Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Still Waters

New evidence for Battle of Hastings site

11 posts in this topic

New evidence that questions the traditional site of King Harold's death during the Battle of Hastings is being considered by English Heritage.

Battle Abbey in East Sussex is said to stand on the spot where King Harold died when the English army was routed by the Normans in 1066.

But Channel 4's Time Team claims he fell on the site of what is now a mini roundabout on the A2100.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...sussex-25191208

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

New evidence that questions the traditional site of King Harold's death during the Battle of Hastings is being considered by English Heritage.

Battle Abbey in East Sussex is said to stand on the spot where King Harold died when the English army was routed by the Normans in 1066.

But Channel 4's Time Team claims he fell on the site of what is now a mini roundabout on the A2100.

I'm not surprised...I tripped over the bloody thing myself on a night-out in Battle last year!

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Battle of Hastings ... an example of insufficient Saxon Violence.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wouldn't surprise me to find out the exact site is off a bit. I was almost a thousand years ago. However sometimes these assertions are made in order to gain notoriety. A few years back a few authors were questioning the Anglo-Saxon invasion. They felt it was a much smaller invasion than previously thought, and that it went almost unnoticed at the time. After a year or two all was quiet and no one was questioning it anymore.

There is no real evidence in the article that this post is based on. Perhaps the marshy ground could have been an advantage for Harold since he had no real cavalry (and no real battle horses). But this will probably cause people to look for clues at the new supposed battle site, and it could lead to further developments. Until then I don't think we need to re-write all the history books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the 'ell does it matter we still lost 1-0, to the frogs.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the 'ell does it matter we still lost 1-0, to the frogs.

*lifts glass*

Here's to the days when we had nae claes 'til William wore our Crown.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What the 'ell does it matter we still lost 1-0, to the frogs.

But that was 900 years ago... so doesn't that make YOU the frogs that won, at this point?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that was 900 years ago... so doesn't that make YOU the frogs that won, at this point?

I like your line of thinking! Still my understanding of it was that the Normans (and Normandy at the time) were Norsemen originally, hence the name. The same guys who went to Sicily a few years before. They were all over the place at the time. I don't believe they were actually Gauls until they were assimilated centuries later. William the Conqueror was supposedly of Norse blood.

This was my understanding and I only say it hoping to make our English friends feel better. But you guys probably know the history as well or better than I do.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the idea of "nationality" is somewhat a false paradigm.

If you trace people back and forth through long periods of history, it starts to look like EVERYONE traveled EVERYWHERE and conquered EVERYONE at one point or another.

The Italians aren't the same exact people that the Romans were, the Germans aren't the original people who lived in that area, parts of France traded hands back and forth over and over, same for every area, it seems, except highly aboriginal regions. Heck, even American Indians were Asians coming from russia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like your line of thinking! Still my understanding of it was that the Normans (and Normandy at the time) were Norsemen originally, hence the name. The same guys who went to Sicily a few years before. They were all over the place at the time. I don't believe they were actually Gauls until they were assimilated centuries later. William the Conqueror was supposedly of Norse blood.

This was my understanding and I only say it hoping to make our English friends feel better. But you guys probably know the history as well or better than I do.

You're right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the Merovingians were more Germanic than Celtic.

Harold: Here we are, Battle Abbey, perfect place to make a stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.