Runboard.com
Слава Україні!
Community logo


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

Page:  1  2  3  4 

 
Housecarl 1066 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 02-2006
Location: Northern-most Saxon border.
Posts: 620
Karma: 1 (+1/-0)
Reply | Quote
The Saxon's last stand at the 'Malfosse'


As the elite Saxon housecarls showed extreme yet desperate courage by fighting feverishly to the death atop Senlac ridge against overwhelming swarms of fired-up Norman troops, the broken saxon fyrdsmen(ordinary farmer/soldiers) fled for their lives to the north and west of the battle- which now resembled a stirred-up hornet's nest as dusk fell.

Yet it was now that the 'victorious' Norman army suffered a near-disaster as their cavalry pursued the fleeing saxon footmen in the near-dark, which has only been thinly-documented by the Normans, maybe understandably.

About 1/4m to the north-west of the main battle was a deep gully(Oakwood Gill, today). It had a series of ditches with very steep banks, it's perilous nature almost hidden by brambles and undergrowth from the fast-charging Norman horsemen.

Newly arrived Saxons, maybe fresh reinforcements of housecarls(under Earls Edwin & Morcar or Waltheof??), too late to influence the battle, took up an orderly defensive shieldwall position on the other bank of the huge ditches and called to any fleeing fyrdsmen to join them.

They lured the Normans(who did not know the lie of the land, nor see it or their enemy clearly) towards them at speed, and they charged over the edge- somersaulting & tumbling headlong into a pitiful mass of broken human/equine bodies and screaming/dying men, any survivors in the huge mass that didn't break backs/necks or suffocate underneath were quickly despatched by the vengeful saxons. More cavalry followed- unable to see much before them, until it "almost levelled the ravine".

The Normans finally realised the scale of the disaster and called a halt, then a withdraw order(Eustace of Boulogne) but duke William himself charged up and counter-manded him. Then the Saxons "were dispersed", more likely they fell back into the darkness back to their villages and burhs.



---
http://1066andallthat.forumfree.co.uk/
Feb/13/2006, 9:43 pm Link to this post Send Email to Housecarl 1066   Send PM to Housecarl 1066
 
thewilliam theredforum2002 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 03-2004
Posts: 484
Karma: -5 (+2/-7)
Reply | Quote
Re: The Saxon's last stand at the 'Malfosse'


The phrase salvaging something from the wreck springs to mind in your account of this much-neglected incident.I consider the William de Poitiers version the definitive one. When the Conqueror arrrived at the scene of this mini-catastrophe he immediately decided that those being (correctly)pursued by Eustace could easily have been reinforcememts in transit to Senlac.Eustace, the Frankish King's proxy at Senlac and a fearless warrior, advised retreat.The Conqueror led a charge and annihilated the remnants of the defeated Senlac combatants.There were some Norman casualties in this second victory. The remnants of the Usurper's army did not make it back to their firesides as you indicate.

Martin Tilston, First Secretary (personal capacity)
Feb/15/2006, 8:13 pm Link to this post Send Email to thewilliam theredforum2002   Send PM to thewilliam theredforum2002
 
Housecarl 1066 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 02-2006
Location: Northern-most Saxon border.
Posts: 620
Karma: 1 (+1/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: The Saxon's last stand at the 'Malfosse'


I do not consider King Harold II as a 'usurper'- just your hero, the Bastard(Norman hagriographers have embellished his already considerable reputation at their leisure according to their own biases and sources!), who was undoubtedly also a great general.

There is no more proof that William was offered the crown any more than King Edward had offered the same vague, empty 'promises' in the 1040's and 1050's to Kings of Norway (Magnus and Harald Hardrada) in turn, and also King Swein Estrithsson- all to appease their wrath and thus stay off invasion. This ruse(advised by both Godwin and the Norman courtiers) succeeded due to the internecine warfare then raging intermittently, if violently, in Scandinavia for the two decades prior to 1066.

Would Eustace- formely William's enemy and later a rebel against him(1067)- really receive a 'promise' from his own brother-inlaw(Edward)on his rival's behalf? I doubt it, not according to surviving sources, mostly Normanist.

Harold had been the most suitable and experienced man available in England in january 1066, a provenly loyal, able earl and successful military general(Wales 1063 & later Stamford Bridge 1066) as well as patient statesman(negotiating the Welsh during the late 1050's and early 1060's, plus the 1065 rebellion on King Edward's behalf- loyalty overshadowing his OWN brother Tostig's interests!) and simply took the reins of a troubled and uncertain nation (then still under invasion threat from Tostig and ?)when the time was 'right' for strong leadership.
He had never previously attempted to seize power in England, and his 'oath' of 1064(William's lynchpin of invasion) meant nothing- it had been extracted under duress in the 'hospitality' of a provenly ruthless and cruel duke, stealthily disguised with relics beneath a cover and no doubt with more than a mere threat of coersion(Harold's own brother, Wulfnoth, and company(Hakon) being in a notoriously grim Norman gaol- plus Harold himself in their 'custody')- recognised in the Christian world as invalid therefore.

Robert of Jumieges, the then recently ousted and fleeing anti-Godwinist, who had just lost all of his mighty power, status and wealth in England in 1051/2 after the Godwin family returned to power, thus every reason for being a catalyst for wanting change in England whilst taking refuge in Normandy, had strong motives for giving William(his master) a biased and probably innaccurate version of events and 'promised' words reputedly made from Edward's mouth, second-hand, according to Norman sources.

ie. Why was Stigand not removed from English office until four years after the 'conquest' - supposedly one of the reasons that William made to the Pope(a Norman puppet)- to reform the "corrupt" saxon church?

Warm regards.

Last edited by Housecarl 1066, Feb/18/2006, 10:54 am


---
http://1066andallthat.forumfree.co.uk/
Feb/18/2006, 10:26 am Link to this post Send Email to Housecarl 1066   Send PM to Housecarl 1066
 
thewilliam theredforum2002 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 03-2004
Posts: 484
Karma: -5 (+2/-7)
Reply | Quote
Re: The Saxon's last stand at the 'Malfosse'


The Malfosse incident was a “success” for the Counter-Revolutionaries in Angleland and was doubtless “popularised” into myth long after its expiry.It took place, however, after the annihilation of the Angle-Saxon-Dane ruling class on Senlac. The Conqueror’s crushing Revolutionist-Cluniacist victory stirred the Counter-Revolutionaries not merely to flight but to a kind of historically perverse “ingenuity”.

Prior to Malfosse, use of the landscape was only be limited to the Usurper taking the high ground behind a shield wall at Senlac and his expectation to wear down the attacks of his opponents. That is positionalist abjuring manoeuvrability.

And that high ground was very high, ridge-like with an extremely sharp incline comparable to the ravine of the Malfosse.

The Usurper knew his own territory, yet failed miserably to make optimum use of it. What greater indictment can there be? The Conqueror barely knew House of Wessex territory. That is part of the meaning of the Frankish retreat tactic. Conventional tactics for someone in a militarily weaker position are insufficient.

What the Conqueror and his revolutionist leadership team did know was that the Angle-Saxon-Dane ruling class were politically divided following the Usurper’s prise de pouvoir of 6th January (Epiphany –the coming of the wise men) on how to defend the 550+year old order from its demise.

The Counter-Revolutionaries, justly, paid a terrible price for their “ingenuity” at Malfosse.

My main significance for the incident, based on his history, is that when the Conqueror pursued anyone or anything, it was to the end. That was his forte.
It was ideological component that he constantly imbued in the Red with great success.

Drogo (personal capacity)


Last edited by thewilliam theredforum2002, Feb/18/2006, 1:14 pm
Feb/18/2006, 1:07 pm Link to this post Send Email to thewilliam theredforum2002   Send PM to thewilliam theredforum2002
 
Athelstan937 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2005
Location: The Lands of the Hicce
Posts: 127
Karma: 2 (+2/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: The Saxon's last stand at the 'Malfosse'


So 'there were some Norman casualties in this second victory' Just one or two eh! Me thinks this is a slight exagerration.If all remaining Saxon forces were desroyed how come the Normans failed to cross the Thames at Southwark?
Could it be that the resistance that they faced for many years to come was greater than they were prepared to acknowledge?
Feb/18/2006, 2:52 pm Link to this post Send Email to Athelstan937   Send PM to Athelstan937
 
Housecarl 1066 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 02-2006
Location: Northern-most Saxon border.
Posts: 620
Karma: 1 (+1/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: The Saxon's last stand at the 'Malfosse'


Red- William won on the 14th Oct 1066...just! We all know that, we also know that he grudgingly respected the abilities of Harold(who saved TWO Normans simultaneously during the Breton campaign of 1064)and the not 'outdated' Saxon war machine(elite and feared housecarls, etc) or why did he remain on the south coast for THREE WEEKS without moving inland, if they were easy to beat?

"History" as you keep referring to it, has been glossed over, lied about, covered up and re-written by the Normans, eager to 'justify their actions', who by then had the power to do so.

Anyway, how is this Norman bile relevant to my latter post, regarding William and his hagiographer's warped and hopelessly whitewashed propaganda of their unjust and closely-won campaign?

Last edited by Housecarl 1066, Feb/18/2006, 5:00 pm


---
http://1066andallthat.forumfree.co.uk/
Feb/18/2006, 4:49 pm Link to this post Send Email to Housecarl 1066   Send PM to Housecarl 1066
 
Athelstan937 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2005
Location: The Lands of the Hicce
Posts: 127
Karma: 2 (+2/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: The Saxon's last stand at the 'Malfosse'


All this nonsense about William's great deeds is summed up succinctly by Frank McLynn in his book '1066 The Year OF The Three Battles'(Jonathan Cape ,London 1998)
'William reigned until 1087,and was engaged in a never-ending series of rebellions in England and wars in France.For those who claim him as a peerless warrior it is significant that after 1071 he never won a major victory' (P 232
Feb/18/2006, 10:00 pm Link to this post Send Email to Athelstan937   Send PM to Athelstan937
 
Athelstan937 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2005
Location: The Lands of the Hicce
Posts: 127
Karma: 2 (+2/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: The Saxon's last stand at the 'Malfosse'


 TWTRF -Let's lay to rest this nonsense about 'annihilation' of Saxon forces by looking at written works on the subject as opposed to TWTRF 2002 rants.
McGLYNN- 1066 tHE YEAR OF THE THREE BATTLES PAGE 227.
 writing about Malfosse.
'But the pursuit cost the Normans very dear,for they ran onto very difficult terrain just as English reinforcements finally began to reach Caldbec Hill,the newly arrived housecarls took up a defensive position and encouraged many of the fleeing Saxons to join them...........
Pursuing fugitives in the gathering gloom,the Norman cavalry plunged into the steep descent on the north side of the hill; those behind them could not see what had happened followed into the death-trap, until the entire ravine was a seething mass of dying men and whinnying horses.Many riders broke their necks and were killed outright;others who lay sprawling and broken-backed were dispatched by the waiting Saxons.Eventually the slaughter came to an end when the pursuers were brought up by the sheer volume of the dead in front of them.The Normans dismounted and sent scouts forward, who reported the English present in battalion strength.Leading a group of fifty pursuing knights was Eustace of Boulogne.Eustace allegedly panicked at this point and sent word back to William that a fresh English army had arrived.As the opposition was no more than a strong rearguard-as would be discovered in the morning -Eustace may well have fallen into the Duke's disfavour once more ,but he was rescued from his dilemma by a happy accident.Struck by a blow from a missile in the shoulder,he was carried off wounded ,with blood pouring from his nostrils,able thus to pass himself off as one of the 'heroes of the Malfosse'.
Again it seems as if TWTRF wants to slect its own warped view of events that seem to glorify some mythical revolution.
Just for good measure and to add fuel to the fire could the fact that as the cash income of Christ Church, Canterbury in the late eleventh century was more than twice that of Cluny could that have something to do with the Bastard invading England?To fill his coffers and glorify his own overinflated ego!
(This is discussed in Sawyer,"The Wealth of Engalnd in the Eleventh Century" which in turn is quoted in 'The Anglo-Saxon State ' by James Campbell

Last edited by Athelstan937, Feb/22/2006, 4:32 pm
Feb/22/2006, 1:12 pm Link to this post Send Email to Athelstan937   Send PM to Athelstan937
 
mousteriana Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 03-2005
Posts: 936
Karma: 6 (+6/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: The Saxon's last stand at the 'Malfosse'


Athelztan:

Both your replies are very interesting, and perhaps significant. You could even say that, though he and his supporters "crushed" the rebels(or whatever you want to call them)in 1071, William didn't even "win" exactly, even then. There were other kinds of resistance, and William et. al knew it. Otherwise why would they have instituted things like the so-called "murdrum fine"?
Anne G
Feb/22/2006, 8:20 pm Link to this post Send Email to mousteriana   Send PM to mousteriana
 
Athelstan937 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2005
Location: The Lands of the Hicce
Posts: 127
Karma: 2 (+2/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: The Saxon's last stand at the 'Malfosse'


Mousteriana, my view is that the Normans utilsed the existing structures already established prior to their occupation and then fine tuned it along with terror.
At what point the English decided so to speak to take the long view and take the system from within or make the invaders reliant on them I am not sure .Nor am I sure that this or indeed the invasion was a concerted plan much like Gulf War 2 I suppose.
A good source of info is 'The English reistance-The Underground War Against The Normans' by Peter Rex.
Feb/22/2006, 8:44 pm Link to this post Send Email to Athelstan937   Send PM to Athelstan937
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3  4 





You are not logged in (login)