A series of all things 1066
We Brits are renowned for always talking about the weather - usually it's a safe conversation starter, plus, unlike some areas of the world, we have a varied and changeable diet of wind, rain, sun and occasionally hail and snow. Global warming is a big concern - and the weather patterns have certainly changed these last couple of years. Here in Devon our 13 acre farm resembled the Somme for most of the winter and spring but turned to the Sahara for about seven weeks during the (too hot) summer. We're back at the gales and monsoon season again now, as I write this in October. Here in Devon we do have quite a bit of rain, and often on dry days we have misty mornings, which is why Devon is a very green county with lush grass and is renowned for its dairy industry. (And the mist rolling in along the Taw Valley between the hills looks like dragon's breath...)
So why am I nattering on about the weather? (Apart from the fact that I'm British and it's chucking it down outside...) The weather directly affected events of 1066. Had it been different, the year - our history - may have been entirely different as well!
The Roman, Tacitus, writes that in fifth-century Britain the soil was fertile and crops grew quickly but ripened slowly because of the consistent dampness and heavy rainfalls. It seems that during the time that the Romans were here, our climate was generally quite good. Some time in the early 400s, however, the climate changed to wetter and colder weather, becoming more so by the 450s, with possibly as much as a 10% increase in the rainfall. This would have affected soil erosion, not least because so much forest had been cleared for building materials and crop-growing. Flooding takes nutrients from the soil decreasing fertility and resulting in less productivity. Temperature changes also affected grain production and the hay crop which reduced the availability of animal feed - indeed the heavy rain this year (2018) in Devon has caused precisely this: the hay crop is down, there is very little straw available for bedding because the wheat and barley crop was poor. Some fruits have done badly - blackberries are either bitter or late ripening. Apples and pears have done well though!
In turn, poorly fed animals were susceptible to disease, were difficult to feed over winter and produced fewer healthy lambs, calves, kids etc come the spring.
Grain needing to be imported meant higher taxation, which meant higher prices and therefore starvation (as happened in the late 1700s / early 1800s) The potato famine in Ireland was a result of the weather - rain caused blight which ruined the crop, and a bitter winter did the rest for the hundreds of souls who died.
The Romans pulled out of Britain circa 420 AD, already tribes from Ireland and Germany were invading and settling - could this be because they were desperate for better land to grow more food? Did Rome leave for the same reason? Yes, political upheaval in other parts of the Empire played a part, but with dwindling food resources because of changing weather patterns would it not make sense to withdraw the increasingly hard to feed army?
The Picts in the Northern Highlands would have experienced harsher weather, as did the Scotti who came over from Ireland - and settled into what soon became Scotland.
The steadily worsening climate also worsened the economic and social structure of Britain - a fact substantiated by Gildas who, writing in the early 500s, bewailed the horrors of invasion, famine and social revolt throughout the land.
It is recorded that a cataclysmic global climate change happened around the year 536 AD which lasted for about ten years. A dust cloud blocked the sun's light and heat, either caused by a huge volcano in the Pacific or Java regions, or by an asteroid hit somewhere (more likely, the former). A plague devastated Europe in the 540s and in the 670s Bede mentions that no rain had fallen for three years causing widespread famine. There is some evidence that glaciers in northern Europe had minor advancement during the 700-900AD period, which could either be a result of, or cause of, weather change.
So Global Warming might not be the only cause of our changing weather, these seem to be affected by other conditions as well, except global warming seems to be speeding things up. But what of the weather and 1066?
No, I am not suggesting that good/bad weather caused the Norman Conquest! The weather, however, did affect the outcome of events that year!
A comet appeared in the sky - one we now know as Halley's Comet: it's unlikely that this would have affected the weather, though.
Duke William attempted to cross the Narrow Sea (the Channel) with his hastily-built fleet in the summer. He failed. Belief is that he met with a storm and most of the vessels were destroyed. Personally, I think this was Norman propaganda spread to hide the fact that he met with the English schyp fyrd - King Harold's very experienced and capable navy. Two reasons for my belief:
1) Harold would have set a seaborne blockade.
2) Why did Harold stand the English 'army' down and send them all home in late July / early August if it was still likely that William would come?
The answer to 2) is simple: he didn't expect the Normans to come back that year. Which meant he had very good reason to assume this... he knew that the Norman fleet had been decimated. His one error ... he miscalculated that William would manage to amass another fleet, and misjudged the weather. He assumed that the normal pattern for September onward would not especially be favourable for shipping. He assumed wrong.
September turned out to be a dry month - and hot.
The Norwegian, Harald Hardrada, allied with King Harold's own (traitorous) brother Tostig, had decided that he should be King of England and invaded Yorkshire in the summer of 1066. Urgent word was sent south to beg help from King Harold II.The men of York were defeated at Gate Fulford, and an agreement to discuss surrender was made (tactical delaying methods by the English of course). Encamped a few miles from York, and believing that help would not arrive for several more days, Hardrada's men left their armour and weaponry at their camp because it was so hot. They underestimated the English king, were met by him at Stamford Bridge and defeated. (Tostig was killed. Serves him right.) The fact that Harold was able to move so quickly and call in so many men just as quick also points to good weather - the roads were dry enough for easy marching, and it would stay light until late allowing for longer marching time.
Duke William managed to cross the Channel because the wind had held right - and Harold was able to march south again in quick time, again because the weather held. But here's the darn annoying thing:
IF it had been raining for a few days, IF there had been a downpour on that fateful day of 14th October 1066 at a place about seven miles from Hastings, then that famous battle may well have gone the other way - or not even happened at all (at least, not in 1066). The steep ground would have been churned to heavy mud, men would have been sodden, it would have been difficult for William's men to have got up that hill by the third time of trying.
If it had rained on that day it is very likely that the Norman Conquest would never have happened.
The annoying thing? The weather did turn that evening. On the 15th October the skies wept for the loss of King Harold Godwinesson.
More about the book and buying links: click here
So why am I nattering on about the weather? (Apart from the fact that I'm British and it's chucking it down outside...) The weather directly affected events of 1066. Had it been different, the year - our history - may have been entirely different as well!
The Roman, Tacitus, writes that in fifth-century Britain the soil was fertile and crops grew quickly but ripened slowly because of the consistent dampness and heavy rainfalls. It seems that during the time that the Romans were here, our climate was generally quite good. Some time in the early 400s, however, the climate changed to wetter and colder weather, becoming more so by the 450s, with possibly as much as a 10% increase in the rainfall. This would have affected soil erosion, not least because so much forest had been cleared for building materials and crop-growing. Flooding takes nutrients from the soil decreasing fertility and resulting in less productivity. Temperature changes also affected grain production and the hay crop which reduced the availability of animal feed - indeed the heavy rain this year (2018) in Devon has caused precisely this: the hay crop is down, there is very little straw available for bedding because the wheat and barley crop was poor. Some fruits have done badly - blackberries are either bitter or late ripening. Apples and pears have done well though!
In turn, poorly fed animals were susceptible to disease, were difficult to feed over winter and produced fewer healthy lambs, calves, kids etc come the spring.
Grain needing to be imported meant higher taxation, which meant higher prices and therefore starvation (as happened in the late 1700s / early 1800s) The potato famine in Ireland was a result of the weather - rain caused blight which ruined the crop, and a bitter winter did the rest for the hundreds of souls who died.
The Romans pulled out of Britain circa 420 AD, already tribes from Ireland and Germany were invading and settling - could this be because they were desperate for better land to grow more food? Did Rome leave for the same reason? Yes, political upheaval in other parts of the Empire played a part, but with dwindling food resources because of changing weather patterns would it not make sense to withdraw the increasingly hard to feed army?
The Picts in the Northern Highlands would have experienced harsher weather, as did the Scotti who came over from Ireland - and settled into what soon became Scotland.
The steadily worsening climate also worsened the economic and social structure of Britain - a fact substantiated by Gildas who, writing in the early 500s, bewailed the horrors of invasion, famine and social revolt throughout the land.
It is recorded that a cataclysmic global climate change happened around the year 536 AD which lasted for about ten years. A dust cloud blocked the sun's light and heat, either caused by a huge volcano in the Pacific or Java regions, or by an asteroid hit somewhere (more likely, the former). A plague devastated Europe in the 540s and in the 670s Bede mentions that no rain had fallen for three years causing widespread famine. There is some evidence that glaciers in northern Europe had minor advancement during the 700-900AD period, which could either be a result of, or cause of, weather change.
 |
| It is known that huge volcanic eruptions can effect the climate around the world |
No, I am not suggesting that good/bad weather caused the Norman Conquest! The weather, however, did affect the outcome of events that year!
A comet appeared in the sky - one we now know as Halley's Comet: it's unlikely that this would have affected the weather, though.
Duke William attempted to cross the Narrow Sea (the Channel) with his hastily-built fleet in the summer. He failed. Belief is that he met with a storm and most of the vessels were destroyed. Personally, I think this was Norman propaganda spread to hide the fact that he met with the English schyp fyrd - King Harold's very experienced and capable navy. Two reasons for my belief:
1) Harold would have set a seaborne blockade.
2) Why did Harold stand the English 'army' down and send them all home in late July / early August if it was still likely that William would come?
The answer to 2) is simple: he didn't expect the Normans to come back that year. Which meant he had very good reason to assume this... he knew that the Norman fleet had been decimated. His one error ... he miscalculated that William would manage to amass another fleet, and misjudged the weather. He assumed that the normal pattern for September onward would not especially be favourable for shipping. He assumed wrong.
September turned out to be a dry month - and hot.
The Norwegian, Harald Hardrada, allied with King Harold's own (traitorous) brother Tostig, had decided that he should be King of England and invaded Yorkshire in the summer of 1066. Urgent word was sent south to beg help from King Harold II.The men of York were defeated at Gate Fulford, and an agreement to discuss surrender was made (tactical delaying methods by the English of course). Encamped a few miles from York, and believing that help would not arrive for several more days, Hardrada's men left their armour and weaponry at their camp because it was so hot. They underestimated the English king, were met by him at Stamford Bridge and defeated. (Tostig was killed. Serves him right.) The fact that Harold was able to move so quickly and call in so many men just as quick also points to good weather - the roads were dry enough for easy marching, and it would stay light until late allowing for longer marching time.
Duke William managed to cross the Channel because the wind had held right - and Harold was able to march south again in quick time, again because the weather held. But here's the darn annoying thing:
IF it had been raining for a few days, IF there had been a downpour on that fateful day of 14th October 1066 at a place about seven miles from Hastings, then that famous battle may well have gone the other way - or not even happened at all (at least, not in 1066). The steep ground would have been churned to heavy mud, men would have been sodden, it would have been difficult for William's men to have got up that hill by the third time of trying.
 |
| mud |
The annoying thing? The weather did turn that evening. On the 15th October the skies wept for the loss of King Harold Godwinesson.
More about the book and buying links: click here
 |
| Buy from Amazon |
also
with
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for leaving a comment - it should appear soon. If you are having problems, contact me on author AT helenhollick DOT net and I will post your comment for you. That said ...SPAMMERS or rudeness will be composted or turned into toads.
Helen