 |
| Buy on Amazon |
History matters. It tells us where we’ve come from, helps us understand the present, and provides a shared sense of identity and culture. For those of us who’ve developed a love of history it becomes more than just the who, when, why and where; it transforms into a fascinating story with people and places from long ago coming alive to share tales of how they lived, loved and died – how countries rose and fell – and what motivated the great (or in some cases, not so great!) men and women to behave the way they did.
But to get to that level of historical appreciation there must be a spark that ignites a fire of wanting to know more, and for me that spark was 1066 and the major players who shaped that watershed year in western civilization. I found myself identifying strongly with Harold II, completely disliking William of Normandy, and being utterly fascinated (as well as terrified) by Harald Hardrada. The significant events of their lives, and the desire to rule England that eventually pitted them against one another, is a fascinating story that kicked off my love of history. (And yes, I am American, but that has not stopped me from loving English history. Maybe, you could argue, because in comparison, the USA has very little documented history of our own.)
Harald Sigurdsson - he was never referred to as Hardrada (Hard Ruler) in his lifetime - had an epically action-packed life. At fifteen he was wounded in the Battle of Stiklestrad fighting alongside his half-brother Olaf (later to be St. Olaf, the patron saint of Norway) in Olaf’s bid to reclaim the Norwegian throne from forces loyal to the Danish King, Cnut. Fleeing to Kiev, (yes that place you hear a lot about in present-day news!) he was welcomed at the royal court but eventually left to seek his fortune in the greatest city of the world at that time, Constantinople, where he rose in the ranks of the Varangian Guard (a highly elite force) until he was their commander.
Harald fought battles for Eastern Rome in Asia Minor, had naval battles in the Mediterranean, plundered and burned as many as 80 villages in Sicily, and even fought in the Holy Land. After amassing tremendous wealth, he fled Constantinople after becoming embroiled in court intrigue, and possibly even a torrid affair with the Empress.
 |
| Coin of Harald as the sole Norwegian king, "ARALD[us] REX NAR[vegiae]" Wikipedia |
Returning to Norway he became its co-ruler with his nephew Magnus, until Magnus died (under mysterious circumstances) only a year later. For almost twenty years Harald fought to bring Denmark into his domain, all while crushing opposition at home in the harshest possible ways. At fifty years of age, and wanting one more grand adventure, Harald was persuaded by the treacherous Tostig Godwinson, King Harold II's younger brother, to invade England and to restore Cnut’s North Sea Empire. His dramatic life was finally brought to an end at the Battle of Stamford Bridge when Harold II crushed the invading forces after catching them by surprise on the 25th September, 1066. His death marked the end of the Viking Age.
Being firmly on “team Anglo-Saxon”, it took me a long time to warm to William of Normandy. But credit should be given where it is due, (Laugh: I know Helen will be snorting contempt at that!) William indeed had an impressive career and fascinating life. Even though he was illegitimate, hence the moniker 'The Bastard', (Helen also uses this term for its other meaning...)he became the Duke of Normandy when only seven years old and spent his early life narrowly avoiding assassination attempts from rival Normal lords.
 |
| from the Bayeux Tapestry Wikipedia |
Eventually he subdued all his rivals (apart from, in later life, his own eldest son who rebelled against him!) and unified Normandy, though it took years of near constant fighting that forged him into the battle-hardened, ruthless, warrior and excellent commander in the field. In the early 1050s he turned his gaze to England, via King Edward the Confessor, his first cousin once removed who had spent much of his life exiled in Normandy. Edward was the firstborn son of Emma of Normandy, wife to King Æthelred (The 'unready' ) and then wife to Cnut of Denmark - so Queen of England twice, with two different kings, and mother to two kings - Harthacnut, Edward's half-brother, and Edward himself, who became King of England in 1042.
 |
| Emma of Normandy |
Circa 1052 Edward supposedly told William that he would succeed him upon his death. When Edward finally died childless in January 1066, and Harold Godwinson assumed the throne, William put into motion the events that would change the history of England forever. Whether his claim was true, legitimate or mere propaganda is a matter of speculation.
The phrase “You have to be in it to win it” never applied to anyone so much as William in 1066. He organized, and executed, the extremely difficult task of keeping his forces together while they waited for two long months for favorable winds to sail to England; but when he finally landed he was not met with resistance because Harold was up north dealing with the Harald Hardrada's Vikings. (See also Helen's article on why Harold stood the fyrd [army] down in the summer of 1066) When he finally brought Harold to battle seven or so miles inland from Hastings, on October 14th 1066, his victory was by no means a forgone conclusion; but, through sheer tenacity and splendid leadership, (and Helen would say good/bad luck depending on which side you were on) his forces carried the day. He was crowned King of England on Christmas Day, and his reign is considered the first of England’s modern era.
For all I have said admiring Duke William's abilities, it is still Harold Godwinson I admire the most. He was an experienced commander, a natural leader, skilled alike on the battlefield or at Court. His father, Earl Godwin, had been trusted by both King Cnut and Queen Emma, was a deft politician and probably as tough (maybe even as ruthless) as William. His daughter, Edyth, became Edward's Queen (how much choice either of them had in the match is speculation) and, to all intent and purpose more-or-less ran England - think of him as an Anglo-Saxon equivalent of a modern English Prime Minister. The King does all the pageantry, the P.M. does most of the ruling.
There was a disagreement between the Godwin family and King Edward - who most of England saw as being far too 'cozy' with the Normans - as a result, the family was forced into exile and Edward set Edyth aside. IF Edward had ever promised William the English throne it would have been during this short period 1051/1052. The family retaliated, marched against the king, who eventually was forced to surrender, re-instate Edyth as wife, and Godwin regained his position of power and Edward was forced to lose his preferences for the Normans. It is to be noted that other earls of England - Mercia and Northumberland, for instance - disliked Godwin and the power he wielded, but unequivocally sided with him in this matter of too much Norman influence.
Godwin died at Easter 1053, and Harold took his place as Earl of Wessex - second-in-command beneath the king. When Edward died on 5th January 1066, it was known that William would try his hand for the throne. Edward and Edyth had produced no children, the only other candidate to become the next king was Edgar, the only surviving son of a half-brother to Edward via King Æthelred, but Edgar was probably only a young teenager in 1066, and had no experience of leadership or command.
 |
| Harold from the Bayeux Tapestry Wikipedia |
Let us get a couple of things clear here: Harold knew exactly how William 'operated'. He had fought beside the Normans circa 1063/4/5 when he was in Normandy for several months. (We do not know exactly why he was there, but it may well have been to secure the release of two hostages William was holding, taken from that time in 1051/2. The hostages were Harold's nephew, Hakon and younger brother, Waltheof. Hakon did return to England with Harold. Waltheof never saw his freedom. (Hakon was slain at Hastings, along with Harold and his two brothers. Leofric and Gyrth.)
Harold knew exactly how ruthless William could be. Knew he had no legitimate claim to the throne, and how England would suffer under his authority. (As was later proved, especially in the North of England.) He knew, because he had gone on campaign into Brittany with William, and had seen first-hand how unrelenting - and capable - William could be. (Helen would also say cruel and vindictive.)
Before Harold was permitted to return to England, however, he was forced to swear an oath of fealty to William - keep in mind, no oath made under duress is a binding oath, and it is likely that had Harold not sworn, he would not have seen freedom again and the men with him would either have been imprisoned or executed. He had no choice, plus it was his duty and honour to protect those men who had accompanied him to Normandy. Fail to swear and lose honour by witnessing their imprisonment or death. It was Anglo-Saxon honour for a lord to protect his men as well as he could.
 |
| swearing the oath Bayeux Tapestry Wikipedia |
And, even more important, Edward had no right under Anglos-Saxon law to appoint the next king. Primogenitor was a Norman (Viking/Danish custom - 'the Normans were descended from Vikings - 'North Men') Anglo-Saxon law pre-1066 was for the Council, the Witan, to elect the next king. Yes, it would normally be the aethling (king-elect) usually the eldest son because he would be the one best for the job, the one trained, the one most capable... in this instance in January 1066 Harold Godwinson was the man most suitable, so he was legally and correctly appointed as King. Duke William had no right to the English throne, he had his own agenda, his own determination to achieve what he wanted and no one was going to stand in his way.
How many other leaders, through the centuries have held the same tyrannical obsession? A single-minded craving for absolute power often taken by force, by any number of unrelenting dictators around the world? Men greedy for wealth and power, regardless of how they achieved their goal. The fate of consequence has reverberated through the world from Caesar during Roman times, to present day Russia and beyond, with wars and personal 'wanting more' no matter the cost.
Harold Godwinson, earl then king, knew he had to prevent William at all cost. He tried his best to protect England from foreign invasion and rule, fought, to the death, for the continuing freedom for England and her people. That he lost does not make him a poor commander or a failed king. It makes him, in my opinion at least, a true hero, a man who put others - his kingdom - before himself.
It took the English more than two-hundred years to begin to overthrow the yoke of Norman rule, but in the end, England had remained English not Norman-French. Maybe that is because of the circumstances of history, or maybe the resilience of the English/British people?
King Harold II was not, as myth insists, killed by an arrow in the eye. Four of William's 'henchmen' cut him down, decapitating and abusing his body, as clearly shown in the Bayeux Tapestry (above.) The chap supposedly pulling an arrow from his eye? He is, in fact, a fyrdsman (full-time soldier) about to throw a spear. There are missing stich marks to show it was originally a spear.
So is history always accurate? Can it always be relied upon? 'No' is the answer to that, but some things that happened in the past are undisputed facts - the what and the where, although not always the 'why'. And it is from those 'facts' that we must remember to remember.
It is sad, and somewhat disconcerting, to reflect that the greed for absolute power by men who become, one way or another, a dictator at worst or at least disliked by the majority of people they are supposed to be representing, men who are leaders of whatever country, (possibly women too, but mostly men) have shaped the course of the past and the present, only to repeat the same errors. Even sadder that for too many people today, the matter of history has been ignored as irrelevant, and therefore history has been abandoned as inconsequential for today's way of life.
It is a 'turn a blind eye' way of thinking. For without remembering the conflicts and disasters - and achievements - made in the past, how can we guide ourselves and the next generation through to a peaceful and united future? We - our leaders, whoever or wherever they are - should not dwell on waging wars or on substantiating conflict over conciliation. To ignore the past is to forget the invasions, the fighting, the hatreds and the miseries that have boiled and bubbled since ... well, probably ever since the Stone Age. Unity, trust, the general regard for mutual well-being can only be achieved by remembering the outcomes - bad and good - of the past.
Unfortunately, not realising and embracing the lessons learned for what has happened - in many cases, several times before - means history will, time and again, repeat itself. So history - mine, yours, ours - not merely because it happens to be interesting, really does matter.
 |
| James Hanna at Battle Abbey, Sussex UK |
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