- Pronouns
- he/him
Discuss this article by @David Flin here
-
Hi Guest!
The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Nitpicker’s Guide to Ancient Warfare: A Bridge Too Far
- Thread starter Gary Oswald
- Start date
- Location
- Visiting BWBs.
Just to clarify. The Battle of Stamford Bridge was in 1066. The painting was from 1870.
It's easy to confuse the two in these days of mobile selfies. I have been assured by historical experts that King Harold did not have a mobile phone.
It's easy to confuse the two in these days of mobile selfies. I have been assured by historical experts that King Harold did not have a mobile phone.
Maybe he should've, if he'd been looking down he'd never have got that arrow in the eye.Just to clarify. The Battle of Stamford Bridge was in 1066. The painting was from 1870.
It's easy to confuse the two in these days of mobile selfies. I have been assured by historical experts that King Harold did not have a mobile phone.
"How bad is The Bad-- oh. Bloody hell."
heraclius
Well-known member
- Location
- New Forest, Hampshire, England, UK
Also to be noted for understanding these battles:
At Stamford Bridge, 1066, the Norse army under Harald Hardrada (a veteran of the Byzantine army who had served them in Sicily against the Arabs in the 1030s after he had to leave Norway on King Cnut's occupation of it), had gone to SB to collect a group of hostages promised by the local landowners as sureties for their allegiance. Harold Godwinson of England, who was on the E Sussex or Kent coast awaiting the invasion by William of Normandy when the Norwegians landed, marched his main army all the way up from the S coast to York and then on to Stamford Bridge, on the Roman roads - so the victory of his exhausted troops would have been even more impressive. The Norwegians originally thought that the arriving English in the distance were the expected hostages come to surrender - then the sun glinted off the E mailcoats and spears so they realised their mistake and ran across the Derwent bridge to the far bank to get armed and ready. Harold of England's disaffected and alienated younger brother Tostig, formerly the earl of Northumbria (Yorkshire and the NE of England) so the region's ex-ruler who Harold had not saved when rebels threw him out in 1065, was offered his lands back by Harold in return for abandoning his commander Harald Hardrada, refused and was reputedly killed in person by his brother; the latter only offered Hardrada 'seven feet of English earth to lie in as he is taller than other men' if he surrendered.
An impressive professional performance by two of the era's best generals and best armies - the Norse also had vassal Orkneymen and Hebrideans , ie Viking settlers there, in their army led by Orkney's two young jarls, Paul and Erlend. (Main sources the saga of Harald Hardrada and assorted Orkney Viking stories, possibly a bit exaggerated as 'spun' by oral re-telling for generations.)
At Maldon 991, the first milit disaster of the long reign of Anglo-Saxon king Aethelred 'Unraed' (means 'the badly-counselled ' but was later turned into 'the Unready' as a comment on his bumbling and incompetent military campaigns) , the English commander Earl Byrtnoth of Essex was probably in his 40s or 50s at last, as husband to the sister of a woman who had been a young queen in the 950s, and had never fought a battle that we know of - one result of the long peace under King Edgar in 959-75 was that the English army was inexperienced and had not fought a battle since the fall of Viking York in 954. The unknown Viking commander was either future king Olaf Tryggvason of Norway or current Danish king Sweyn 'Forkbeard', both young men and seriously formidable commanders, and the invaders were probably a mixture of Norse and Danes (or just Danes) and in any case were far more used to combat. Had Byrtnoth been reading or listening to too many heroic sagas of the English army's past successes against the Vikings, eg Brunanburh in 937,and was fatally over-confident of a Saxon army that had only been used to parades not to actual combat ?
At Stamford Bridge, 1066, the Norse army under Harald Hardrada (a veteran of the Byzantine army who had served them in Sicily against the Arabs in the 1030s after he had to leave Norway on King Cnut's occupation of it), had gone to SB to collect a group of hostages promised by the local landowners as sureties for their allegiance. Harold Godwinson of England, who was on the E Sussex or Kent coast awaiting the invasion by William of Normandy when the Norwegians landed, marched his main army all the way up from the S coast to York and then on to Stamford Bridge, on the Roman roads - so the victory of his exhausted troops would have been even more impressive. The Norwegians originally thought that the arriving English in the distance were the expected hostages come to surrender - then the sun glinted off the E mailcoats and spears so they realised their mistake and ran across the Derwent bridge to the far bank to get armed and ready. Harold of England's disaffected and alienated younger brother Tostig, formerly the earl of Northumbria (Yorkshire and the NE of England) so the region's ex-ruler who Harold had not saved when rebels threw him out in 1065, was offered his lands back by Harold in return for abandoning his commander Harald Hardrada, refused and was reputedly killed in person by his brother; the latter only offered Hardrada 'seven feet of English earth to lie in as he is taller than other men' if he surrendered.
An impressive professional performance by two of the era's best generals and best armies - the Norse also had vassal Orkneymen and Hebrideans , ie Viking settlers there, in their army led by Orkney's two young jarls, Paul and Erlend. (Main sources the saga of Harald Hardrada and assorted Orkney Viking stories, possibly a bit exaggerated as 'spun' by oral re-telling for generations.)
At Maldon 991, the first milit disaster of the long reign of Anglo-Saxon king Aethelred 'Unraed' (means 'the badly-counselled ' but was later turned into 'the Unready' as a comment on his bumbling and incompetent military campaigns) , the English commander Earl Byrtnoth of Essex was probably in his 40s or 50s at last, as husband to the sister of a woman who had been a young queen in the 950s, and had never fought a battle that we know of - one result of the long peace under King Edgar in 959-75 was that the English army was inexperienced and had not fought a battle since the fall of Viking York in 954. The unknown Viking commander was either future king Olaf Tryggvason of Norway or current Danish king Sweyn 'Forkbeard', both young men and seriously formidable commanders, and the invaders were probably a mixture of Norse and Danes (or just Danes) and in any case were far more used to combat. Had Byrtnoth been reading or listening to too many heroic sagas of the English army's past successes against the Vikings, eg Brunanburh in 937,and was fatally over-confident of a Saxon army that had only been used to parades not to actual combat ?
I suppose there's also the potential element that, if Byrtnoth didn't offer battle, then the Vikings would just get back in their boats and attack somewhere else, and Byrtnoth thought he could knock out the Viking army in a decisive battle whilst he still had his own army intact.At Maldon 991, the first milit disaster of the long reign of Anglo-Saxon king Aethelred 'Unraed' (means 'the badly-counselled ' but was later turned into 'the Unready' as a comment on his bumbling and incompetent military campaigns) , the English commander Earl Byrtnoth of Essex was probably in his 40s or 50s at last, as husband to the sister of a woman who had been a young queen in the 950s, and had never fought a battle that we know of - one result of the long peace under King Edgar in 959-75 was that the English army was inexperienced and had not fought a battle since the fall of Viking York in 954. The unknown Viking commander was either future king Olaf Tryggvason of Norway or current Danish king Sweyn 'Forkbeard', both young men and seriously formidable commanders, and the invaders were probably a mixture of Norse and Danes (or just Danes) and in any case were far more used to combat. Had Byrtnoth been reading or listening to too many heroic sagas of the English army's past successes against the Vikings, eg Brunanburh in 937,and was fatally over-confident of a Saxon army that had only been used to parades not to actual combat ?
Obviously, it then didn't pan out and instead it was Byrtnoth's militia that got wrecked instead of him being the one to get the glory of beating the Vikings.
- Pronouns
- he/him
I always liked the (probably apocryphal) anecdote about one of the local farmers watching Gibson and company film Braveheart.
'So what battle is this?'
'Stirling Bridge.'
'But there's no bridge on this land.'
'Well, we found that the bridge got in the way.'
'Aye, that's what the English thought.'
'So what battle is this?'
'Stirling Bridge.'
'But there's no bridge on this land.'
'Well, we found that the bridge got in the way.'
'Aye, that's what the English thought.'
- Location
- Colwyn Bay/Manchester
- Pronouns
- He/him
I have seen a defense of Byrhtnoth on the basis that maybe he was thinking "well, they have ships so they won't just try and attack over that land bridge futilely, they'll sail somewhere else to raid and pillage there. And I have the biggest army around here with me, so wherever they go they'll have less opposition and letting them come attack here is our best chance to beat them"
Obviously didn't work if so though
Obviously didn't work if so though
FriendlyGhost
Haunting history in a good way
I find that if I have to watch Braveheart (or other equally 'plays fast and loose with historical facts' films), it helps to remember the disclaimer which normally applies: Any resemblance to actual events, places or persons living or dead is purely coincidental. Then I can just view it/them as entirely fictional. Helps with the blood pressure...David Flin said:In 1995, the film Braveheart depicts the [Battle of Stirling Bridge]. Apparently. The battle in the film is stirring, dramatic stuff. It’s also entirely missing a bridge, which rather makes it an exercise in futility. Perhaps the actors imagined a bridge there, some sort of invisible phantasm. That would be as historically accurate as the rest of the film
- Location
- Visiting BWBs.
I find that if I have to watch Braveheart (or other equally 'plays fast and loose with historical facts' films), it helps to remember the disclaimer which normally applies: Any resemblance to actual events, places or persons living or dead is purely coincidental. Then I can just view it/them as entirely fictional. Helps with the blood pressure...
True.
But absolutely no fun when writing something called Nitpicker's Guide to Ancient Military.
And there are places where I highlight why changes are made (often for safety reasons), and where things are done well.
FriendlyGhost
Haunting history in a good way
I apologise if my comment came across as disparaging - I'm thoroughly enjoying your series and find your choices of examples for each subject excellent, helping to get across points in a humorous way.True.
But absolutely no fun when writing something called Nitpicker's Guide to Ancient Military.
And there are places where I highlight why changes are made (often for safety reasons), and where things are done well.
- Location
- Visiting BWBs.
I apologise if my comment came across as disparaging - I'm thoroughly enjoying your series and find your choices of examples for each subject excellent, helping to get across points in a humorous way.
No worries. I hadn't read it as disparaging. I was attempting a reply with humour, and - like an inexperienced archer - I missed the mark.