Still Waters Posted December 3, 2013 #1 Share Posted December 3, 2013 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ealdwita Posted December 3, 2013 #2 Share Posted December 3, 2013 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kludge808 Posted January 24, 2014 #3 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Battle of Hastings ... an example of insufficient Saxon Violence. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rattpoison Posted January 26, 2014 #4 Share Posted January 26, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spud the mackem Posted January 26, 2014 #5 Share Posted January 26, 2014 What the 'ell does it matter we still lost 1-0, to the frogs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldorado Posted January 27, 2014 #6 Share Posted January 27, 2014 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neognosis Posted January 28, 2014 #7 Share Posted January 28, 2014 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rattpoison Posted January 28, 2014 #8 Share Posted January 28, 2014 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neognosis Posted January 29, 2014 #9 Share Posted January 29, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keel M. Posted January 29, 2014 #10 Share Posted January 29, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xynoplas Posted January 29, 2014 #11 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Even the Merovingians were more Germanic than Celtic. Harold: Here we are, Battle Abbey, perfect place to make a stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now