Runboard.com
Слава Україні!
Community logo


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

Page:  1  2  3 

 
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
Revised rant of WilliamtheRed


 
quote:

The Usurper could not unify his own family, less a country.



So didn't Willam's own uncle- William of Arques(who had always been ill-disposed to Wm)- leave the siege of Domfront in 1052, renounce his vassalage to his ducal nephew and raise an armed revolt against him, in concert with King Henry I of France and Geoffrey of Anjou?..Yes he did!

quote:

(Edgar Aethling was almost 10 in 1066 when he was brutally usurped by Godwineson).



There was nothing brutal or bloody about King Harold II's lawful election by the witan, and subsequent popular crowning.

quote:

There is also evidence that the Conqueror exploited the divisions inside and between Angleland and Scandinavia as a catalyst to facilitate this historic victory. The highest expression of his consummate, revolutionary skill in this regard was the evidence albeit by no means conclusive for all traditions, of what de facto was a temporary alliance with Hardraada to implement a two-front war on the Usurper



Utter rubbish and you know it, Red! William and Harald Hardrada had NO 'united plan' to aid each other's ruthlessly competing ambitions(aka Invading England for the crown). The winds that kept William in Normandy were the very same winds that propelled Hardrada's unrelated and completely seperate invasion- unknown to either the duke or King Harold!
They would have fought each other- if King Harold II had not shown great generalship and won a fantastic victory against the huge Norse invasion army first!!

quote:

One of them[in the St Brice's Day massacre of 1002] was Sweyn Forkbeard’s brother.



No, it was Sweyn's sister that was reputedly slain, along with her husband and son.

quote:

Unfortunately, historians past and present all have an axe to grind and a publisher to publish them. Between them is a shadow. It is precisely because of that fact that our Forum expresses clarity based on known, consensually correct facts which historians do provide with certain, sometimes exemplary, degrees of objective exactitude.



Is this describing you, Red?

quote:

To be frank, the story of The Norman Revolution from the Angleland/England/ UK is today the subject of attack by regressive revisionism to straitjacket it to a fabricated, ‘digestible’, modern ‘reality’ conducive to manipulation by dubious, vested interests. Read a certain, cross-section of so-called ‘reputable’ websites external to this one, which is genuinely reputable in the expression of its own perspective, and judge for yourselves. We contend the core of this regressive revisionism is pro-Godwinsonite propaganda and a virulent, bigoted, anti-Norman platform and agenda.
 



So, is your hagiography of William the Bastard written without bias or feverish over-excitement, maybe as truthfully as Poitiers' treatment of Eustace of Boulogne, perhaps?

quote:

The Conqueror had been promised the kingdom in 1051 by the Confessor and even more so in 1064-65 by Godwineson under sacred oath (sous serment sacre) He had every right to rule in Angleland and when that honourable or what would be described today as the ‘constitutional’ road was transformed into a cul-de-sac by Godwinesonite treachery, as described in one our Forum’s previous postings, he took the road to Revolution.



I refer you to my previous and detailed response to the 'Malfosse' post, regarding the ridiculous 'oath' claim of 1064, Edward's many vague and half-baked 'promises(to Magnus of Norway, Hardrada, Swein Estrithsson, etc), Harold's military abilities and other Norman untruths.
 

Last edited by Housecarl 1066, Feb/20/2006, 1:37 am


---
http://1066andallthat.forumfree.co.uk/
Feb/18/2006, 5:47 pm Link to this post Send Email to Housecarl 1066   Send PM to Housecarl 1066
 
mousteriana Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 03-2005
Posts: 936
Karma: 6 (+6/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Revised rant of WilliamtheRed


Housecarl:

Well said. I fear many of the people on this list ignore those nasty facts that don't agree with their "thesis", and continue to churn out one-sided glorifications of the "Anglo-Norman" period. Be that as it may, I think the reality, looked at with as little bias as is possible(and the Forum is right to the exten that everybodybrings at least some biases to their thinking and writing). However, the way to deal with the subject of "bias" is to look at as many sources as you possibly can, not to simply ignore what you don't want to hear or disagree with.
Anne G
Feb/18/2006, 7:25 pm Link to this post Send Email to mousteriana   Send PM to mousteriana
 
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: Revised rant of WilliamtheRed


Hi Mousteriana

Yes, I agree- that's why, even though I deeply admire King Harold II and the Saxon army's elite and fearsome bodyguard(as in my ID!) and their terrific 1066 campaigns that nearly battered TWO great armies within a month, I have read widely about the Viking/Saxon/Norman era and am able, unlike WilliamtheRed, to coolly analyse, debate and accept facts, even if they don't fit the type of history I want to believe! I even admit the few great things about William!!

And not swallow every tatty and maligned piece of Norman propaganda that "fits" like WilliamRed gullibly does, then post pompous rants- complete with BIG WORDS straight from his new pocket dictionary- to 'justify' his desperate, lying, unjust and avaricious Normans.

Regards.

---
http://1066andallthat.forumfree.co.uk/
Feb/19/2006, 9:05 am Link to this post Send Email to Housecarl 1066   Send PM to Housecarl 1066
 
mousteriana Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 03-2005
Posts: 936
Karma: 6 (+6/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Revised rant of WilliamtheRed


Housecarl:

I guess my approach, which differs from that of this Forum, is to try to be as evenhanded as possible in judging all sides. That said, the Normans come off badly in comparison to the English, at least at first.
Anne G
Feb/19/2006, 11:38 pm Link to this post Send Email to mousteriana   Send PM to mousteriana
 
thewilliam theredforum2002 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 03-2004
Posts: 484
Karma: -5 (+2/-7)
Reply | Quote
Re: Revised rant of WilliamtheRed


Housecarl

The Housecarls on Senlac were Danes,you know.Are you pro-Cnut,pro-Estrithsson or pro-Usurper?

Lydia Giles, Chairperson (on behalf of TWTRF2002)
Feb/21/2006, 6:55 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: Revised rant of WilliamtheRed


Lydia ,so what if some of the Housecarls were Danes. There was a long tradition of Scandanavian forces fighting alongside the White Dragon. At Brunanburh many of Athelstan's body guard/advisers were Icelandic ,as detailed in Egil's Saga.
The reality of Harold's forces was that it was an Anglo-Saxon-Danish force as you and your TWTRF2002 keep going on about.
You talk of the Norman army how many of them were in fact Norman?How many of them were paid for by the forces of the corrupt Papacy to by off William to prevent him turning his imperial desires elsewhere?

Last edited by Athelstan937, Feb/21/2006, 7:24 pm
Feb/21/2006, 7:16 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: Revised rant of WilliamtheRed


Red- just reply to the details in our posts, which highlight your inaccuracies galore, if you're knowledgeable enough, mature enough and objective enough to be able to do so.
I doubt it- your avoidance of a contrasting and detailed standpoint is laughable.

Yes, I'm proudly "Pro-King Harold II"- the legally-elected, strong, popular and able English monarch!

And no- I'm not pro-Bastard, pro-Breton, pro-French or pro-other french principality...all of which were an allied coalition that unified uneasily & temporarily, before they fought one another...and against the obese and fatherless duke!

And what's with your pretencious and unimpressive 'chairperson' faeces below each of your desperately innaccurate posts- crying out for attention?

Last edited by Housecarl 1066, Feb/21/2006, 10:42 pm


---
http://1066andallthat.forumfree.co.uk/
Feb/21/2006, 9:59 pm Link to this post Send Email to Housecarl 1066   Send PM to Housecarl 1066
 
mousteriana Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 03-2005
Posts: 936
Karma: 6 (+6/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Revised rant of WilliamtheRed


All:

Housecarl is correct. It really doesn't matter whether or not Harold's housecarls wer ethnic "Danes" or not. The point is, they were loyal to Harold. Housecarl and Athelstan are also right in that Harold's succession to the throne was *not* contested in England, at least. And finally, as I've repeatedly said before, I'm not "pro" anybody, although my rather slight biases are in favor of the English. And these biases are reinforced, more or less, by the things I've read so far. However, I actually try to be as evenhanded as it is possible to be.
Anne G


quote:

Housecarl 1066 wrote:

Red- just reply to the details in our posts, which highlight your inaccuracies galore, if you're knowledgeable enough, mature enough and objective enough to be able to do so.
I doubt it- your avoidance of a contrasting and detailed standpoint is laughable.

Yes, I'm proudly "Pro-King Harold II"- the legally-elected, strong, popular and able English monarch!

And no- I'm not pro-Bastard, pro-Breton, pro-French or pro-other french principality...all of which were an allied coalition that unified uneasily & temporarily, before they fought one another...and against the obese and fatherless duke!

And what's with your pretencious and unimpressive 'chairperson' faeces below each of your desperately innaccurate posts- crying out for attention?


Feb/22/2006, 4:08 am Link to this post Send Email to mousteriana   Send PM to mousteriana
 
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: Revised rant of WilliamtheRed


Thanks for your thoughtful, intelligent and balanced response, Anne.

I believe that by 1066 the housecarls were a fifty year old mix of English soldiers as well as Danish mercenaries(or "lithesmen" as in Ethelred II's reign).

From a few of the many sources I have read about the era of the Vikings, Saxons and Normans, it's been suggested that some of these elite and well-feared professional warriors who served Harold and his earls were seasoned fighters who had served pre-1066 as mercenaries abroad- (Byzantine or even France/Normandy?). Though it'll never be fully known for sure.

By the way, where is WTR to answer to such detailed debate in these threads, as opposed to his/her immature, inaccurate and hopelessly-misguided spin?

Regards.

Last edited by Housecarl 1066, Feb/22/2006, 5:44 pm


---
http://1066andallthat.forumfree.co.uk/
Feb/22/2006, 5:39 pm Link to this post Send Email to Housecarl 1066   Send PM to Housecarl 1066
 
mousteriana Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 03-2005
Posts: 936
Karma: 6 (+6/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Revised rant of WilliamtheRed


Housecarl and all:

Add to this the fact that by 1066 it is probably impossible to tell, just by looking at people's names, who was a "Dane" and who was an "Englishman". Different membersin the same family would often have a mixture of names(I got this from an excellent book called Women in Anglo-Saxon England, btw. This is something that the RTW people apparently don't take into account.

But then, they rather specifically tend to reject any reference to actual historical sources of any sort, especially when the historical sources don't appear to support their view of things. And that's something that bugs me.
Feb/22/2006, 8:16 pm Link to this post Send Email to mousteriana   Send PM to mousteriana
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3 





You are not logged in (login)