Runboard.com
You're welcome.
Community logo


runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)


Page:  1  2  3 

 
Stafford 1069 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2004
Posts: 3
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Tostig Godwineson


Tostig the Traitor! May he rot in Hell
Dec/1/2004, 6:21 pm Link to this post Send Email to Stafford 1069   Send PM to Stafford 1069
 
thewilliam theredforum2002 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 03-2004
Posts: 484
Karma: -5 (+2/-7)
Reply | Quote
Re: Tostig Godwineson


You need to say traitor to whom or [sign in to see URL] Harold or [sign in to see URL] its Harold then its understandable but [sign in to see URL] was true to his beliefs, the principle one of which was that 615 year old Anglo-Saxon Revolution was [sign in to see URL] argue that it never recovered from the Danish Revolution of [sign in to see URL] saw that there were only two revolutionary roads for Angleland : a new Viking Revolution or The Norman [sign in to see URL] chose the former and so assisted the Conqueror's victory at [sign in to see URL]'s future was with Normandy and The Frankish [sign in to see URL] verified that choice.

Sammy (personal capacity)
Dec/2/2004, 3:58 pm Link to this post Send Email to thewilliam theredforum2002   Send PM to thewilliam theredforum2002
 
Stafford 1069 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2004
Posts: 3
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Tostig Godwineson


Re Tostig the Traitor.

The basis is in English Law. Specifically found in the Statutes of King Elf-wise, Chapter 4:

Of plotting against a lord.

4. If any one plot against the king's life, of himself, or by harbouring of exiles, or of his men; let him be liable with his life and in all that he has.

This the point of law.

The point of fact is the Tostig (and his followers) waged open war against the lawfully appointed (by the Witan/Parliament) King of England, King Harold, in confederation with a foreign power. This action falls within the above definition, of plotting against the life of the king. Which later acts of Parliament defined as treason (Treason Act 1351 etc).

Hence it is reasonable to describe Tostig's actions as treason and to describe him as: Tostig-the-Traitor.

The sincerity Tostig-the-Traitor's are irrelevant. His actions materially aided a foriegn power to invade England; He destroyed an English army; He contributed to diversionary operations that fatally weakened the English defence. A fatally that ultimately led the Northumbrian Genocide and the Extermination of the North.

(In the Second World War, some British soldiers betrayed their oaths to King George-6th, and joined the genocidal Nazi SS "Legion of St. George". If that SS unit had been committed to invading England, whether in the main fighting or in diversionary operations. No one would wax lyrically about the sincerity of their beliefs.)

To use the term "Revolution(s)" is a-historical and therefore to clear debate.


To anonymously state that "Some argue that it never recovered from the Danish Revolution of 1016." is murky. Who argued? Where?

If England was so poor, then it would have been unable to pay the heavy Danegeld that was laid on it. But since England did meet the Danegeld costs and continued to function and didn't become an economic basket case. Then the only conclusion is that England had a healthy robust economy. Not really a case of "...never recovered from the Danish etc etc...".
Dec/3/2004, 2:12 pm Link to this post Send Email to Stafford 1069   Send PM to Stafford 1069
 
thewilliam theredforum2002 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 03-2004
Posts: 484
Karma: -5 (+2/-7)
Reply | Quote
posticon Re: Tostig Godwineson


Stafford1069, great victory for the Conqueror over counter-revolutionary forces and not given the prominence in History it deserves but it’s good to be reminded of it anyway. Thanks for that. Who exactly is King Elfwine? Our check reveals nothing on him or his code of treason. Perhaps you can provide further information? In any case, your charge of treason against Tostig Godwineson in 1066 would have about as much relevance to the run of events of that momentous year as a cop issuing speeding tickets at Formula One today. Harold Godwineson sidelined any legality by his usurpation of the throne in January of that year. Edgar Aethling was the true heir through the House of Cerdic. He was swept aside by the Usurper in a coup d’etat .The House of Wessex was the Witan since the time of Egbert in the 820’s when he destroyed the power of the Witans of the kingdoms of Angleland and centralised the power in the Witan of Wessex which comprised Kent and SW Angleland.
Given that coup d’etat, Tostig had every right to chart his own course first he met the Conqueror and later in the year Hardrarda of Norway. We do not intend to repeat the content of the debate on this thread here concerning Tostig’s much misunderstood role in 1066, suffice it to say that “legality” and “treason” have no relevance since the “rule of law” was a dead letter due to the actions of the Usurper. Hardrarda had a claim to Angleland stretching back to Magnus in 1047 who himself aided Aelfgar when the Usurper outlawed him earlier in that decade. Aelfgar was the father of Edwin and Morcar the Northern Earls who the Usurper repelled by his unilateral bid for total dominance.
Tostig fought with Hardrarda and destroyed an Angle army at Gate Fulford. Are you seriously claiming that backing someone who had a legitimate right to rule a kingdom that was a part of a Scandinavian, North Sea Empire between 1016-42 made him a traitor? Like his brother Tostig Godwineson was a Saxon-Dane in other words both were members of minority groups in Angleland. Like their father, Godwin, their politically formative years were under Cnut the Great (another Usurper ) Where was “legality” then when Eadwig, the true heir, was murdered? The fact is that “legality” and “treason” were rendered meaningless by the revolutionization of Angleland from 1016-42 and the new system of alliances and struggles that it engendered and which ultimately led to The Norman Revolution 1066-1100.
Your point about the state of Angleland's economy entirely misses the point about what the Norman revolutionization of the island was about which was to make it a component in the Conqueror and later the Red's strategy of exporting The Norman Revolution to the rest of the Kingdom of The [sign in to see URL] expropriated wealth of the annihilated Angle-Saxon-Dane elite which the Conqueor paraded around Normandy after Senlac Hill was to be used to assist the financing of that export.
We will finish by strongly opposing your implied comparison of that Revolution with the Nazis which you cite by comparing Tostig and,by implication Hardrada, as aiding and abetting it. To draw such a comparison is pure filth. The Nazis exterminated Jewish people and enslaved millions of people in their empire. The Norman Revolution promoted Jewish people in Angleland and established the first permanent settlements for them there in Angleland’s history and so struck a huge blow in favour of that oppressed people against Angle-Saxon-Dane racism. Slavery was practised by the Angle-Saxon-Dane peoples over mostly Celts(Hardrard believed in Slavery,we do not know his position on Jewish people).That vile institution was never practised in Normandy and it was The Norman Revolution 1066-1100 that sounded its death knell in Angleland ultimately leading to its abolition in the opening decades of the 12th Century.
Rob, [sign in to see URL] (both in personal capacity)



Dec/5/2004, 8:35 pm Link to this post Send Email to thewilliam theredforum2002   Send PM to thewilliam theredforum2002
 
Xavier9 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 05-2008
Posts: 21
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Tostig Godwineson


An interesting discussion but I am not entirely convinced that [sign in to see URL] was anything more than someone who found himself at odds with all sides in the scramble for the succession in [sign in to see URL] only turned to Hardraada after being ousted in Northumbria by [sign in to see URL] who was trying to present himself as Edward the Confessor's impartial enforcer and to see him as a prospective collaborator with William the Conqueror's claim seems [sign in to see URL] latter had marshalled a considerable alliance with numerous people far more important and decisive than [sign in to see URL] suppose it might be said that by being with the Norwegians at Gate Fulford he created tensions among H. Godwineson's supporters since the Godwin "clan" were still appreciated as "power-brokers" at that time and the fact that Edwin and Morcar were left without kingly(in person) support at that battle made [sign in to see URL]'s support for Hardraada look more decisive than it actually was irrespective of the result of that battle.I certainly do not think that Hardraada's claim to the succession made [sign in to see URL]'s support indispensable.
Jul/10/2015, 11:32 am Link to this post Send Email to Xavier9   Send PM to Xavier9
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3 





You are not logged in (login)