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
Re: The Saxon's last stand at the 'Malfosse'


Athelstan

I too have read the book about the English underground that you named, though my memory of it's info is a little hazy now.

I found it fascinating that the Normans called the Saxon resistance 'rebels' silvatici and that they attacked from and maybe also lived in the woods near towns, which possibly supplied and fed them- ala Robin Hood?

---
http://1066andallthat.forumfree.co.uk/
Feb/22/2006, 9:26 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'


You are probably right that the Robin HOOD legend has its roots herein.Also many other themes could possibly be traced from these days:- The English dislike of central authority given William,s excesses.The English resistance to Papal authority in religion given the Pope's support of the Fat one.
I suppose it could also be argued that the Witan set the foundations for some say in the election of leaders.
It would be fascinating to follow these thoughts through and debate them.Though I doubt if twtrf would be interested in anything less than the Deification of William.
Incidentally if he was so pious how on earth did he have the cheek to blaspheme by having himself crowned on Christmas Day?
Feb/22/2006, 9:46 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'


quote:

Incidentally if he was so pious how on earth did he have the cheek to blaspheme by having himself crowned on Christmas Day?



Clearly he was trying to make a point by associating himself and God, via Christmas day and thus reminding the 'subjects' of the papal banner- his supposed justification of the conquest.

I also think that the British class system (aka 'us' and 'them') began as we know it today, as a direct result of the Norman lords in their castles oppressing and 'looking down on' the people(Normans on the 'conquered' and rebellious Saxons), and also taking their land.

---
http://1066andallthat.forumfree.co.uk/
Feb/22/2006, 10:03 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'


Athelstan937
You must know that the McLynn book is noted for its open attempt to boost the political-military stock in history of Harald Hardrarda at the expense of the Conqueror and the Usurper.Nothing wrong with that from the author's standpoint but when objectivity is your emphasis.....
Franc B (personal capacity)
Feb/25/2006, 3:18 pm Link to this post Send Email to thewilliam theredforum2002   Send PM to thewilliam theredforum2002
 
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'


Franc B:

From what I've seen of your and other WTRF posts, Athelstan937's general tone is a lot more objective than yours. Sorry, but your reply just doesn't "wash", as they say.
Anne G
Feb/25/2006, 10:05 pm Link to this post Send Email to mousteriana   Send PM to mousteriana
 
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'


To Athelstan and Housecarl:

I, too, have read the Peter Rex book, and I think his description was mainly right, although he has some, um, rather unproven ideas. Still, it's a good source for educating oneself about the English resistances following 1066, and the reasons for them.

And you're also probably correct that some of the roots of the Robin Hood legends lie here, but they are based on some very real events and people.
Anne G
Feb/25/2006, 10:11 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'


TWTRF.
I think you are wrong
'You must know that the McLynn book is noted for its open attempt to boost the political-military stock in history of Harald Hardrarda at the expense of the Conqueror and the Usurper.Nothing wrong with that from the author's standpoint but when objectivity is your emphasis.....'
The main thrust of McGlynn's book is not this but the fact that Harold and the English were in fact betrayed by the ambitions of the Northern Earls-Edwin & Morcar
'The two men who by their machiavellianism and treachery,had sabotaged Anglo-Saxon England more effectively than anyone else did not enjoy the fruits if their duplicity.Without them there would have been no disaffection of Tostig ,no invasion by Harald Hardrada ,no battle of Hastings and no Norman Conquest..
If any one tried to boost the stock of Hardrada it was De Vries.
 

Last edited by Athelstan937, Feb/26/2006, 2:33 pm
Feb/26/2006, 11:06 am Link to this post Send Email to Athelstan937   Send PM to Athelstan937
 
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'


I read the contributions of Athelstan,HouseKarl and Mousterianna and it looks to me they have ‘arrived late at the debate’ as we say in Scotland.Aye for sure!
To say that there were divisions in the Conqueror’s family comparable to those in that of the Usurper is laughable. There is no recorded division of viewpoint in the Conqueror’s family about the Revolutionization of Angleland, only in his leadership team which were resolved at the Councils of Bonneville-sur-Touques and Lillebonne. That revolutionary unity plus the justice of the cause ensured the backing of Pope Alexander 11 and his Norman-Italian supporters and enabled Robert de Mortain the Conqueror’s half-brother to brandish the The Papal Banner in one hand and a sword in the other at Senlac, cutting down the Counter-Revolutionaries like ripe wheat afore the scythe!Aye for sure!
 William d’ Arques also known as Count de Talou, was not the Conqueror’s uncle. He was defeated at Arques in 1053 and no returned. The only significant factor at Arques in relation to the Usurper is Guy de Ponthieu whose brother was killed outside the walls of the town during the siege by troops loyal to the Conqueror.
When the Usurper was shipwrecked at the coastline on the bouche de Somme, Guy de Ponthieu jailed him and without the Conqueror’s intervention he would have rotted in prison until death because if you think the Confessor would have ransomed him you are truly deluded. Tostig on the other hand is central to the Usurper’s failure to unite his family. When the Usurper allied himself to the Confessor against him in the near-Civil War crisis of 1065 and installed Morcar in Northumbria, Tostig knew that his brother was playing a game of his own at his expense.That Civil War crisis has been dealt with in detail on the Board and I recommend you read the contributions on it. Hakon.Wulfnoth and Ulf were already hostages in Normandy, is that familial loyalty by the Godwin klan, even allowing for the conventional use of the hostage tactic? No, it was a cynical exercise by self-serving opportunists willing to sell anyone down the river to achieve their own ends.The Usurper did not break from that tradition which is why he betrayed Tostig and later the Conqueror himself. The Usurper was out of control from late 1065 onwards. Do you no see that?
The Usurper was the man who had betrayed a sacred oath sworn on the Holy Relics Of Saints so perhaps its no surprising. Even at Senlac itself, familial division was explicit: Gyrth and Leofwine were involved in advances to feigned retreats defying the Usurper’s order to stand firm.The Conqueror is credited with having cut Gyrth down in one such advance.
And on a separate item:
 For goodness sake! let’s put an end to the idiocy of denying that 1066 was a Revolution. In 1688-89, William of Orange was invited by his supporters in the islands to free England Scotland and Ireland from James 11’s(V11 of Scotland) tyranny.The Normans already living in Angleland were leading supporters of the Conqueror’s Revolution. William of Orange ‘invaded’ with 15,000 Dutch soldiers and was victorious after huge slaughter on a scale which almost rivalled the Cromwellian Revolution-from-below 1642-51.Like 1066, 1688-89 was a Revolution-from –above.”Conventional” history calls that “The Glorious Revolution”. But for no other reason than hypocrisy, 1066 is called “Conquest” or something more “popular sounding” or“milder” which only explains part of the operation not its totality. In other words, it’s a case of being economical with the truth.
Our Forum will start to treat critics of our Forum calling 1066 a Revolution seriously when “conventional history and its historians” call 1688-89 “The Glorious Conquest/Invasion”. In the present “climate”,that is about as likely as William the Red being called by name instead of “William Rufus” given that the Conqueror has never been called by modern and not so modern historians “William Invictissimus”.

Sammy (personal capacity)


          
Feb/26/2006, 7:04 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'


You're a ridiculous, bigoted and maligned rabble of ranting idiots, Red. Now you're throwing in the Scottish slant, what next- Chinese?

Wake up and grow up- NOBODY DOUBTS THAT THERE WAS A CONQUEST! I even admire many things about William and the Normans, but morons like you ruin the whole subject- especially when you childishly put down an enemy simply because they were beaten(if even in an unusually close-run, violent and long battle!)- no Normans ever stated that Hastings had been easy! May have been the losing side(just- and you know the 'facts')-Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

When you grow up and learn to discuss this era with maturity, balanced detail and intelligence, then maybe people will take notice of what you have to say, instead of laughing at your inane and foaming-at-the-mouth tirades that assume everything about that era(esp. the Norman propaganda) is fact & that you were privy to it all.

The difference between you and a schoolyard child bragging about his obese and greedy dad, is that they haven't yet developed the conversation skills and the emotional maturity to handle any accurate, opposing views...oh wait- you haven't either!

Until then, RedtheFat, continue being ridiculed outside of your juvenile clique.

Last edited by Housecarl 1066, Feb/26/2006, 7:39 pm


---
http://1066andallthat.forumfree.co.uk/
Feb/26/2006, 7:27 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'


Sammy The Pict!
I am sorry to use such language but this is absolute bollocks!
1066 WAS NOT A REVOLUTION.It was an invasion based on the greed of the Norman Usurper.William had no claim to the throne.The Witan always was the final arbiter of who was to rule England.
What the hell has 1688-69 got to do with it?THE COMPARISONS ARE INVALID AND TOTALLY IDIOTIC!
'The Usurper was out of control from late 1065 onwards. Do you no see that?
No I do not! If he was so out of control how come he prevented civil war and commanded an army to Stamford Bridge and HASTINGS.
Where the hell is your evidence that familial division was explict?
There is some evidence that Harold's brothers wanted him to remain in London but none that on the battlefield that they were divided.
Surely you know that any oath made under duress is considered invalid.
The Normans living in England were 5th columnists brought by Edward the Duffer
I am afraid you are losing the plot or becoming psychotic in your delusional interpretation of events!



Last edited by Athelstan937, Feb/26/2006, 7:40 pm
Feb/26/2006, 7:37 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)