point about Tostig Godwineson. And was there really a need to
>quickly draw Harold to battle? Harold had waited months for this very thing.
>Surely, Williams spies informed him of this. King Harold needed no impetus
>to quickly attack.
That is not certain. The Normans needed food and the locals
were not about to donate it to them. Harold's best strategy
would have been to bring an army to the area and pick off
William's foragers until *William* was forced to move inland.
Tben he could have been cut off from his base and from getting
any further supplies from home.
>>
>> The risks were enormous for William. It was believed to be too late in
>> the year for a sea crossing. The risk of going to battle with the
>> Saxons was huge, defeat would have been quite likely without Stamford
>> Bridge. Even then, the risks involved in then holding on to power were
>> great. If that were so, then why would William take such a risk and
>> chance everything? Like all medievals, he must have surely believed
>> that God was on this side and thus he did truly believe that he had a
>> valid claim and so the idea that he had really been promised the crown
>> would seem likely. He put everything on 13 black and won so who are we
>> to disagree?
>>
>>
>Huh? Slaughtering innocents is not God's work. This wasn't part of the
>Crusades. The English peasants he slaughtered were Christian like himself.
>Moreover, he simply purchased the Pope's blessing/banner by way of certain
>promises. The idea that Harold broke a solemn vow and so thousands of
>Englishmen must be put to the sword is ridiculous, something only a mad man
>would come up with...come to think of it, maybe that best explains the Duke
>of Normandy.
I don't know where you got the notion that William put thousands
of Englishmen to the sword before the Battle of Hastings.
>Prof. Marvel
>(sent this by private mail in error)
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>Cheers,
>Chris
Exactly. William's actions also had the effect of impoverishing
Harold. That was not something that Harold looked forward to.
On the other hand, I don't recall anything on the pre-Hastings
raiding by the Normans that showed that large numbers of people
were killed.
Has the good Professor Marvel confused the later harrowing of the
North with the pre-Hastings depredations?
---- Paul J. Gans
Michael W Cook
wrote on 1/12/03 5:41 pm:
> That is not certain. The Normans needed food and the locals
> were not about to donate it to them. Harold's best strategy
> would have been to bring an army to the area and pick off
> William's foragers until *William* was forced to move inland.
> Tben he could have been cut off from his base and from getting
> any further supplies from home.
Not so simple as it sounds.
William was already 'boxed' in at the Hastings Peninsular, which with his
limited army was all he could likely secure without stretching his forces.
To his North was the Great Andredsweald Forrest, which covered most of the
Kent and Sussex Weald and barred his way, he was in no position to move
anywhere until he had gained a victory over Harold.
My feelings are, if Harold had avoided battle and as you say 'picked' off
Williams troops in small skirmishes here and there, William would have soon
been forced to retreat back to Normandy with his tail between his legs.
By destroying Harold's personnel property and making his own people suffer,
William was playing a smart card, as he knew there was a good chance Harold
would act irrationally and insist on facing William in person to revenge
such acts.
Personal pride and honour also played a very big part in this.
Cheers
Michael
Michael W Cook
Castles Abbeys and Medieval Buildings
http://www.castles-abbeys.co.uk
--
Prof. Marvel
"C A Candy" <c.a....@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:bqfubs$h...@altair.dur.ac.uk...
Ha, ha! Call out the Navy???
And ironically enough, directly below you accuse me of overly modern
thinking. Navel warfare hadn't evolved to the point you suggest. They had no
canons, no control of vessels if the wind wasn't blowing in the direction
you wanted to go. If the Norman amada was traveling north on the north wind
and Harold's ships were south, about the best they could do is wave and call
the Duke a "bastard" as he sailed by.
>
> >Huh? Slaughtering innocents is not God's work. This wasn't part of the
> >Crusades. The English peasants he slaughtered were Christian like
himself.
> >Moreover, he simply purchased the Pope's blessing/banner by way of
certain
> >promises. The idea that Harold broke a solemn vow and so thousands of
> >Englishmen must be put to the sword is ridiculous, something only a mad
man
> >would come up with...come to think of it, maybe that best explains the
Duke
> >of Normandy.
>
> You're bringing modern morality into this. Technically, if William is the
> proper, anointed king, those supporting Harold - and those living on his
> personal lands are prime examples - are supporting a usurper against the
> anointed. God's chosen. It's the sort of thing that can get you
> excommunicated or interdicted. Now, if they run to William and join his
> army, that's okay... but if they oppose him, they are committing the same
> 'sin' as Harold.
The Duke of Normandy conducted no survey when he landed. He just began
laying waste. His chevaliers and mercernaries entered towns, killed all the
males, raped all the women, and ate all the food. They did this town after
town. The townfolk were given no chance to state their opinion, no option
to join him, they were simply murdered on sight... or raped, as I say:
"They wiped out the towns of Hailsham, Herstmonceux, and Hoore and
countryside between, burning houses and barns, murdering farmers and
villagers while women and childrend looked on helplessly or fled in horror
to seek refuge in cemeteries, often in vain. The town of Ashburnham was
obliterated, burned to the ground, its citizens slaughtered....they then
marched on Crowhurst, Wilting and Filsham, laying them all waste, burning,
looting and murdering...."
-- Benton Rain Patterson, Harold and William,Cooper Square Press, ppg. 155
Prof Marvel
>
> Civilians in all eras often find themselves the targets of military
> action. It was regularly lambasted by ecclesiastics and chroniclers, and
> carried right on through regardless because it has a distressing tendency
> to work. William did it after his coronation as well, in the Harrying of
> the North - a large-scale burning and pillaging of the northern counties
> after rebellions and threatened support for Danish intervention. The
> reasoning behind it was that they were a: traitorous and b: the only means
> by which an effective military opposition could be supported. And it
> worked - the Danes did not invade once they realized the support base for
> feeding and supplying them had been burned out. Harsh? Yes. Worthy of
> condemnation in modern terms? Yes. All too common in that period, and
> with full moral justification? Well, by the standards of the time... yes,
> pretty much.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
See above...
Prof. Marvel
Yep, that would have worked. Also, had Harold waited for the fryd to regroup
he'd have had three times the amount of troops. Mind you, the battle was
touch and go until the Duke ordered his archers to aim over the English.
This turned the battle from a stalemate into a rout.
>
> >>
> >> The risks were enormous for William. It was believed to be too late in
> >> the year for a sea crossing. The risk of going to battle with the
> >> Saxons was huge, defeat would have been quite likely without Stamford
> >> Bridge. Even then, the risks involved in then holding on to power were
> >> great. If that were so, then why would William take such a risk and
> >> chance everything? Like all medievals, he must have surely believed
> >> that God was on this side and thus he did truly believe that he had a
> >> valid claim and so the idea that he had really been promised the crown
> >> would seem likely. He put everything on 13 black and won so who are we
> >> to disagree?
> >>
> >>
>
> >Huh? Slaughtering innocents is not God's work. This wasn't part of the
> >Crusades. The English peasants he slaughtered were Christian like
himself.
> >Moreover, he simply purchased the Pope's blessing/banner by way of
certain
> >promises. The idea that Harold broke a solemn vow and so thousands of
> >Englishmen must be put to the sword is ridiculous, something only a mad
man
> >would come up with...come to think of it, maybe that best explains the
Duke
> >of Normandy.
>
> I don't know where you got the notion that William put thousands
> of Englishmen to the sword before the Battle of Hastings.
Right here: "Harold and William, The Battle for England" by BR Patteerson,
Cooper Square Press.
Prof Marvel
Prof. Marvel
"Michael W Cook" <crusader_p...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BBF14DE6.15394%crusader_p...@hotmail.com...
But how does Harold's irrationality even began to compare to William's?
You see, rational thought had no place in this quarrel. Both men understood
the issue as a religious question:
Who did God want to be King? William was supremely convinced he was the
chosen one -- so much so he'd have
gone to Hastings alone if required. You'll recall, he invited Harold to duel
for the crown. Meanwhile, Harold knew avoiding an immediate, direct
confrontation would open question to his "divine" right to be king. This is
the thing he couldn't let William get away with. The murdering William was
doing was secondary.
Prof Marvel
Prof. Marvel
Don't forget, at Stamford, before Harold Hardrada was killed, King Harold
offerred Tostig this deal: one third of the kingdom if he would abandon the
NORWEGIAN KING AND REJOIN THE ENGLISH>>>OH OH HAVING TROUBLE WITH MY
COMPUTER>>> CAN"T FINISH THIS>>>
PROF MARVEL
Paul J Gans
Oh I agree. I should have mentioned the retreat
possibility. But I'm sure you'd agree that those
two were his only choices.
It was Harold's country. He knew it well. He had
the advantage of interior lines, essentially unlimited
reserves, and the tactical advantage.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
I'm getting a clue.
I'd love to know where Patterson got this information. Any
references given?
---- Paul J. Gans
C A Candy
Prof. Marvel <reporter@(removethis)fuse.net> wrote:
>
>"C A Candy" <c.a....@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:bqfubs$h...@altair.dur.ac.uk...
>> You have it backwards - Harold had every reason to wait. William made it
>> across because Harold had sent the naval forces home. Meanwhile, Harold
>> was making his way south after a bruising fight - remember, the northern
>> Saxons had gotten thrashed just a few (three, if I recall?) days before
>> Stamford Bridge. If Harold had called out the navy again, he could have
>> cut off William from any possible escape or resupply from Normandy, while
>> gathering far more troops rather than those he raced south with to engage
>> William with. William had everything to lose if Harold showed patience,
>> so had to do everything possible to make Harold commit rather than
>> gathering the resources to do the job right.
>
>
>Ha, ha! Call out the Navy???
Why, yes. The Saxons were actually well noted for it. However, like most
countries in Europe at the time, the Saxon naval forces were comprised of
standard civilian craft impressed into service and relying on
close-quarter combat and boarding of opponents to carry out the fighting.
Certain ports had obligations to provide a set number of ships for a
specified period each year, much as a knight's fee obliged its owner to
provide a knight for a set period of service each year. The most famous
of these ports were the Cinque Ports, clustered in Kent and eastern
Sussex. Hastings happens to be one of them.
>And ironically enough, directly below you accuse me of overly modern
>thinking. Navel warfare hadn't evolved to the point you suggest. They had no
>canons, no control of vessels if the wind wasn't blowing in the direction
>you wanted to go. If the Norman amada was traveling north on the north wind
>and Harold's ships were south, about the best they could do is wave and call
>the Duke a "bastard" as he sailed by.
While not naval warfare in the modern sense - it has been described as a
land skirmish at sea - they certainly were aware of the ways and means one
fights at sea. Piracy is an activity that has gone on since men went to
sea on anything that floated. England also had at this point nearly three
centuries of dealing with Viking raiders, who were very skilled at
seagoing affairs. I would suggest reading more on the subject - even
someting as old as Stenton's _Anglo-Saxon England_ discusses the use of
navies for defense during this period. By no means is naval science as
rudimentary as you seem to think it is during this period.
>> You're bringing modern morality into this. Technically, if William is the
>> proper, anointed king, those supporting Harold - and those living on his
>> personal lands are prime examples - are supporting a usurper against the
>> anointed. God's chosen. It's the sort of thing that can get you
>> excommunicated or interdicted. Now, if they run to William and join his
>> army, that's okay... but if they oppose him, they are committing the same
>> 'sin' as Harold.
>
>The Duke of Normandy conducted no survey when he landed. He just began
>laying waste. His chevaliers and mercernaries entered towns, killed all the
>males, raped all the women, and ate all the food. They did this town after
>town. The townfolk were given no chance to state their opinion, no option
>to join him, they were simply murdered on sight... or raped, as I say:
I'd suggest a slightly different set of readings on Hastings than
Patterson. Stephen Morillo's collection is a good starting point, as
would be general works such as Frank Barlow's _The Feudal Kingdom of
England 1042-1216_, or even Frank Stenton's _Anglo-Saxon England_, which
is still amazingly good considering its age. In particular, C.W.
Hollister's _Anglo-Saxon Military Institutions on the Eve of the Norman
Conquest_ might be a good read, or Matthew Strickland's work.
>"They wiped out the towns of Hailsham, Herstmonceux, and Hoore and
>countryside between, burning houses and barns, murdering farmers and
>villagers while women and childrend looked on helplessly or fled in horror
>to seek refuge in cemeteries, often in vain. The town of Ashburnham was
>obliterated, burned to the ground, its citizens slaughtered....they then
>marched on Crowhurst, Wilting and Filsham, laying them all waste, burning,
>looting and murdering...."
>
>-- Benton Rain Patterson, Harold and William,Cooper Square Press, ppg. 155
And whom is he quoting? The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, notably hostile to
William? Or some other source? Grain of salt, here. William had just
made a hostile landing on a foreign shore that had declared another man
than him king. How is he supposed to conduct a survey? Go door to door
and conduct a poll? The concept of a modern hearts and minds campaign
just isn't there in these circumstances.
Cheers,
Chris
Anne Gilbert
>
> Have you been to Pevensey in October?
>
> Absolutely nothing to do...
I don't know about what Pevensey is like in October, but what I heard was,
the Normans were hungry, didn't know the language, grabbed food, and the
English, well, the poor things got in the way. . . .
Anne G
Anne Gilbert
> Huh? Slaughtering innocents is not God's work. This wasn't part of the
> Crusades. The English peasants he slaughtered were Christian like himself.
> Moreover, he simply purchased the Pope's blessing/banner by way of certain
> promises. The idea that Harold broke a solemn vow and so thousands of
> Englishmen must be put to the sword is ridiculous, something only a mad
man
> would come up with...come to think of it, maybe that best explains the
Duke
> of Normandy.
I believe the only real reference to Harold "breaking a solemn oath" is that
scene in the BT where Harold supposedly swears on sacred relics. But
assuming for the sake of argument that this is some sort of "truth", Harold
may well have been in a position where he couldn't really do anything else.
Now what sort of a "solemn oath" is that? Even if William *did* claim that
Harold had broken some vow and perhaps used this as an excuse to get the
Pope to bless his banner.
Anne G
ED...@gyldendal.dk
<reporter@(removethis)fuse.net> wrote:
This would really hace surpriced the Danish king who in the mid 8th c
dug a canal across Samsų and thus obtained control of the Little Belt.
> If the Norman amada was traveling north on the north wind
>and Harold's ships were south, about the best they could do is wave and call
>the Duke a "bastard" as he sailed by..
The Saxon navy would be able to move conciderably faster than
the Norman invasion navy for the very simple reason that a large
part of the Norman navy was sailing transport ships. So unless William
left his cavalry his navy would be a sitting duck for the Saxon
warships with sail _and_ oars.
With the duke and his army in England the obvious choice for Harold if
Hastings was avoided, would have been to call up the navy and tell
them to raid Normandy - particular Williams bases, ships, and supply
line.
If William then tried to sail North, all Harold would do was hailing
him and asking him if his wife in Normandy liked bondage
and where he kept his silverware? - Unless of course he decided
to chase him with the navy at sea and shadow him with the army
on land.
If William tried to engage the Saxon navy then even a victory would
likely have cost him to much to face Harold in England.
Soren Larsen
ed...@gyldendal.dk
wrote:
I heard that the Normans were hungry and that the English offered them
some of theirs. The Normans being continental upon tasting it
naturally assumed that they were being poisoned. Sort of a tragic
accident
Soren Larsen
garyland
History tells us o no important navel battles up to and during this time
and there's a reason for that. Had Harold known the exact point William
would be crossing, the determining battle still would have been a land
battle. Conversely, 600 years later, the battle would have been won at sea.
The people William slaughtered had nothing to do with Harold declaring
himself king. Most common folk were unaware of the event and would have
cared less in any event. The point was made that William slaughtered
them to draw Harold into battle and this point is probably the one that
falls closer to the truth.
It was genocide. There was a great deal of rape. And it should be clear
this was the reason the people wound hating Normans as much as they did.
Prof. Marvel
garyland
> In article <3fcc0a91$0$30497$a04e...@nnrp.fuse.net>,
> Prof. Marvel <reporter@(removethis)fuse.net> wrote:
Damn, my newsreader keeps sending mail when I mean to post.
Prof. Marvel
garyland
Saxon? Why do you call the English "Saxon"? They called themselves
"English" and thought of themselves as English by this time. In any
event, navel warfare hadn't advanced any more than in Caesar's time 1000
years before. If, Harold was lucky enough to encounter Williams fleet,
and if the wind was with him when he did, some of his armada might be
able to engage in hand-to-hand combat with some of William's ships.
William had more than 200 ships, losing a few like this would have
mattered little.
>
> With the duke and his army in England the obvious choice for Harold if
> Hastings was avoided, would have been to call up the navy and tell
> them to raid Normandy - particular Williams bases, ships, and supply
> line.
No. That's ridiculous.
>
> If William then tried to sail North, all Harold would do was hailing
> him and asking him if his wife in Normandy liked bondage
> and where he kept his silverware? - Unless of course he decided
> to chase him with the navy at sea and shadow him with the army
> on land.
>
> If William tried to engage the Saxon navy then even a victory would
> likely have cost him to much to face Harold in England.
>
>
The "Saxon" Navy was the least of William's worries.
Prof. Marvel
> Soren Larsen
>
>
>
>
garyland
Under what authority did Harold make this vow? The witan? My point is,
that this business of a "solemn vow" had nothing to do with the Pope's
deliberations. The Pope was bought. Now, had Edward the Confessor made a
solemn vow that would have had some weight; but a supposed solemn vow by
a non-royal meant nothing in the scheme of things.
Prof. Marvel
garyland
> In article <3fcb667a$0$62199$a046...@nnrp.fuse.net>,
> Prof. Marvel <reporter@(removethis)fuse.net> wrote:
>
>>"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>news:bqfgf3$qfm$2...@reader2.panix.com...
>
>
>>>William's only real chance of winning was to draw Harold into
>>>a pitched battle and winning a major victory. William was
>>>outnumbered and on enemy soil.
>>>
>>>The area he despoiled was primarily Harold's own possessions.
>>>
>>>Make sense?
>>>
>>> ---- Paul J. Gans
>>
>>Huh? This discussion isn't about real estate.
>
>
> It's entirely about real estate - namely, William wanted England but had
> multiple rivals (in Harold and Harold) for the same plot. Land was power,
> in a society where the major economic engines are either agricultural or
> pastoral.
The point being discussed was the slaughter not the prize. Harold was
king of England. In effect, he held title to all land in England. So,
William's "despoilment" of land and property was a trifling matter; the
Bastard's wholesale slaughter of the populace was not. As king, Harold
was compelled to stop this which, of course, was why William did more
than despoil.
>
> Reflecting that, magnates had certain duties that they had to
> carry through on as part of the social framework of being a lord,
> especially a king. One of those duties was that of defense - Harold, as
> King of England, was duty-bound to defend the lands that he was sovereign
> of. Moreover, these were his personal lands, which added another layer of
> duty to defend them to that of those attached to his crown.
No. The defense of the land was not to be the slender literal
interpretation you give above. Indeed, Harold's brother Gyrth attempted
to explain this very point to him before the battle when he volunteered
to meet William with part of the English army so that Harold could shore
up his resources and attack later. In other words, defense of the land
was not understood to mean the immediate response you suggest above.
And this is to say, Harold reacted like a commoner, not a King. A true
king would not have been bothered in the least by William's despoilment
or slaughtering.
>
> If he cannot defend his lands, he is failing to carry out his duties...
> and by extension, is unworthy of the crown he holds. This in turn allows
> those who give him homage and fealty the opportunity to claim he is
> failing to uphold his part of the relationship, and they are therefore
> free to support someone who can - with the fellow doing the despoiling
> being the most obvious choice, as if he can despoil a land, he likely can
> protect it. Depending on who you talk to, this was part of the chevauchee
> strategy of Edward III and his successors during the fourteenth and
> fifteenth centuries - a demonstration that he can destroy at will, or
> choose not to destroy if given the loyalty of those threatened. It is
> very difficult to avoid reacting rashly when your current and future
> livelyhood is being burned up at the same time as your legitimacy as a
> monarch.
Well put, but as I said before, I don't believe this is why Harold
rushed to meet William. The reason Harold rushed to meet William was
more personal than this -- he wanted validation.
Prof. Marvel
garyland
"...improverishing Harold..."
Ha, ha, ha, that's hilarious. You know, Paul, you could write comedy for
a living.
>
> On the other hand, I don't recall anything on the pre-Hastings
> raiding by the Normans that showed that large numbers of people
> were killed.
>
> Has the good Professor Marvel confused the later harrowing of the
> North with the pre-Hastings depredations?
>
> ---- Paul J. Gans
No, the good Professor has not. Few dispute the point.
Prof. Marvel
Inger E Johansson
"garyland" <ricl...@lycos.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:3fcc912f$0$30507$a04e...@nnrp.fuse.net...
I second that. It sure makes a difference if a person is used to read
Medieval sources or only works about the same. Doesn't it.
Inger E
>
>
> Prof. Marvel
>
Michael W Cook
repo...@removethisfuse.net wrote on 2/12/03 3:44 am:
> "They wiped out the towns of Hailsham, Herstmonceux, and Hoore and
> countryside between, burning houses and barns, murdering farmers and
> villagers while women and childrend looked on helplessly or fled in horror
> to seek refuge in cemeteries, often in vain. The town of Ashburnham was
> obliterated, burned to the ground, its citizens slaughtered....they then
> marched on Crowhurst, Wilting and Filsham, laying them all waste, burning,
> looting and murdering...."
>
> -- Benton Rain Patterson, Harold and William,Cooper Square Press, ppg. 155
None of the contemporary chronicles, or indeed later ones, mention any of
these details at all, and this type of description of the events is nothing
but pure speculation with no evidence whatsoever to back it up.
In Domesday, all of the places you mention are recorded as having thriving
communities, at places like Filsham and Wilting: large communities of people
with Saxon names but Norman Lords.
However, at Crowhurst and Netherfield (Harold's own Manors) they are listed
as being wasted with rents before the conquest but none at Domesday.
The evidence points to William only attacking and destroying Harold's land
and possessions in the area. The description you quote reads like a
'Harrying of the North' where everything and everyone was laid to waste,
this was not so.
Why would William destroy the land and people he was hoping to live off ?
At Filsham and Wilting, in the Bulverhythe inlet, is where the old Saxon
port of Hastings is now believed to have stood. It is also where William is
thought to have sheltered his fleet, as this is the only place big enough
and sheltered for such a large number of vessels for many miles.
Why would he lay to waste such facilities he could himself use ?
Try reading some of the Contemporary or later Chronicles, Mr Marvel.
In other words, get thyself to a library.
By relying on a single book that is not particularly well known or noted for
the subject matter we are discussing, you are in danger of making a fool of
yourself.
Argue and question by all means, but don't rely on Mr Patterson or you will
very quickly come unstuck, as there are quite a few experts on here with
regard to Anglo-Norman studies, particularly the Conquest and Battle of
Hastings.
Cheers
Michael
Michael W Cook
wrote on 2/12/03 4:33 am:
I'm with you on this.
William had few routes to break out from the Hastings peninsular.
To the west from Pevensey was the London road via Lewes.
To the NE was the Canterbury/Rochester/London Road.
Other routes were ancient trackways, where he would be extremely vulnerable
to ambush and he could also easily get lost.
William was stuck, he needed Harold to come and fight ASAP, the longer
Harold didn't show, the weaker William would become.
Regards
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
reporter@(removethis)fuse.net (Prof. Marvel) wrote:
> Navel warfare hadn't evolved to the point you suggest.
Wrong there, the English navy of the time was fairly sophisticated.
> If the Norman amada was traveling north on the north wind
> and Harold's ships were south,
Warships were rowed by the way, William's problem with adverse winds
was down to his transports.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
Soren Larsen
"garyland" <ricl...@lycos.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:3fcc8407$0$30481$a04e...@nnrp.fuse.net...
> C A Candy wrote:
> > In article <3fcc0a91$0$30497$a04e...@nnrp.fuse.net>,
> > Prof. Marvel <reporter@(removethis)fuse.net> wrote:
> >
> >>"C A Candy" <c.a....@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
> >>news:bqfubs$h...@altair.dur.ac.uk...
> >
> >
> > While not naval warfare in the modern sense - it has been described
as a
> > land skirmish at sea - they certainly were aware of the ways and
means one
> > fights at sea. Piracy is an activity that has gone on since men
went to
> > sea on anything that floated. England also had at this point nearly
three
> > centuries of dealing with Viking raiders, who were very skilled at
> > seagoing affairs. I would suggest reading more on the subject -
even
> > someting as old as Stenton's _Anglo-Saxon England_ discusses the use
of
> > navies for defense during this period. By no means is naval science
as
> > rudimentary as you seem to think it is during this period.
>
>
> History tells us o no important navel battles up to and during this
time
> and there's a reason for that.
Olaf Tryggvason:
"What broke with such a loud noise?"
Einar Tambeskælver:
"The kingdom of Norway from your hand, Lord"
Battle of Svold c 1000AD
The Danish and Swedish fleets attacks and defeats the
Norwegian fleet thus ending the reign of Olaf Tryggvason.
One of these fleets - the Danish was sufficient to take England
twice in the following years. So here we have a large naval battle
with historical consequences.
>Had Harold known the exact point William
> would be crossing, the determining battle still would have been a land
> battle. Conversely, 600 years later, the battle would have been won at
sea.
Which brings up the question of why the AngloSaxons bothered to
have a defensive naval organisation?
Soren Larsen
Soren Larsen
Belt.
> >
> >
> >
> >>If the Norman amada was traveling north on the north wind
> >>and Harold's ships were south, about the best they could do is wave
and call
> >>the Duke a "bastard" as he sailed by..
> >
> >
> > The Saxon navy would be able to move conciderably faster than
> > the Norman invasion navy for the very simple reason that a large
> > part of the Norman navy was sailing transport ships. So unless
William
> > left his cavalry his navy would be a sitting duck for the Saxon
> > warships with sail _and_ oars.
>
>
> Saxon? Why do you call the English "Saxon"? They called themselves
> "English" and thought of themselves as English by this time.
Because the end of AngloSaxon England usually is set to 1066!
> In any
> event, navel warfare hadn't advanced any more than in Caesar's time
1000
> years before.
Except that the double propulsion warships of the 11th c could stay at
sea
for a much longer period than Roman warships around 1AD.
The ability to more effectively utilize the wind would drastically
reduce the
crews demand for calories and water.
>If, Harold was lucky enough to encounter Williams fleet,
> and if the wind was with him when he did, some of his armada might be
> able to engage in hand-to-hand combat with some of William's ships.
> William had more than 200 ships, losing a few like this would have
> mattered little.
Williams navy was essentially a transport fleet while the Saxon navy
was a battle fleet. At Æthelreds institution of shipsokes it can be
extra
polated to 200 ships(Abels). Even a fraction of that number would
rip a transport fleet to pieces. A warship could easily overtake and
outmaneuver a heavily loaded sailing ship.
Why do you think Harold had the fleet out all summer?
Check out the Bayaux Tapestry to get an idea of W's ships.
>
> >
> > With the duke and his army in England the obvious choice for Harold
if
> > Hastings was avoided, would have been to call up the navy and tell
> > them to raid Normandy - particular Williams bases, ships, and supply
> > line.
>
> No. That's ridiculous.
Speaking of Romans, what did they do when Hannibal harrowed their
countryside, and they had been clued into that pitched battle with H,
maybe wasn't such a good idea?
>
> >
> > If William then tried to sail North, all Harold would do was
hailing
> > him and asking him if his wife in Normandy liked bondage
> > and where he kept his silverware? - Unless of course he decided
> > to chase him with the navy at sea and shadow him with the army
> > on land.
> >
> > If William tried to engage the Saxon navy then even a victory would
> > likely have cost him to much to face Harold in England.
> >
> >
>
> The "Saxon" Navy was the least of William's worries.
Sure No more worries for William if he had encountered it.
Soren Larsen
Anne Gilbert
> Under what authority did Harold make this vow? The witan? My point is,
> that this business of a "solemn vow" had nothing to do with the Pope's
> deliberations. The Pope was bought. Now, had Edward the Confessor made a
> solemn vow that would have had some weight; but a supposed solemn vow by
> a non-royal meant nothing in the scheme of things.
Like I said, the only "authority" for this vow-taking seems to be the BT.
It shows Harold swearing to support William's bid for the English crown on
apparently sacred relics. But according to that same source, Harold was a
hostage to William, so in one sense, if he wanted to get back to England any
time soon, for whatever purpose he went to Normandy in the first place, then
he didn't have much choice. So in a certain sense, these vows didn't mean
much of anything. However, in medieval times, breaking an oath, especially
one supposedly sworn on sacred relics, would have been a serious breach of
custom, and supposedly God could withdraw favor from you if you broke such
an oath. This was probably the tack William used in getting the Pope's
support(among other tacks). So Edward the Confessor didn't *have* to do
anything, since *he* had presumably promised the crown to William upon his
passing.
Anne G
Prof. Marvel
Or why they had archers, for that matter. And here I must again caution
you on your misuse of the term "AngloSaxons." The "Englishness" of the
people had been their dominant characteristic since at least 100 years
leading up to 1044. They referred to themselves, their culture and
language as English, or "Englisc". Their land was widely known as a
unified kingdom called Egla Lond. Moreover, even if you mean to refer to
insular Saxon groups such as those still remaining in places like West
Saxon, you should now that by this time even West Saxon had become "Wessex.
Prof. Marvel
Prof Marvel
Prof. Marvel
>>>dug a canal across Samsų and thus obtained control of the Little
> was a battle fleet. At Ęthelreds institution of shipsokes it can be
> extra
> polated to 200 ships(Abels). Even a fraction of that number would
> rip a transport fleet to pieces. A warship could easily overtake and
> outmaneuver a heavily loaded sailing ship.
>
> Why do you think Harold had the fleet out all summer?
>
> Check out the Bayaux Tapestry to get an idea of W's ships.
>
>
>
>
>>>With the duke and his army in England the obvious choice for Harold
>
> if
>
>>>Hastings was avoided, would have been to call up the navy and tell
>>>them to raid Normandy - particular Williams bases, ships, and supply
>>>line.
>>
>>No. That's ridiculous.
>
>
Will someone tell this person he/she is in error when he refers to the
English of Harold's era as Saxon.
Prof. Marvel
Prof. Marvel
Well, if I can arrange it, you'll be hearing from Mr. Patterson directly.
Prof. Marvel
Prof. Marvel
> In article <3fcc0a91$0$30497$a04e...@nnrp.fuse.net>,
> reporter@(removethis)fuse.net (Prof. Marvel) wrote:
>
>
>> Navel warfare hadn't evolved to the point you suggest.
>
>
> Wrong there, the English navy of the time was fairly sophisticated.
>
>
>
>> If the Norman amada was traveling north on the north wind
>>and Harold's ships were south,
>
>
>
> Warships were rowed by the way, William's problem with adverse winds
> was down to his transports.
>
> Ken Young
I see. Tell me, why then did William wait for a north wind to cross the
channel?
Prof Marvel
Prof. Marvel
That wasn't my point. My point was if the fellow who sells fish 'n'
chips on the corner gives a vow to turn England over when it's his turn
to become king, such a vow isn't worth the paper it's written on.
The witan, a collection of English thanes from around the country,
anointed Harold king. And the Pope was surely aware of this process as
was William. The Pope was also aware that any number of noblemen had a
far credible claim to the crown then the Bastard.
Prof Marvel
Prof. Marvel
Bryn Fraser
>you on your misuse of the term "AngloSaxons." The "Englishness" of the
>people had been their dominant characteristic since at least 100 years
>leading up to 1044. They referred to themselves, their culture and
>language as English, or "Englisc". Their land was widely known as a
>unified kingdom called Egla Lond. Moreover, even if you mean to refer
>to insular Saxon groups such as those still remaining in places like
>West Saxon, you should now that by this time even West Saxon had become
>"Wessex.
That would of course why explain the Godwin's lived in South Saxony...
--
Bryn Fraser
--
We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.
Edward R. Murrow
--
http://www.finhall.demon.co.uk
http://www.thefrasers.com
C A Candy
garyland <ricl...@lycos.com> wrote:
>C A Candy wrote:
>> While not naval warfare in the modern sense - it has been described as a
>> land skirmish at sea - they certainly were aware of the ways and means one
>> fights at sea. Piracy is an activity that has gone on since men went to
>> sea on anything that floated. England also had at this point nearly three
>> centuries of dealing with Viking raiders, who were very skilled at
>> seagoing affairs. I would suggest reading more on the subject - even
>> someting as old as Stenton's _Anglo-Saxon England_ discusses the use of
>> navies for defense during this period. By no means is naval science as
>> rudimentary as you seem to think it is during this period.
>
>
>History tells us o no important navel battles up to and during this time
>and there's a reason for that. Had Harold known the exact point William
>would be crossing, the determining battle still would have been a land
>battle. Conversely, 600 years later, the battle would have been won at sea.
Odd, the medieval period has plenty of instances of naval battles. The
lack of them in 1066 has far more to do with acknowledged inequalities in
naval forces than anything else. One reason William probably waited until
most people thought it was too late to fight in the year was so that the
Saxons would have released the ships serving as naval forces. I'll
happily grant that naval fighting wasn't nearly as efficient as during the
gunpowder period - but I certainly would not dismiss it out of hand like
this.
>> And whom is he quoting? The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, notably hostile to
>> William? Or some other source? Grain of salt, here. William had just
>> made a hostile landing on a foreign shore that had declared another man
>> than him king. How is he supposed to conduct a survey? Go door to door
>> and conduct a poll? The concept of a modern hearts and minds campaign
>> just isn't there in these circumstances.
>The people William slaughtered had nothing to do with Harold declaring
>himself king. Most common folk were unaware of the event and would have
>cared less in any event. The point was made that William slaughtered
>them to draw Harold into battle and this point is probably the one that
>falls closer to the truth.
>
>It was genocide. There was a great deal of rape. And it should be clear
>this was the reason the people wound hating Normans as much as they did.
Let me restate myself. Whom is Patterson quoting? Where is he getting
his information? You state there was a great deal of rape. You claim it
was genocide. The latter is an absurdity regardless, considering that
William wanted to be king of England, not some depopulated isle. The
later Harrying of the North might be characterized this way (though I
would not), but not his actions before Hastings, under any circumstances.
There have been several threads on soc.history.medieval looking at the
sources used to reconstruct the Battle of Hastings and the time period
immediately before and after. One major element of those discussions is
the veracity of the sources we have, and the inherent political bias in
all of them. As I said before, I suspect Patterson is quoting the
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle or some other reference equally hostile to William.
So what is the reference?
As for the general populace in those areas... they were the denizens of
Harold's personal lands. They paid him rents. They went to his courts.
They provided him his troops. They worked his lands. They were therefore
part and parcel of Harold's power base. Yes, they were attacked - no one
disputed that. But you repeat a number of charges that seem to go beyond
that analysis.
C A Candy
garyland <ricl...@lycos.com> wrote:
>ED...@gyldendal.dk wrote:
>> The Saxon navy would be able to move conciderably faster than
>> the Norman invasion navy for the very simple reason that a large
>> part of the Norman navy was sailing transport ships. So unless William
>> left his cavalry his navy would be a sitting duck for the Saxon
>> warships with sail _and_ oars.
>
>Saxon? Why do you call the English "Saxon"? They called themselves
>"English" and thought of themselves as English by this time. In any
>event, navel warfare hadn't advanced any more than in Caesar's time 1000
>years before. If, Harold was lucky enough to encounter Williams fleet,
>and if the wind was with him when he did, some of his armada might be
>able to engage in hand-to-hand combat with some of William's ships.
>William had more than 200 ships, losing a few like this would have
>mattered little.
To avoid confusion with the use of 'English' to refer to William and his
kingdom after Hastings, where the phrase changes from his opposition to
his support.
The Romans had a number of major naval battles that were important in
their various wars and campaigns. Just because they do not have ships of
the line and gunpowder does not mean a naval force can not be an effective
deterrent to invasion or a military force in its own right. William's
ships were also transports, heavily laden with horses, supplies, and men
unused to sea warfare, while Harold's forces were much better equipped and
prepared for sea fighting. The matchup was highly unequal, and everyone
knew it.
>> With the duke and his army in England the obvious choice for Harold if
>> Hastings was avoided, would have been to call up the navy and tell
>> them to raid Normandy - particular Williams bases, ships, and supply
>> line.
>
>No. That's ridiculous.
Why? It was certainly common enough - later, during the Anglo-Scottish
wars of the 1330's, the French tried to draw attention to English
vulnerabilities by raiding several coastal ports. The panic it caused was
noteworthy.
>The "Saxon" Navy was the least of William's worries.
Were that true, he would not have taken such care to avoid engaging it.
Cheers,
Chris
Michael W Cook
ricl...@lycos.com wrote on 2/12/03 9:38 pm:
I'll look forward to it, and ask him to arm himself with quotes and evidence
to back up that sentence, as I'd be most interested to hear where he got the
information for such detailed description.
Also, tell him Hoore is called Hooe, it's a small hamlet outside of Bexhill.
Regards
Michael
Michael W Cook
Castles Abbeys and Medieval Buildings
http://www.castles-abbeys.co.uk
--
Soren Larsen
"Prof. Marvel" <ricl...@lycos.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:3fcd0a97$0$54341$a046...@nnrp.fuse.net...
He didn't, professor.
He waited quite sensibly for a Southern wind - look at a map!
He did this to ensure a speedy passage and to keep the fleet
together. His sailing ships could have beaten against other
winds and made the pasage but that would have delayed
and spread his forces with the risk of bumping into AngloSaxon
ships.
That he had to wait for exactly this wind is evidence for
his fleet containing many sailed transports
Soren Larsen
Soren Larsen
"Prof. Marvel" <ricl...@lycos.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:3fcd05aa$0$62187$a046...@nnrp.fuse.net...
> > extra
> > polated to 200 ships(Abels). Even a fraction of that number would
> > rip a transport fleet to pieces. A warship could easily overtake and
> > outmaneuver a heavily loaded sailing ship.
> >
> > Why do you think Harold had the fleet out all summer?
> >
> > Check out the Bayaux Tapestry to get an idea of W's ships.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>>With the duke and his army in England the obvious choice for Harold
> >
> > if
> >
> >>>Hastings was avoided, would have been to call up the navy and tell
> >>>them to raid Normandy - particular Williams bases, ships, and
supply
> >>>line.
> >>
> >>No. That's ridiculous.
> >
> >
>
> Will someone tell this person he/she is in error when he refers to the
> English of Harold's era as Saxon.
>
I doubt it, unless they want to nitpick and point out that the usual
designation is AngloSaxon.
I take it that we now agree on the navy question.
Soren Larsen
Soren Larsen
"Prof. Marvel" <ricl...@lycos.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:3fcd04fb$0$62187$a046...@nnrp.fuse.net...
Not really since they didn't have archers to any significant degree then
>And here I must again caution
> you on your misuse of the term "AngloSaxons." The "Englishness" of the
> people had been their dominant characteristic since at least 100 years
> leading up to 1044. They referred to themselves, their culture and
> language as English, or "Englisc". Their land was widely known as a
> unified kingdom called Egla Lond.
But they wouldn't really be English without those Normans.
>Moreover, even if you mean to refer to
> insular Saxon groups such as those still remaining in places like West
> Saxon, you should now that by this time even West Saxon had become
"Wessex.
Nah I'm using the very standard (Anglo)Saxon for the natives until 1066.
C A Candy
>> It's entirely about real estate - namely, William wanted England but had
>> multiple rivals (in Harold and Harold) for the same plot. Land was power,
>> in a society where the major economic engines are either agricultural or
>> pastoral.
>
>The point being discussed was the slaughter not the prize. Harold was
>king of England. In effect, he held title to all land in England. So,
>William's "despoilment" of land and property was a trifling matter; the
>Bastard's wholesale slaughter of the populace was not. As king, Harold
>was compelled to stop this which, of course, was why William did more
>than despoil.
Actually, the legal theory that the king of England held title to all the
land of England came about due to the Conquest, rather than existed
beforehand. And all of William's actions, to whatever extent he took
them, were based upon securing control over the 'real estate' - otherwise
he would never have invaded in the first place.
>> Reflecting that, magnates had certain duties that they had to
>> carry through on as part of the social framework of being a lord,
>> especially a king. One of those duties was that of defense - Harold, as
>> King of England, was duty-bound to defend the lands that he was sovereign
>> of. Moreover, these were his personal lands, which added another layer of
>> duty to defend them to that of those attached to his crown.
>
>No. The defense of the land was not to be the slender literal
>interpretation you give above. Indeed, Harold's brother Gyrth attempted
>to explain this very point to him before the battle when he volunteered
>to meet William with part of the English army so that Harold could shore
>up his resources and attack later. In other words, defense of the land
>was not understood to mean the immediate response you suggest above.
Who said anything about 'immediate'? I suggested nothing of the sort, and
Gyrth's statement does nothing to counter my point. Harold had to defend
his people. He made a very poor judgement as to when to act to do so. In
my mind - and in yours - Harold could and should have waited. Few would
dispute that. But others looking closely at which way the wind might blow
could sieze upon the justification to switch sides, should they feel like
doing so. Thus the pressure.
>And this is to say, Harold reacted like a commoner, not a King. A true
>king would not have been bothered in the least by William's despoilment
>or slaughtering.
*blink* Are you truly suggesting that Harold could and should completely
ignore the suffering of his people? I trust you mean he should have
considered the suffering as the price of gathering the necessary means to
destroy William and end the threat completely.
>> If he cannot defend his lands, he is failing to carry out his duties...
>> and by extension, is unworthy of the crown he holds. This in turn allows
>> those who give him homage and fealty the opportunity to claim he is
>> failing to uphold his part of the relationship, and they are therefore
>> free to support someone who can - with the fellow doing the despoiling
>> being the most obvious choice, as if he can despoil a land, he likely can
>> protect it. Depending on who you talk to, this was part of the chevauchee
>> strategy of Edward III and his successors during the fourteenth and
>> fifteenth centuries - a demonstration that he can destroy at will, or
>> choose not to destroy if given the loyalty of those threatened. It is
>> very difficult to avoid reacting rashly when your current and future
>> livelyhood is being burned up at the same time as your legitimacy as a
>> monarch.
>
>
>Well put, but as I said before, I don't believe this is why Harold
>rushed to meet William. The reason Harold rushed to meet William was
>more personal than this -- he wanted validation.
Hard to tell. The sources give all sorts of reasons for how things turned
out.
Prof. Marvel
> "Prof. Marvel" <ricl...@lycos.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:3fcd0a97$0$54341$a046...@nnrp.fuse.net...
>
>>ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <3fcc0a91$0$30497$a04e...@nnrp.fuse.net>,
>>>reporter@(removethis)fuse.net (Prof. Marvel) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Navel warfare hadn't evolved to the point you suggest.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wrong there, the English navy of the time was fairly sophisticated.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>If the Norman amada was traveling north on the north wind
>>>>and Harold's ships were south,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Warships were rowed by the way, William's problem with adverse winds
>>>was down to his transports.
>>>
>>>Ken Young
>>
>>
>>
>>I see. Tell me, why then did William wait for a north wind to cross
>
> the
>
>>channel?
>
>
> He didn't, professor.
>
> He waited quite sensibly for a Southern wind - look at a map!
>
He waited for the wind; that's the point here
> He did this to ensure a speedy passage and to keep the fleet
> together. His sailing ships could have beaten against other
> winds and made the pasage but that would have delayed
> and spread his forces with the risk of bumping into AngloSaxon
> ships.
>
What other winds would have gotten him across the Channel? Do use that
map of yours to answer this.
> That he had to wait for exactly this wind is evidence for
> his fleet containing many sailed transports
I see. And had he made the trip right off, that would be evidence he had
a fleet containing only a few sailed transports? You know, I honestly
believe that if William had a few captains like you, he'd still be
trying to find his way over.
Prof Marvel
>
> Soren Larsen
>
John A Geck
directly.
> >
> > Prof. Marvel
> >
>
> I'll look forward to it, and ask him to arm himself with quotes and
evidence
> to back up that sentence, as I'd be most interested to hear where he got
the
> information for such detailed description.
>
> Also, tell him Hoore is called Hooe, it's a small hamlet outside of
Bexhill.
>
> Regards
>
> Michael
>
> Michael W Cook
Michael, I'd look out if I were you. Mr. Patterson is a many gifted in many,
many areas.
Not only is he the author of over three books, on subjects as varied as
early American history and journalism,
The Editor in Chief: A Management Guide for Magazine Editors
Washington and Cornwallis: The Battle for America, 1775-1783
Write to Be Read: A Practical Guide to Feature Writing
Harold and William: The Battle for England, A.D. 1064-1066
He also claims in his introduction to Harold and William that he is nothing
less than a direct descendent of King Harold himself.
I wouldn't argue with royalty (though dispossessed), would you?
However, if you insist on going forward, you ought to prep yourself by
reading the two reviews of his work available (no scholarly review dared to
claim authority before such a vaunted figure):
From Publishers Weekly
The most famous year in English history, 1066 witnessed the epic
confrontation between William, Duke of Normandy, and King Harold, who,
killed by the invading Normans during the Battle of Hastings, would be the
last Anglo-Saxon ruler of England. An emeritus professor of journalism at
the University of Florida, Patterson is unabashedly pro-Harold: "The wrong
side, the wrong cause, the wrong man won." Indeed, Patterson refers to
William as "the Bastard," and often highlights the Norman's brutality. This
anti-William bias, however, doesn't stop Patterson from weaving a highly
entertaining narrative. In 1064, England's King Edward sent Harold, who was
then earl of Wessex, to Normandy to meet with Duke William. On his way,
Harold was kidnapped and held for ransom. William paid the ransom, and
Harold then swore an oath to support the duke in his bid to become king of
England after Edward's death. Harold would later claim that he swore this
oath under duress. For his part, William would call Harold a liar. In
January 1066, King Edward died, naming Harold his successor. Upon hearing
the news, an outraged William immediately began preparing for an invasion of
England. Meanwhile, King Harold's own brother Tostig, with the aid of the
king of Norway, led an armed rebellion against the new king. Harold crushed
Tostig at the Battle of Stamford Bridge. Three days later, William landed
his invasion force near Hastings. Harold marched his exhausted army south to
meet the Norman foe. Patterson does an excellent job describing the
back-and-forth struggle of the bloody battle in this highly accessible work
of popular history. 30 b&w illus. not seen by PW.
Copyright 2001 Cahners Business Information, Inc.
From Booklist
The scant surviving evidence concerning the prelude to the Battle of
Hastings, such as the famous Bayeux Tapestry, is heavily biased toward the
cause of the victor, Duke William of Normandy. Seeking to tilt the case, not
just to balance it, retired journalist Patterson elaborates with imagination
and conjecture Harold's claim on the throne vacated by the death of Edward
the Confessor in early 1066. The Witan, the national council, was in charge
of deciding who would be Edward's successor, and Harold, earl of Wessex, was
the best and most logical choice. However, William claimed that the
Confessor promised him the succession and that it was communicated in a 1064
oath by Harold personally (a claim that is impossible to verify).
Patterson's ensuing narrative, replete with clanking chain mail and swinging
battle-axes, vibrantly imagines the course of the ensuing military events.
This is unabashed Harold advocacy, but the upfront bias is no impediment to
a lively rendering. Gilbert Taylor
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved
Cheers,
John
PS: Don't ask him for any sources; he used none. At least, that's the idea
one gets from his total lack of citations.
Prof. Marvel
This is precisely what I'm suggesting. Tostig would have handled things
much better. He'd have waited for the right time to attack, no matter
the body count. Edward the Confessor would have cut a deal. Neither
Tostig nor King Edward would have required the validation Harold did.
Neither would have been enraged at William's slaughter. The idea here is
that William not only beat Harold, he showed Harold Goodwineson wasn't
fit to be king.
Prof. Marvel
John A Geck
"John A Geck" <john...@utoronto.ca> wrote in message
news:1Iazb.16845$Y4R1....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
> Michael, I'd look out if I were you. Mr. Patterson is a many gifted in
many,
> many areas.
Ugh, in the interest of clairty, choose either: 'Mr. Patterson is a
many-gifted man', or 'Mr. Patterson is gifted in many, many areas'.
Please don't try to read (or type) both at once.
Paul J Gans
>> Prof. Marvel <reporter@(removethis)fuse.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"C A Candy" <c.a....@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:bqfubs$h...@altair.dur.ac.uk...
[snip]
>> I'd suggest a slightly different set of readings on Hastings than
>> Patterson. Stephen Morillo's collection is a good starting point, as
>> would be general works such as Frank Barlow's _The Feudal Kingdom of
>> England 1042-1216_, or even Frank Stenton's _Anglo-Saxon England_, which
>> is still amazingly good considering its age. In particular, C.W.
>> Hollister's _Anglo-Saxon Military Institutions on the Eve of the Norman
>> Conquest_ might be a good read, or Matthew Strickland's work.
>>
>>
>>>"They wiped out the towns of Hailsham, Herstmonceux, and Hoore and
>>>countryside between, burning houses and barns, murdering farmers and
>>>villagers while women and childrend looked on helplessly or fled in horror
>>>to seek refuge in cemeteries, often in vain. The town of Ashburnham was
>>>obliterated, burned to the ground, its citizens slaughtered....they then
>>>marched on Crowhurst, Wilting and Filsham, laying them all waste, burning,
>>>looting and murdering...."
>>>
>>>-- Benton Rain Patterson, Harold and William,Cooper Square Press, ppg. 155
>>
>>
>> And whom is he quoting? The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, notably hostile to
>> William? Or some other source? Grain of salt, here. William had just
>> made a hostile landing on a foreign shore that had declared another man
>> than him king. How is he supposed to conduct a survey? Go door to door
>> and conduct a poll? The concept of a modern hearts and minds campaign
>> just isn't there in these circumstances.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>>
>The people William slaughtered had nothing to do with Harold declaring
>himself king. Most common folk were unaware of the event and would have
>cared less in any event. The point was made that William slaughtered
>them to draw Harold into battle and this point is probably the one that
>falls closer to the truth.
>It was genocide. There was a great deal of rape. And it should be clear
>this was the reason the people wound hating Normans as much as they did.
>Prof. Marvel
It was no such thing. Your source has overdramatized
the events. No more or less contemporary source mentions
such destruction. What is discussed is the systematic
looting of the neighborhood, especially of foodstuffs.
I don't recall any source saying there was a great
deal of rape.
So unless you've seen otherwise in a more or less
contemporary source, let's drop the genocide, rape,
and slaughter bits, shall we?
Now as near as can be told from this distance, William
believed he was the rightful king of England. He may
have talked himself into it or he may have had other
reasons, no matter. He did believe it.
And he believed it in a day when it was thought by all
that battles were won by God's will. So his problem
was clearly to draw Harold into battle.
Harold was the more experienced warrior and he already
had a reputation for striking quickly before his
enemies were ready for him. He did it against the Welsh
and he did it against Harald in the north. It is quite
possible that he expected to do it again in the south
and he came very close to doing it.
William had to wait for Harold. He had no other choice.
And in waiting he had to eat. The amount of food
consumed per day by 7000 effectives[*] is prodigious.
There was no way he could be supplied from Normandy,
the season was already late and the Channel always
trecherous late in the year. So he had to do what
armies have done for eons, eat off the land.
And that is what he did.
Later, years later, William harrowed the rebellious
north and in doing so employed methods both cruel
and vicious. But by then he was crowned and anointed
king of England. It may be that your source has confused
William's later actions with what was done around Pevensey.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 22:44:16 -0500, "Prof. Marvel"
>> <reporter@(removethis)fuse.net> wrote:
>>
>>
[snip]
>Saxon? Why do you call the English "Saxon"? They called themselves
>"English" and thought of themselves as English by this time. In any
>event, navel warfare hadn't advanced any more than in Caesar's time 1000
>years before. If, Harold was lucky enough to encounter Williams fleet,
>and if the wind was with him when he did, some of his armada might be
>able to engage in hand-to-hand combat with some of William's ships.
>William had more than 200 ships, losing a few like this would have
>mattered little.
Harold did not agree with you. He had the fleet spend most
of the summer guarding the coast.
Perhaps Harold was stupid?
Or perhaps he understood that William's army, in what is today
estimated as 700 ships, was exceptionally vulnerable. It was
NOT set up as a Viking raiding party. Many of the ships carried
stores (armor, arrows, weapons of all sorts, a pre-fab wooden
fort, horses, sea-sick knights, etc.) all crowded together.
All that was needed was to put an arrow or two into the flanks
of a horse and let him kick the sides out of the ship.
Harold's ships were set up to fight. William's were not.
It is that simple.
>> With the duke and his army in England the obvious choice for Harold if
>> Hastings was avoided, would have been to call up the navy and tell
>> them to raid Normandy - particular Williams bases, ships, and supply
>> line.
>No. That's ridiculous.
Why?
>> If William then tried to sail North, all Harold would do was hailing
>> him and asking him if his wife in Normandy liked bondage
>> and where he kept his silverware? - Unless of course he decided
>> to chase him with the navy at sea and shadow him with the army
>> on land.
>>
>> If William tried to engage the Saxon navy then even a victory would
>> likely have cost him to much to face Harold in England.
>The "Saxon" Navy was the least of William's worries.
As I said above, Harold did not think so. And he'd moved
an army by sea himself, years earlier.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>Anne Gilbert wrote:
>> Prof. Marvel.
>>
>>
>>>Huh? Slaughtering innocents is not God's work. This wasn't part of the
>>>Crusades. The English peasants he slaughtered were Christian like himself.
>>>Moreover, he simply purchased the Pope's blessing/banner by way of certain
>>>promises. The idea that Harold broke a solemn vow and so thousands of
>>>Englishmen must be put to the sword is ridiculous, something only a mad
>>
>> man
>>
>>>would come up with...come to think of it, maybe that best explains the
>>
>> Duke
>>
>>>of Normandy.
>>
>>
>> I believe the only real reference to Harold "breaking a solemn oath" is that
>> scene in the BT where Harold supposedly swears on sacred relics. But
>> assuming for the sake of argument that this is some sort of "truth", Harold
>> may well have been in a position where he couldn't really do anything else.
>> Now what sort of a "solemn oath" is that? Even if William *did* claim that
>> Harold had broken some vow and perhaps used this as an excuse to get the
>> Pope to bless his banner.
>> Anne G
>>
>>
>Under what authority did Harold make this vow? The witan? My point is,
>that this business of a "solemn vow" had nothing to do with the Pope's
>deliberations. The Pope was bought. Now, had Edward the Confessor made a
>solemn vow that would have had some weight; but a supposed solemn vow by
>a non-royal meant nothing in the scheme of things.
It doesn't matter. The pope excommunicated Harold. That
meant that all his subjects were relieved of any need to
honor their vows. And it also meant that God was on
William's side. And it also allowe William to fly
the Papal banner.
And you are wrong about the vow. Supposedly the vow was
that Harold would do what he could to ensure that William
got the crown and that he would personally aid him in
any way possible. But taking the crown for himself he'd
broken that vow. That made him an oathbreaker.
As for the Witan, they did have the legal authority to
nominate Edward's successor. But politics had already
been invented so it was hardly a pure choice. Certainly
Harold seems not to have stood and stated that, as honored
as he was, he had to decline in favor of William whose
claim he supported.
I suspect that you are applying modern values to those times
on the one hand and assuming that the medievals were ignorant
fools on the other. Neither one is the right way to look
at the period.
Or so I think.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>C A Candy wrote:
>> In article <3fcb667a$0$62199$a046...@nnrp.fuse.net>,
>> Prof. Marvel <reporter@(removethis)fuse.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>>news:bqfgf3$qfm$2...@reader2.panix.com...
>>
>>
>>>>William's only real chance of winning was to draw Harold into
>>>>a pitched battle and winning a major victory. William was
>>>>outnumbered and on enemy soil.
>>>>
>>>>The area he despoiled was primarily Harold's own possessions.
>>>>
>>>>Make sense?
>>>>
>>>> ---- Paul J. Gans
>>>
>>>Huh? This discussion isn't about real estate.
>>
>>
>> It's entirely about real estate - namely, William wanted England but had
>> multiple rivals (in Harold and Harold) for the same plot. Land was power,
>> in a society where the major economic engines are either agricultural or
>> pastoral.
>The point being discussed was the slaughter not the prize. Harold was
>king of England. In effect, he held title to all land in England. So,
>William's "despoilment" of land and property was a trifling matter; the
>Bastard's wholesale slaughter of the populace was not. As king, Harold
>was compelled to stop this which, of course, was why William did more
>than despoil.
You've made several errors here. First, King Harold did
NOT hold title to all the land in England. He owned what
he owned, part of which was being robbed by William.
The notion that the king owned all the land in the country
was an invention of Williams. He claimed it by right of
conquest. As far as I know, no other ruler in Europe made
any similar claim about lands not directly their own.
They may have claimed that other landowners owed *him*
fealty, but that's not the same as land ownership.
Another problem, as I've already pointed out, is that there
is no evidence that there was wholesale slaughter of the
populace.
[rest snipped]
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>Paul J Gans wrote:
>> C A Candy <c.a....@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3fcb667a$0$62199$a046...@nnrp.fuse.net>,
>>>Prof. Marvel <reporter@(removethis)fuse.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:bqfgf3$qfm$2...@reader2.panix.com...
>>
>>
>>>>>William's only real chance of winning was to draw Harold into
>>>>>a pitched battle and winning a major victory. William was
>>>>>outnumbered and on enemy soil.
>>>>>
>>>>>The area he despoiled was primarily Harold's own possessions.
>>>>>
>>>>>Make sense?
>>>>>
>>>>> ---- Paul J. Gans
>>>>
>>>>Huh? This discussion isn't about real estate.
>>
>>
>>>It's entirely about real estate - namely, William wanted England but had
>>>multiple rivals (in Harold and Harold) for the same plot. Land was power,
>>>in a society where the major economic engines are either agricultural or
>>>pastoral.
>>
>>
>>>Reflecting that, magnates had certain duties that they had to
>>>carry through on as part of the social framework of being a lord,
>>>especially a king. One of those duties was that of defense - Harold, as
>>>King of England, was duty-bound to defend the lands that he was sovereign
>>>of. Moreover, these were his personal lands, which added another layer of
>>>duty to defend them to that of those attached to his crown.
>>
>>
>>>If he cannot defend his lands, he is failing to carry out his duties...
>>>and by extension, is unworthy of the crown he holds. This in turn allows
>>>those who give him homage and fealty the opportunity to claim he is
>>>failing to uphold his part of the relationship, and they are therefore
>>>free to support someone who can - with the fellow doing the despoiling
>>>being the most obvious choice, as if he can despoil a land, he likely can
>>>protect it. Depending on who you talk to, this was part of the chevauchee
>>>strategy of Edward III and his successors during the fourteenth and
>>>fifteenth centuries - a demonstration that he can destroy at will, or
>>>choose not to destroy if given the loyalty of those threatened. It is
>>>very difficult to avoid reacting rashly when your current and future
>>>livelyhood is being burned up at the same time as your legitimacy as a
>>>monarch.
>>
>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>Chris
>>
>>
>> Exactly. William's actions also had the effect of impoverishing
>> Harold. That was not something that Harold looked forward to.
>"...improverishing Harold..."
>Ha, ha, ha, that's hilarious. You know, Paul, you could write comedy for
>a living.
Thank you. Best complement I've had all day.
>>
>> On the other hand, I don't recall anything on the pre-Hastings
>> raiding by the Normans that showed that large numbers of people
>> were killed.
>>
>> Has the good Professor Marvel confused the later harrowing of the
>> North with the pre-Hastings depredations?
>>
>> ---- Paul J. Gans
>No, the good Professor has not. Few dispute the point.
I dispute it. And I've asked for contemporary evidence.
I strongly think that your source has had a bit of a flight
of fancy.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
He was not travelling in warships. His flotilla was mainly
cargo vessals under sail. The English ships were not.
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Harold was not the fish and chips man on the corner. He was
the most powerful man in England possibly excepting the king.
>The witan, a collection of English thanes from around the country,
>anointed Harold king. And the Pope was surely aware of this process as
>was William. The Pope was also aware that any number of noblemen had a
>far credible claim to the crown then the Bastard.
As you said, he was bought. His decision, as I understand
it, was made before Harold's delegation even got to Rome.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>Copyright ? American Library Association. All rights reserved
>Cheers,
>John
>PS: Don't ask him for any sources; he used none. At least, that's the idea
>one gets from his total lack of citations.
Now *that* is funny. I'd guess that Michael is as well
versed on the contemporary sources on Hastings as any
but a few rather well-known specialists.
But the reviews I think clinch the case. I liked especially
the phrase "vibrantly imagines the course of the ensuing military
events." I'd say on the little evidence presented so far that
"imagines" is the operative word.
---- Paul J. Gans
Bryn Fraser
>a lively rendering. Gilbert Taylor
>Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved
>
>Cheers,
>John
>
>PS: Don't ask him for any sources; he used none. At least, that's the idea
>one gets from his total lack of citations.
So he has written a historical novel?
Bryn Fraser
>> the
>>
>>>channel?
>> He didn't, professor.
>> He waited quite sensibly for a Southern wind - look at a map!
>>
>
>
>He waited for the wind; that's the point here
The point here is that you got it arse-about-face and won't admit it...
Michael W Cook
wrote on 2/12/03 11:16 pm:
>> No. The defense of the land was not to be the slender literal
>> interpretation you give above. Indeed, Harold's brother Gyrth attempted
>> to explain this very point to him before the battle when he volunteered
>> to meet William with part of the English army so that Harold could shore
>> up his resources and attack later. In other words, defense of the land
>> was not understood to mean the immediate response you suggest above.
The conversation between Harold and Gyrth: where they ride off for a recce
and chat before the battle, comes from Wace and the Roman de Rou.
Wace supplies us with lines and lines of the alleged conversation between
the two as they alone spied on William's army - it's pure fantasy I'm afraid
and was written 100 years after the event.
Regards
MWC
Inger E Johansson
"Michael W Cook" <crusader_p...@hotmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:BBF36C1C.1554D%crusader_p...@hotmail.com...
> in article bqj6h5$r...@altair.dur.ac.uk, C A Candy at
c.a....@durham.ac.uk
> wrote on 2/12/03 11:16 pm:
>
> >> No. The defense of the land was not to be the slender literal
> >> interpretation you give above. Indeed, Harold's brother Gyrth attempted
> >> to explain this very point to him before the battle when he volunteered
> >> to meet William with part of the English army so that Harold could
shore
> >> up his resources and attack later. In other words, defense of the land
> >> was not understood to mean the immediate response you suggest above.
>
> The conversation between Harold and Gyrth: where they ride off for a recce
> and chat before the battle, comes from Wace and the Roman de Rou.
>
> Wace supplies us with lines and lines of the alleged conversation between
> the two as they alone spied on William's army - it's pure fantasy I'm
afraid
> and was written 100 years after the event.
Do we have anything written at the time of the battle which we can rely
upon?
Inger E
Michael W Cook
A Geck at john...@utoronto.ca wrote on 3/12/03 1:08 am:
>>> Well, if I can arrange it, you'll be hearing from Mr. Patterson
> directly.
>>>
>>> Prof. Marvel
>>>
>>
>> I'll look forward to it, and ask him to arm himself with quotes and
> evidence
>> to back up that sentence, as I'd be most interested to hear where he got
> the
>> information for such detailed description.
>>
>> Also, tell him Hoore is called Hooe, it's a small hamlet outside of
> Bexhill.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> Michael W Cook
>
> Michael, I'd look out if I were you. Mr. Patterson is a many gifted in many,
> many areas.
> Not only is he the author of over three books, on subjects as varied as
> early American history and journalism,
> The Editor in Chief: A Management Guide for Magazine Editors
> Washington and Cornwallis: The Battle for America, 1775-1783
> Write to Be Read: A Practical Guide to Feature Writing
> Harold and William: The Battle for England, A.D. 1064-1066
>
> He also claims in his introduction to Harold and William that he is nothing
> less than a direct descendent of King Harold himself.
> I wouldn't argue with royalty (though dispossessed), would you?
Yes :-)
> However, if you insist on going forward, you ought to prep yourself by
> reading the two reviews of his work available (no scholarly review dared to
> claim authority before such a vaunted figure):
>
> From Publishers Weekly
> The most famous year in English history, 1066 witnessed the epic
> confrontation between William, Duke of Normandy, and King Harold, who,
> killed by the invading Normans during the Battle of Hastings, would be the
> last Anglo-Saxon ruler of England. An emeritus professor of journalism at
> the University of Florida, Patterson is unabashedly pro-Harold: "The wrong
> side, the wrong cause, the wrong man won." Indeed, Patterson refers to
> William as "the Bastard," and often highlights the Norman's brutality. This
> anti-William bias, however,. In 1064, England's King Edward sent Harold, who
Thanks, John, most revealing.
I think:
"doesn't stop Patterson from weaving a highly entertaining narrative"
and
"retired journalist Patterson elaborates with imagination and conjecture "
Sums up his work rather well, especially with a lack of refs to back up his
highly imaginative views on the events we've seen to date.
Somehow I don't think I'll be wasting my money on this book.
Cheers
Michael
Michael W Cook
Castles Abbeys and Medieval Buildings
http://www.castles-abbeys.co.uk
--
Michael W Cook
inger_e....@notelia.com wrote on 3/12/03 10:35 am:
Nothing from anyone who was at the battle.
The contemporary descriptions come from:
William of Jumieges
William of Poitiers
Guy, Bishop of Amiens (who some question as being contemporary)
But all wrote from second and third hand sources and all spin a totally
Norman bias on the events.
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (including Florence of Worcester) are the only
Saxon sources, but even with all the versions together it contains only
snippets of information which are useful, but don't help one gain a wider
picture of the events.
Then we have the Bayeux Tapestry.
All the sources which deal with the wider picture are Norman.
Regards
Michael
Inger E Johansson
I have read parts of the two later, but I agree with those who don't think
Guy Bishop of Amiens to be contemporary.... and I doubt much of what I read
of William of Poitiers. Too much tendency and definitely not first hand
sources makes his words hard to valuate as anything but gossip....
>
> But all wrote from second and third hand sources and all spin a totally
> Norman bias on the events.
>
> The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (including Florence of Worcester) are the only
> Saxon sources, but even with all the versions together it contains only
> snippets of information which are useful, but don't help one gain a wider
> picture of the events.
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle can be used in many cases to second other sources
but as far as I am concerned I never used it to second information of the
battles themselves only the pre-story and the impacts of each battle.
>
> Then we have the Bayeux Tapestry.
Yes we have. My problem with that one is that I haven't seen it in real life
and I am not too sure of the story behind the tapestry. What was the reason
behind production? Who supported the weavers with 'the correct' information.
Etc.
>
> All the sources which deal with the wider picture are Norman.
All but the pre-battle sources there are some details in other contemporay
works but only details out in the blue without any possibility to valuate
the picture they 'paint'.
Do you know of any later non Norman source that to your knowledge can be
said to be as trustfull as one can wish?
Inger E
Soren Larsen
> Soren Larsen wrote:
> > "Prof. Marvel" <ricl...@lycos.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> > news:3fcd0a97$0$54341$a046...@nnrp.fuse.net...
> >
> >>ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article <3fcc0a91$0$30497$a04e...@nnrp.fuse.net>,
> >>>reporter@(removethis)fuse.net (Prof. Marvel) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Navel warfare hadn't evolved to the point you suggest.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Wrong there, the English navy of the time was fairly
sophisticated.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>If the Norman amada was traveling north on the north wind
> >>>>and Harold's ships were south,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Warships were rowed by the way, William's problem with adverse
winds
> >>>was down to his transports.
> >>>
> >>>Ken Young
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>I see. Tell me, why then did William wait for a north wind to cross
> >
> > the
> >
> >>channel?
> >
> >
> > He didn't, professor.
> >
> > He waited quite sensibly for a Southern wind - look at a map!
> >
>
>
> He waited for the wind; that's the point here
So we agree that he could have crossed with no wind had
his ships all been oarpowered ie warships?
That he waited for a specific (southern) wind shows that
he put a lot of emphasis of speed and fleet cohesion.
>
> > He did this to ensure a speedy passage and to keep the fleet
> > together. His sailing ships could have beaten against other
> > winds and made the pasage but that would have delayed
> > and spread his forces with the risk of bumping into AngloSaxon
> > ships.
> >
>
> What other winds would have gotten him across the Channel? Do use that
> map of yours to answer this.
Just about any - except the north wind you suggested - depending on
other factors such as stream and tide, and him W not being picky about
where and when his ship landed on the other side
>
> > That he had to wait for exactly this wind is evidence for
> > his fleet containing many sailed transports
>
> I see. And had he made the trip right off, that would be evidence he
had
> a fleet containing only a few sailed transports?
This doesn't follow professor.
Unless William was an idiot, he would have thought about the composition
of his fleet and not allowed a handfull of sailing ships to limit his
mobility,
this points to many transports.
Anyway the point is not really under discussion. We know W brought
horses for his cavalry and horses are bulky and damned lousy rowers.
> You know, I honestly
> believe that if William had a few captains like you, he'd still be
> trying to find his way over.
Oh dear! The professor is out of arguments.
That was quick
Soren Larsen
Prof. Marvel
>>>> I see. Tell me, why then did William wait for a north wind to cross
>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>> channel?
>>>
>>> He didn't, professor.
>>> He waited quite sensibly for a Southern wind - look at a map!
>>>
>>
>>
>> He waited for the wind; that's the point here
>
>
> The point here is that you got it arse-about-face and won't admit it...
>
>>
>
Oh, so it's that kind of discussion, is it?
Prof. Marvel
Prof. Marvel
I'm not sure "fantasy" is the correct term here. If it was written 100
years after the event, that puts the author 900 years closer to the
event than you or I. That means there's a distinct possibility there
were sources available then there isn't now. Two writers independently
come up with the same thing. Through the ages other writers/historians
have felt this thing has the ring of truth. To call it "fantasy" today
makes no sense at all. Certainly, some discussion happened between Gyrth
and Harold and everyone's sense is, that was the heart of what was said.
What do you think they talked about?
Prof Marvel
Paul J Gans
>>This is unabashed Harold advocacy, but the upfront bias is no impediment to
>>a lively rendering. Gilbert Taylor
>>
>>Cheers,
>>John
>>
>>PS: Don't ask him for any sources; he used none. At least, that's the idea
>>one gets from his total lack of citations.
>So he has written a historical novel?
>>
Not necessarily. Publishers hoping to sell lots of copies
of a historical work often insist that there be no footnotes
and only a small bibliography at the end.
Perhaps the strategy works. I don't know. But it does make
the book useless for scholarly work.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
You have no idea if there are two independent sources or not.
There could have been only one common one or one later author
took the incident from the other.
As for 100 years being closer to the event, that's true. However,
as far as anyone knows, nobody who might have been a party to a
Harold-Gyrth conversation survived the battle. And if one did,
there is no evidence that any Anglo-Saxon account was ever written
by anyone present.
One hundred years is several generations. In that time all sorts
of marvelous tales grew up, including my favorite, the Talifer
incident.
---- Paul J. Gans
Prof. Marvel
In the late 60s Tom Wolfe, Mailer, Jimmy Breslin, et al., created what
we started calling "The New Journalism." Truman Capote was part of
this. Most experts agree it was an important evolution in news
reporting. Benton Patterson is a professional journalist who clearly
used some of the techniques associated with The New Journalism in his
treatment of Hastings. Thus, nitpicking at details such as a
conversation that didn't take place between Harold and his brother
misses the point.
Prof. Marvel
Bryn Fraser
<ricl...@lycos.com> writes
I live in Hastings.
We get a North wind, one or two, in January. Most everything else comes
from the South West, mostly; South occasionally; East at Whitsun,
sometimes...
Will the Bastard's fleet according to the BT had square rigs, very hard
to tack with. If you look at the BT you can actually see the sailors
hauling on the sail ends to fill and empty the sails to make some sort
of seaway. William needed the wind either behind him or from the SW. He
was lucky not to run slap into Beachy Head or the Fairlight cliffs.
I imagine he felt a bit like the pilot that reckons that any landing you
can walk away from is a good one.
D. Spencer Hines
delusions of grandeur ---- has also proven to be a Nautical Ignoramus as
well as a Historical Ignoramus.
Yes, William, Duke of Normandy, was waiting for a southerly wind to
cross La Manche, NOT a northerly one.
Winds are labeled by the direction they come FROM ---- not the direction
they blow TO.
_Marvel The PFK_ doesn't understand that.
'Nuff Said....
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Anne Gilbert
> That wasn't my point. My point was if the fellow who sells fish 'n'
> chips on the corner gives a vow to turn England over when it's his turn
> to become king, such a vow isn't worth the paper it's written on.
>
> The witan, a collection of English thanes from around the country,
> anointed Harold king. And the Pope was surely aware of this process as
> was William. The Pope was also aware that any number of noblemen had a
> far credible claim to the crown then the Bastard.
Yeah. But the Pope blessed William's expedition. Regardless of what other
people had credible claims to the throne or what the Witan did or did not
do. And you have to ask yourself why.
Anne G
Michael W Cook
ricl...@lycos.com wrote on 3/12/03 4:41 pm:
The accounts indicate that Harold was advised in London not to proceed down
to the coast, but to let his brothers go and confront William while he
stayed and organised further troops.
To call Wace's description of this alleged conversation on the morning of
the battle, fantasy, is quite correct. No other chronicle mentions such a
recce by Harold, and indeed anyone in Harold's retinue or army who would
know of such a thing was long dead before Master Wace started his Roman de
Rou.
Wace's description of Harold and Gyrth's conversation reads like a short act
of a play, with each answering each other in argument.........It's fantasy.
Any half serious scholar of Anglo-Norman studies knows more about the events
at Hastings than Master Wace, 900 years or 100 years. We have a good idea
of the sources Wace used for his accounts, and today we have access to just
about *all* of the contemporary sources as well as over 150 years of
academic discussion on the subject.
Wace relied on two or three contemporary or near contemporary accounts, plus
a few tales of old soldiers or those who had a good yarn to tell about
events that happened in their Grandfather's lifetime.
Of the ten of so contemporary and later sources used for the conquest and
battle, Master Wace is one of the latest and is also considered the most
unreliable. However, he does make a useful contribution and should not be
totally ignored.
Here's a few books for you to look up on the subject, all are easily
available in PB:
Stephen Morillo - The Battle of Hastings.
MK Lawson - The Battle of Hastings.
R Allen Brown - The Normans and the Norman Conquest.
Matthew Strickland - Anglo-Norman Warfare.
RHC Davis - The Normans and their Myth.
Once you've done them, you'll be throwing Mr Patterson's book away and will
be embarrassed you ever quoted from it.
Read and learn from people on here, don't dismiss their arguments as lunacy,
as it's likely they've been studying this subject a lot longer than you and
have likely read all the above books and dozens more on the subject.
Regards
Michael
Michael W Cook
Castles Abbeys and Medieval Buildings
http://www.castles-abbeys.co.uk
--
Michael W Cook
inger_e....@notelia.com wrote on 3/12/03 11:56 am:
>>> Do we have anything written at the time of the battle which we can rely
>>> upon?
>>>
>>> Inger E
>>
>> Nothing from anyone who was at the battle.
>>
>> The contemporary descriptions come from:
>>
>> William of Jumieges
>> William of Poitiers
>> Guy, Bishop of Amiens (who some question as being contemporary)
>
> I have read parts of the two later, but I agree with those who don't think
> Guy Bishop of Amiens to be contemporary.... and I doubt much of what I read
> of William of Poitiers. Too much tendency and definitely not first hand
> sources makes his words hard to valuate as anything but gossip....
This is where we differ, as I do believe the Carmen was written by Guy of
Amiens and is a contemporary document.
>> But all wrote from second and third hand sources and all spin a totally
>> Norman bias on the events.
>>
>> The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (including Florence of Worcester) are the only
>> Saxon sources, but even with all the versions together it contains only
>> snippets of information which are useful, but don't help one gain a wider
>> picture of the events.
>
> The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle can be used in many cases to second other sources
> but as far as I am concerned I never used it to second information of the
> battles themselves only the pre-story and the impacts of each battle.
Agreed
>> Then we have the Bayeux Tapestry.
>
> Yes we have. My problem with that one is that I haven't seen it in real life
> and I am not too sure of the story behind the tapestry. What was the reason
> behind production? Who supported the weavers with 'the correct' information.
> Etc.
Try Bernstein's Secrets of the BT.
>>
>> All the sources which deal with the wider picture are Norman.
>
> All but the pre-battle sources there are some details in other contemporay
> works but only details out in the blue without any possibility to valuate
> the picture they 'paint'.
>
> Do you know of any later non Norman source that to your knowledge can be
> said to be as trustfull as one can wish?
They are all honest to themselves, despite the possible hidden agendas
contained within them.
I personally like the Chronicle of Battle Abbey, Orderic and Malmesbury, but
they all have their merits, even Wace. What is interesting when you do read
them all is to see where they have all borrowed for their sources and mixed
their accounts around.
C A Candy
Michael W Cook <crusader_p...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>in article bqj6h5$r...@altair.dur.ac.uk, C A Candy at c.a....@durham.ac.uk
>wrote on 2/12/03 11:16 pm:
>
>>> No. The defense of the land was not to be the slender literal
>>> interpretation you give above. Indeed, Harold's brother Gyrth attempted
>>> to explain this very point to him before the battle when he volunteered
>>> to meet William with part of the English army so that Harold could shore
>>> up his resources and attack later. In other words, defense of the land
>>> was not understood to mean the immediate response you suggest above.
Just to nitpick, I didn't write this, Marvel did.
Cheers,
Chris
------------------
Christopher Candy
Department of History
University of Durham
43 North Bailey
Durham DH1 3EX
United Kingdom
+44 191 334 1045
C.A....@durham.ac.uk
Simon Pugh
<br...@finhall.demon.co.uk> writes
>In message <3fce0f83$0$20880$a046...@nnrp.fuse.net>, Prof. Marvel
><ricl...@lycos.com> writes
>>Bryn Fraser wrote:
>>>>>> I see. Tell me, why then did William wait for a north wind to cross
>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>>> channel?
>>>>>
>>>>> He didn't, professor.
>>>>> He waited quite sensibly for a Southern wind - look at a map!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He waited for the wind; that's the point here
>>> The point here is that you got it arse-about-face and won't admit
>>>it...
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>Oh, so it's that kind of discussion, is it?
>
>I live in Hastings.
>
>We get a North wind, one or two, in January. Most everything else comes
>from the South West, mostly; South occasionally; East at Whitsun,
>sometimes...
>
>Will the Bastard's fleet according to the BT had square rigs, very hard
>to tack with. If you look at the BT you can actually see the sailors
>hauling on the sail ends to fill and empty the sails to make some sort
>of seaway. William needed the wind either behind him or from the SW. He
>was lucky not to run slap into Beachy Head or the Fairlight cliffs.
>
>I imagine he felt a bit like the pilot that reckons that any landing
>you can walk away from is a good one.
>
308 true so SW would be almost a beam wind, could William's have ships
managed slightly ahead of a beam wind?
I makes you think he had a special reason for wanting to get to the
Hastings area. A more northerly direction would have given him more
latitude with the wind. But we do sometimes get summers where the wind
seems forever in the north, from my sailing days quite a few years ago
now.
--
Simon Pugh
Remove X for email
C A Candy
Prof. Marvel <ricl...@lycos.com> wrote:
>In the late 60s Tom Wolfe, Mailer, Jimmy Breslin, et al., created what
>we started calling "The New Journalism." Truman Capote was part of
>this. Most experts agree it was an important evolution in news
>reporting. Benton Patterson is a professional journalist who clearly
>used some of the techniques associated with The New Journalism in his
>treatment of Hastings. Thus, nitpicking at details such as a
>conversation that didn't take place between Harold and his brother
>misses the point.
I believe the point that many (including myself) are trying to make is
that Mr. Patterson and yourself (assuming you are following his work
closely) are claiming a particular pattern of events occurred that most
historians and scholars can find no evidence for, nor is even all that
likely from the materials we do have. In arguing this, you also have made
a number of major errors and taken a rather condescending attitude to
those who attempted to correct you politely. That today you took
exception at some similar behaviour in return was... breathtaking.
I have no opinion regarding 'New Journalism'; however, you appear to be
making a misplaced appeal to authority here. Whatever Mr. Patterson's
achievements are elsewhere, the yardstick in which he is being (and should
be) measured in this sort of historical debate is the same one that any
historical scholar should be held to. This means, among other things,
providing sources and evidence to support his claims, and not positing
events or interpretations that are little more than fancy and hopes.
Any and all evidence that is brought to support these claims will be
examined, both for its ability to support the structure as a whole and its
own validity. To try to pass off such criticism as 'nitpicking' and
unimportant due to the particular style of the author, I think, 'misses
the point'.
Greg Lindahl
>Michael W Cook <crusader_p...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>in article bqj6h5$r...@altair.dur.ac.uk, C A Candy at c.a....@durham.ac.uk
>>wrote on 2/12/03 11:16 pm:
>>
>>>> No. The defense of the land was not to be the slender literal
>>>> interpretation you give above. Indeed, Harold's brother Gyrth attempted
>>>> to explain this very point to him before the battle when he volunteered
>>>> to meet William with part of the English army so that Harold could shore
>>>> up his resources and attack later. In other words, defense of the land
>>>> was not understood to mean the immediate response you suggest above.
>
>Just to nitpick, I didn't write this, Marvel did.
Please learn to count the >'s -- it isn't saying that you wrote it. If you had,
there would be 3 >'s, not 4.
-- greg
Bryn Fraser
<Ne...@mrzsp.demonX.co.uk> writes
It had to be between Pevensey and Rye but I am convinced that Hastings
was the target wherever he made landfall he allowed for the time it
would take to move up or down the coast. The lack of hostile ships has
always suggested to me the collusion of the ships and ports of Pevensey,
Hastings and Rye.
Prof. Marvel
And now name calling. Well, this merry fellow must be punished for that.
But for the record, note that he started it. This is all I ask.
As to you, D. Spencer Hines, where did you go to school? Your beastly
grasp of English grammar suggest you were pulled out before you got very
far.
Prof. Marvel
C A Candy
Rather condescending, isn't this? Any attribution to the actual author
was removed by Michael, accidently or otherwise. The >>, while
the usual convention, do nothing to help people see who wrote it
to begin with. Otherwise I would not have posted.
Prof. Marvel
History is your religion, not mine. One of the ideas that came out of
the New Journalism was the notion that fiction is often more honest than
fact. Shakespeare's plays tell us far more about life during his time
than all the history books combined. You say it's sacrilege to state
anything that isn't supported by cold, hard fact; the New Journalism
says there are many things cold, hard fact can't reveal.
The time has come to take our understanding and discussion of the Norman
Conquest to the next level and Patterson does that exceedingly well. He
places flesh on the dried old bones you historians have been rubbing and
passing between each other for 1000 years. This insight is needed and
valid. In addition, it's also far more intellectually challenging than
rubbing and passing old bones back and forth.
Prof. Marvel
Greg Lindahl
C A Candy <c.a....@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>Rather condescending, isn't this?
That was not my intent, but you are welcome to read anything you like
into other people's words.
> Any attribution to the actual author
> was removed by Michael, accidently or otherwise.
That is correct. There was information, however, that made it clear
that it was not attributed to you. Had you made this complaint instead
of what you did post, I wouldn't have replied.
-- greg
Michael W Cook
wrote on 3/12/03 9:05 pm:
> In article <BBF36C1C.1554D%crusader_p...@hotmail.com>,
> Michael W Cook <crusader_p...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> in article bqj6h5$r...@altair.dur.ac.uk, C A Candy at c.a....@durham.ac.uk
>> wrote on 2/12/03 11:16 pm:
>>
>>>> No. The defense of the land was not to be the slender literal
>>>> interpretation you give above. Indeed, Harold's brother Gyrth attempted
>>>> to explain this very point to him before the battle when he volunteered
>>>> to meet William with part of the English army so that Harold could shore
>>>> up his resources and attack later. In other words, defense of the land
>>>> was not understood to mean the immediate response you suggest above.
>
> Just to nitpick, I didn't write this, Marvel did.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
I did notice, Chris, after I had sent it, but figured most folk would work
it out, sorry, I should have corrected it.
Cheers
Michael
Prof. Marvel
One-hundred years distance is not the great span of time you seem to
think. If, for example, Wace was 50 when he wrote his account, he'd have
certainly had the opportunity to talk with any number of first
generation descendants of men who fought at Hastings -- and perhaps even
a few actual combatants. Some of these individuals would have vivid
accounts of all aspects of the Norman Conquest -- much of which was
never documented.
I'm 50. My grandfather was born in 1899 and served in the First World
War, that's almost 100 years ago and yet I have tons of stories my
grandfather told me about the War even though I can't document any of them.
Prof Marvel
Simon Pugh
manors to provoke him? But then we get into the old chestnut - how much
intelligence of Harold's movements did William have before he set off.
:-)
And who is this Captain Marvel, he certainly seems to have brought his
fishing rod.
Michael W Cook
ricl...@lycos.com wrote on 3/12/03 10:48 pm:
What a load of old hog wash.
If the evidence you have supplied is repeated throughout the rest of his
book, then I'll say here and now he is having a laugh. He is making up
scenarios of actions and deeds that are not true to history and the records
we have been handed down.
Historians look at the evidence, then compare that evidence with other
evidence. They then discuss and argue about it until a regular opinion is
formulated. Using Mr Patterson's theory, his idea is to blow things out of
proportion with fanciful descriptions as if it's a Hollywood Blockbuster.
No Captain Marvel, this is not scholarly at all, but Playground stuff for
grown-ups. You backed a loser, own up like a man and stop wasting our time.
MWC
David Brewer
Gary, meet our resident Loon. No need to ask for sympathy in your
dealing with him, all will understand. rarely is he taken
seriously.
DSH is mildly famous for his ludicrous fulminations about the
"chummy clique" that conspires behind his back to keep him from
being rightly named as the fountainhead of all wisdom. Also
amusing are his attempts to either recruit people to a
counter-clique, or to worm his way into the (non-existent) clique
that holds him down. Above, we see the latter. Stick around, he'll
be furtively emailing you about things cliquey soon enough.
If you wish to make sport of him, it will help you to pretend to
be of the British aristocracy. Or maybe Jewish. Be aware that he
will start to talk about your arse. (He's all about the booty.)
FWIW, he is well educated, a graduate of Yale and other such
places (Johns Hopkins? I forget) and was commissioned into the US
Navy. Whether you take these as mitigating or aggravating
circumstances for his crimes against grammar...
--
David Brewer
"The mentally disturbed do not employ the Theory of Scientific
Parsimony: the most simple theory to explain a given set of
facts." - P.K.Dick (from VALIS)
Prof. Marvel
Well educated? What then would you say explains his beastly syntax?
Prof. Marvel
Prof. Marvel
Captain Marvel is a comic book hero and a different branch of the Marvel
tree, I'm afraid.
Prof. Marvel
David Brewer
>
> David Brewer wrote:
>
[...]
> > FWIW, he is well educated, a graduate of Yale and other such
> > places (Johns Hopkins? I forget) and was commissioned into the US
> > Navy. Whether you take these as mitigating or aggravating
> > circumstances for his crimes against grammar...
>
> Well educated? What then would you say explains his beastly syntax?
I could only explain it as being the legacy of a lifetime's work
in some kind of assertive business report writing that's been
stylized beyond the point of hysteria.
And silliness. He's a bit silly.
Prof. Marvel
The above is unduly harsh, especially inasmuch as you haven't taken the
time to read the man's book. As to my discussion about the New
Journalism, I'm just the messenger, just passing along ideas that were
greatly discussed 20 and 30 years ago.
As to your reliance on fact and nothing but the fact, you and your
colleagues tell us nothing about Harold the man, his motivation, the
dynamics that led up to the battle. You give us bone but no flesh and
blood as I say above-- and worse, you dismiss all thinking on this score.
Then you tell us this is what historians are supposed to do. Why? Well,
because history is a science and the scientific method must be used at
all time. And yet, the scientific method starts with supposition:
"Suppose a heavier than air device could fly, how would this happen?"
From such a question comes answers-- and yes, even fact.
Surely, someone came to Harold and said, "Hey, wait a minute, Mr.
Godwineson, there's got to be a better way. Why don't we try this
instead?" But you dismiss this out of hand. You say it's sacrilege --
"old hog wash" -- to even entertain such discussion, that we must not
sway an iota from the words of 1000 year old documents, that to do so
inexorably paints an inaccurate picture of what actually happened.
Of course, if each of the historians in this news group were around to
watch the entire event unfold, we'd wind up with 20 different versions
of what happened in any event, but this you have no problem with. Just
as long as each version is signed and witnessed and duly filed.
Well...
Prof. Marvel
Prof. Marvel
C A Candy
Prof. Marvel <ricl...@lycos.com> wrote:
>C A Candy wrote:
>History is your religion, not mine.
I have to ask why you're bothering to post here or participate in this
discussion, then - you appear to be dismissing much out of hand.
>One of the ideas that came out of
>the New Journalism was the notion that fiction is often more honest than
>fact. Shakespeare's plays tell us far more about life during his time
>than all the history books combined. You say it's sacrilege to state
>anything that isn't supported by cold, hard fact; the New Journalism
>says there are many things cold, hard fact can't reveal.
Your example does not follow in the slightest. Shakespeare tells a great
deal about the time he is writing in. By that logic, Patterson's book
should tell us about our current time, not the time in which he is
writing.
If you read any decent historical writing, you see throughout an
understanding that we cannot know everything that went on, and that our
sources of information are limited. Because historians attempt to back up
their conjectures and speculations with evidence does not make them
unaware that more (or less) may have been going on.
>The time has come to take our understanding and discussion of the Norman
>Conquest to the next level and Patterson does that exceedingly well. He
>places flesh on the dried old bones you historians have been rubbing and
>passing between each other for 1000 years. This insight is needed and
>valid. In addition, it's also far more intellectually challenging than
>rubbing and passing old bones back and forth.
A number of perfectly good, entertaining and exciting modern works exist
that discuss Hastings: others have pointed you at them elsewhere in this
thread. They have the added advantage of not engaging in speculative
fiction in order to make a story that is already exciting and lively more
so. If you wish to read historical fiction, be my guest: it is a
perfectly valid literary form, provided the word 'fiction' is firmly
attached. However, it does a grand disservice to our understanding of
life to attribute actions, motivations - and as you are putting forth,
evils - that never occurred to people in the past. There is nothing
'intellectually challenging' about it, and the reasoning you are employing
sounds similar to that used to excuse demagoguery.
Cheers,
Chris
Prof. Marvel
> "Prof. Marvel" wrote:
>
>>David Brewer wrote:
>>
>
> [...]
>
>>>FWIW, he is well educated, a graduate of Yale and other such
>>>places (Johns Hopkins? I forget) and was commissioned into the US
>>>Navy. Whether you take these as mitigating or aggravating
>>>circumstances for his crimes against grammar...
>>
>>Well educated? What then would you say explains his beastly syntax?
>
>
> I could only explain it as being the legacy of a lifetime's work
> in some kind of assertive business report writing that's been
> stylized beyond the point of hysteria.
>
> And silliness. He's a bit silly.
>
And rude. Typical ugly American. And I suppose the first thing he did
when got here is go on about Yale and the Navy. In his broken English,
of course.
Prof. Marvel