Some Questions for You Brits

[Shuckins]

Would Harold Godwineson have made a better king than William Bastard?

If Harold had not had to fight the Battle of Stamford Bridge, could he have defeated William at Hastings?

Whatever happened to Edith Svaneshals?

Don't you think the events that led up to the struggle of 1066, as well as the battles themselves, would make an epic movie?

Do the London newspapers still run an obituary for Harold on October 12?

Curious to see how you modern Englanders view these events?

Regards, Shuckins/Leggern

[Furball]

Would Harold Godwineson have made a better king than William Bastard?  Yes.

If Harold had not had to fight the Battle of Stamford Bridge, could he have defeated William at Hastings?  Yes.

Whatever happened to Edith Svaneshals? no idea!

Don't you think the events that led up to the struggle of 1066, as well as the battles themselves, would make an epic movie? Yes, although the directors would have to really be on their toes to portray an american saving us.

Do the London newspapers still run an obituary for Harold on October 12? don't know, sorry.

Curious to see how you modern Englanders view these events?  Did my best, me aint no historian

[SunTracker]

How come brits don't celebrate the 4th of July like us Americans do?

[Shuckins]

SunTracker,

Try to keep on topic my man!

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Furball
Don't you think the events that led up to the struggle of 1066, as well as the battles themselves, would make an epic movie? Yes, although the directors would have to really be on their toes to portray an american saving us.

Goes both ways Furball.  

Welshman Anthony Hopkins played the elder Zorro (the legendary latino hero of old Los Angeles) in "The Mark of Zorro" and I believe the daughter of the Alcalde was played by someone who also hails from Wales.

[Shuckins]

Some of God's finest handiwork!

[Holden McGroin]

No question about it...  She's just not a latina.

[Curval]

If Harold had won at Hastings Great Britain would be a totally different place today.  The Norman influence was pervasive to the point that they could be compared to the Borg.

The north of England was virtually annihilated after 1066.  The events leading up to 1066 are dwarfted by the atrocities that occured just afterwards.

Take a close look at the Tapistry...it documents it well.  The Normans seem very proud of it.

[Shuckins]

Curval,

From some of the sources I have read I gained the impression that the Conquest may have slowed England's movement toward a more democratic government.

  That may seem to be something of a stretch in logic, but wasn't power beginning to gravitate from the king to the Great Council before King Edward's day.  Wasn't that the source of some of the problems between King Edward, who was raised under the feudalistic system of Normandy, and the English Lords on the Great Council?  Edward tended to surround himself with councilors who were Norman French or French priests, and none of them really understood the English system of government, don't you think?

Regards, Shuckins/Leggern

[Replicant]

If Harold had won he'd have only lost at some point in the future to the Normans.

The thing about British history is that there are so many infuences/invasions by other nearby countries.  To name but a few... Romans, Saxons, Angles, Normans, Vikings etc.  The older Briton/Celtic areas of Britain still exist today as do the other Norman, Saxon, Angle parts do.

The Normans (and Romans) were probably the most influential in British history in developing this country (to be followed by Tudors and Stuarts).  The Normans erected buildings all around the country and buildings still exist today.  The Normans were more grandeur, more modern and their mark still exists today (the town I live still has a Norman castle from 1100).

Edith Svaneshals?   Haven't a clue what happened to her!  I do know she was given a village 7 miles from where I live, called 'Edith Weston'!  That's all I know of her!

As for the curiosity of what us 'Englanders' (I being half-English, half-Welsh) think of the events is somewhat irrelevent in all honesty.  You have to remember that in Britain there is so much history to learn that only small sections are covered through school.  I covered Norman Britain when I was only 8 years old and never got the chance to study it again, unless at my leisure.  

The main topics of study in History classes seemed to be Celtic Britain, Romans, Middle Ages, Normans, Tudor/Stuart era, Napoleonic/Peninsual War era, Georgian/Edwardian era, Industrial Revolution, WW1, WW2.  Well, that's all we seemed to learn anyway!  Very frustrating seeing I only did WW2 at age 9/10 when I would have prefered to do it between 14-16 instead of the Industrial Revolution!!!!

[Shuckins]

Replicant,

Had not Harold's brother Tostig and Harald Hardraada of Norway not landed near York with the largest Viking army to ever invade England, Harold Godwineson would have had an extra three weeks and more manpower to fall on William at Hastings.

The Battle of Stamford Bridge was the greatest English victory over a Viking army in the 200 year history of Viking invasions, but it cost Harold dearly in time, resources, and the lives of his Housecarles.

It's always been a bit laughable to me that so many historians have waxed eloquent about William's boldness and military prowess when he sat on his hunkers at Hastings for three weeks like a frightened hare.  The forests around him must have been quite intimidating with their silent threat of hidden enemies.  This hardly seems normal for an army whose main strengths lay in its cavalry and rapidity of movement.  Had Harold had enough manpower to properly bestride the only road out of Hastings William would have been doomed.  There would have been no escape, for hadn't William already burned his ships?

Regards, Shuckins/Leggern

[Curval]

Originally posted by Shuckins
Curval,

From some of the sources I have read I gained the impression that the Conquest may have slowed England's movement toward a more democratic government.

  That may seem to be something of a stretch in logic, but wasn't power beginning to gravitate from the king to the Great Council before King Edward's day.  Wasn't that the source of some of the problems between King Edward, who was raised under the feudalistic system of Normandy, and the English Lords on the Great Council?  Edward tended to surround himself with councilors who were Norman French or French priests, and none of them really understood the English system of government, don't you think?

Regards, Shuckins/Leggern

I'd agree that there is such speculation.  After the Normans established themselves in Britain the first census took place and it was remarkably easy for the Normans to complie all their data.  The reason is that the data was already available and in many cases just needed to be colated.  The Saxons already had a well developed system of governace that closely resembled a democracy, in relative terms vs. the fuedal system.

As to the battle itself (Hastings)...I think you are absolutely correct.  If the Normans had faced Harold with a fresh, well rested, army the outcome would surely have been different.

[Replicant]

Originally posted by Shuckins
Replicant,

Had not Harold's brother Tostig and Harald Hardraada of Norway not landed near York with the largest Viking army to ever invade England, Harold Godwineson would have had an extra three weeks and more manpower to fall on William at Hastings.

The Battle of Stamford Bridge was the greatest English victory over a Viking army in the 200 year history of Viking invasions, but it cost Harold dearly in time, resources, and the lives of his Housecarles.

It's always been a bit laughable to me that so many historians have waxed eloquent about William's boldness and military prowess when he sat on his hunkers at Hastings for three weeks like a frightened hare.  The forests around him must have been quite intimidating with their silent threat of hidden enemies.  This hardly seems normal for an army whose main strengths lay in its cavalry and rapidity of movement.  Had Harold had enough manpower to properly bestride the only road out of Hastings William would have been doomed.  There would have been no escape, for hadn't William already burned his ships?

Regards, Shuckins/Leggern

I agree that had they not fough Stamford Bridge (which must be somewhere in the region of a 500-600 mile round trip?) then they would have been fresher to confront William.  As for William waiting, well, the waiting game can be rather intimidating in its own right.

However, under Harold the Britons hadn't really gone anywhere or developed anything as such.  Under the Normans there were sweeping changes in a development sense.  I'm pleased the Normans won.