Ancient Cultures

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Valandil
The last British King was probably axed by a Saxon somewhere.

Good point.

Well, I think Boadiccea and King Arthur were both well before William the Conqueror's time. (Though you can't completely pinpoint when King Arthur was around, but the best sources, IMO, say ~500 AD.)

[Hemel]

Anyone any thoughts on the road tunnel they're considering digging under Stonehenge? The idea seems to be to solve congestion in the summer months because lots of people on the nearby road slow down to look at the monument, and also problems with traffic flow in the nearby town. And to protect the ambience of the site ... so one can hear birdsong again

Other people are saying that the intended tunnel isn't long enough and will still disturb the area, or will disturb other things - I think people do tend to concentrate on Stonehenge and forget that it's just one monument in a whole landscape of them. then there are the considerations of whether this is just one more step in controlling access and policing the site. Then there are the people who'd rather the money be spent on something else, of course .....

All sorts of people are going to be involved in the enquiry - obviously the government bods like the Highways Agency, and there'll be English Heritage and the National Trust, but there are individual speakers and bodies like the Pagan Federation, the British Order of Druids, Council of British Archaeology, Friends of the Earth, iwildlife protectors, and of course local groups too.

I have mixed feelings about this proposal.

There is a site that gives daily transcripts into the enquiry that is now happening - www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/stonehenge - but it's a lot of reading

[sun-star]

It seems like a good idea, actually. They have to do something, and this may well work. But as you say, it doesn't do much for the surrounding landscape - I think I read about a Bronze Age (?) site that would still be cut in half by the road. Anyway, it's a start, and definitely not a waste of money.

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
What about King Harold? He's the King who lost to William the Conqueror. You could say the last true British King.

Last Anglo-Saxon King, yes. IIRC, he didn't have much more claim to the throne than William did though, since not only had Edward the Confessor promised it to William before he promised it to Harold, but Harold had promised to support William's claim as well.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by sun-star
Last Anglo-Saxon King, yes. IIRC, he didn't have much more claim to the throne than William did though, since not only had Edward the Confessor promised it to William before he promised it to Harold, but Harold had promised to support William's claim as well.

Read an interesting book named simply 1066... highly recommended - short read and very interesting. Anyway, the author's view is that both of those claims were flimsy. Edward may have made the promise at one point - but (a) things soured somewhat in subsequent years between England and Normandy (where - notably, Edward had been raised in exile) and (b) by English government at the time - it wasn't really a promise he was empowered to make... the 'Wittan' - their ruling council would actually make a final decision of who would be king - and Edward indicated Harold on his death-bed. As far as Harold's promise to William... there's little to indicate it truly happened - and if it did, it was somewhat 'under duress' when Harold was little more than a hostage at William's court... at a time long before Harold would have considered the position of king to be within his own reach.

[sun-star]

Oh well, I was working on a Yr 7 (= 6th grade) level of history there! Maybe I'll check out some of the books people have mentioned and refresh my memory

[Grey_Wolf]

Originally posted by Valandil
Read an interesting book named simply 1066... highly recommended - short read and very interesting. Anyway, the author's view is that both of those claims were flimsy. Edward may have made the promise at one point - but (a) things soured somewhat in subsequent years between England and Normandy (where - notably, Edward had been raised in exile) and (b) by English government at the time - it wasn't really a promise he was empowered to make... the 'Wittan' - their ruling council would actually make a final decision of who would be king - and Edward indicated Harold on his death-bed. As far as Harold's promise to William... there's little to indicate it truly happened - and if it did, it was somewhat 'under duress' when Harold was little more than a hostage at William's court... at a time long before Harold would have considered the position of king to be within his own reach.

Have any of you read Winston Churchill's A History of English Speaking Peoples 1: The Birth of Britain. It is very interesting. A recommended read for people who's interested in the history of Great Britain.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by sun-star
Oh well, I was working on a Yr 7 (= 6th grade) level of history there! Maybe I'll check out some of the books people have mentioned and refresh my memory

And not to say that the book I recommend is necessarily 100% correct - heck, it's almost 1,000 year old history, so it's hard to say anything for sure. But he makes some compelling arguments.

As they say though, the winners write the history! These days, researchers try to reconstruct things and get beyond the commonly written record... but it's hard to say how accurate their speculations and guesses are. They're lots of fun though. And... regarding Nurvi's last post, I had a book I liked a LOT about Arthur, called King Arthur: The True Story by Phillips & Keatman. Unfortunately it's out of print - and from websites I've gone to, it appears it came under attack from other Arthurian scholars over how a particular key piece of information was interpreted... but VERY interesting if you can get ahold of one (and if you like the subject material!) Oh - and they do straddle Arthur's reign over 500 AD... projecting the Battle of Badon at about 493 AD and the Battle of Camlann? (his final battle anyway) at about 519 AD.

[Beor]

Hey, Val, whats up? I happen to have read that book a year ago, and I agree, it is an excellent book. I didnt know a whole lot about the battle of Hastings or the political events leading up to it beforehand, and it really enlightned me. I didnt know that the pope could have such an effect on the minds of the leaders (Harold was really depressed about it. I think if he had kept his head in the game, he could have pulled through)

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Beor
Hey, Val, whats up? I happen to have read that book a year ago, and I agree, it is an excellent book. I didnt know a whole lot about the battle of Hastings or the political events leading up to it beforehand, and it really enlightned me. I didnt know that the pope could have such an effect on the minds of the leaders (Harold was really depressed about it. I think if he had kept his head in the game, he could have pulled through)

Agreed... and if the standing orders to the troops were STICK TOGETHER - like don't charge out haphazardly when opportunity seems to strike... and if some do so, everyone else advance behind them in an orderly manner... and if you really want to take out the guy on the horse, mob him, kill the horse first, then don't let the guy get up. And... if they had kept all the guys who went home (because they thought there were plenty on hand to take them dadburn ferners) around as reserves... *sigh* With 20/20 hindsight, we coulda pulled Harold through that battle. Only problem is... England probably would not have become the country it did.

[Beor]

Yeah, but I still feel sorry for Harold. The guy wasnt even motivated after the Pope excommunicated him. We call that a mind-something (cant say it here. use your imagination). 20/20 hindsight can tell you alot, but I think that the pope's little thing was key. Dude shouldnt have let it get to him.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Beor
Yeah, but I still feel sorry for Harold. The guy wasnt even motivated after the Pope excommunicated him. We call that a mind-something (cant say it here. use your imagination). 20/20 hindsight can tell you alot, but I think that the pope's little thing was key. Dude shouldnt have let it get to him.

Yes. The author makes a good argument about how that could have affected him. He may have been depressed to the point of not giving the standing orders he otherwise knew to give. It certainly seems unfair that the pope made his decree without even hearing Harold's side of things.

Maybe if he'da thought to start the Church of England then and there, instead of waiting to let Henry VIII do it...

[Beor]

He should have just ignored the whole issue, and pressed on. His people still fought for him, so screw the pope (no offense to any catholic's intended). He quit fighting for his people, and that is where he failed.

Oh well, too late now

[Tuor of Gondolin]

I don't think the pope's influence was that determinative. The key factors seem to have been the exhaustion of the troops after beating Harald Hardrada (sp.?) in the north and rushing south and then being pushed into battle too soon by Harold. I've also read views that Harold's claims to the kingship weren't all that strong either.
But it would have been interesting to see how an Anglo-Saxon England might have evolved. For one thing, I believe they had stronger women's rights then the Normans.

An interesting, sympathetic novel about him though is "The Golden Warrior."

[Beor]

The Golden Warrior, huh? I'll have to check it out, thanks.

Well, I'm just saying that from what I read, it seems to me that the pope had a lot to do with it. It was a year ago, but if I remember correctly, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I didnt think he suffered too much loss from fighting Harald Whoever (Sp? ) in the north (I probably am wrong, though, so right me, if you dont mind)

[sun-star]

I always thought (and now I've found a book I didn't know I had in my bookshelf to back me up! ) that Harold Hardrada (or Haardraade, apparently) was quite significant. King Harold had to get his troops from London to Stamford Bridge - where they won - and then back to London, then to Hastings, in less than two weeks. Pretty tiring.

Correct me, please, if I've made any mistakes. This is a very educative thread And is it true that a lot of Harold's soldiers were untrained and badly equipped?

[Valandil]

Originally posted by sun-star
I always thought (and now I've found a book I didn't know I had in my bookshelf to back me up! ) that Harold Hardrada (or Haardraade, apparently) was quite significant. King Harold had to get his troops from London to Stamford Bridge - where they won - and then back to London, then to Hastings, in less than two weeks. Pretty tiring.

Correct me, please, if I've made any mistakes. This is a very educative thread And is it true that a lot of Harold's soldiers were untrained and badly equipped?

Although the author I read credits Harold for bringing his army back-and-forth as he did (for those who don't know, while Harold expected William to invade and awaited him in the south, the Norwegian King Harald Hardrada invaded quite unexpectedly up north - along with Harold's naughty brother Tostig - Harold and his army crushed them!), I don't recall him citing fatigue as a problem for the army. Part of the army was equivalent to a local militia - and was probably ill-equipped and untrained. However, he also had his main force with him... all the well-trained, well-armed veteran soldiers. They held the high ground too. Main problems seemed to be tactis and implementation of any battle plan.

[Falagar]

Was that the battle in which it is said that the Norse had left their armour back in the ships? I may confuse it with a later one, where they fought a battle in Ireland.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Perhaps the note below relates to the lack of Danish armor and its effect on the battle.

Some excerpts from Michael Wood's The Dark Ages.
At Stamford Bridge:
"Harald Hardrada fell early on, struck by an arrow in the throat, leaving Earl Tosti to lead the invaders against his own brother. At this point Morkinskinna,an early 13th-century compilation, alleges that King Harold blew his war horn and asked the Norse to surrender, 'but they all shouted back that they would take no truce but would rather conquer or die.' Earl Tosti then fought bravely 'and he fell there gloriously and covered himself with honour' The final phase was remembered by the Norwegians as the fiercest of all, in which the English suffered terrible losses. It was called 'Orri's storm', after the Norse earl who led the reinforcements...'It was even in the balance whether the English would fly,' says Morskinskinna. But the reinforcements were so heated by their race from Riccall that they threw off their heavy mail, and many fell through sheer exhaustion."
___________________________________________

And if you're interested in omens:
"Soon after Easter a comet was seen, 'a portent such as men had never seen before' (it was Halley's Comet and was visible from 24 April for seven days), and the Bayeaux Tapestry portrays a spectral fleet invading Harold's mind as news is brought to him of 'the long haired star.' "

[Valandil]

Yes... the Norse being without their armor probably helped Harold's forces crush them. The Norse had arrived a few days before at York - and York basically agreed to surrender to them on such-and-such date a few days later, rather than get sacked. Harold's forces, rushing up from the south, arrived the evening before the date of the surrender. So the next day, the Norse warriors left their armor back at the ships to take a nice leisurely walk, figuring to spend the night partying in York... only to walk into another army waiting to defend it.

The crazy fortunes of war...

[Nurvingiel]

A tunnel under Stonehenge? I don't like the idea, simply because they run the risk of disturbing the henge itself. That alone makes the project too risky IMO. Besides, I've been there, and when you're standing near those awesome stones, you forget about the highway. There's a hedge that shields your view of the parking lot.

Speaking of Stonehenge, has anyone read Sarum, by Edward Rutherford? Awesome book. Another is Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follet (I think that's the autyhor).