Two disturbing and forgotten bits of english History they dont now teach

[UKSmartypants]

The Battle of Towton:

Fought between the Houses of Lancaster and York in Yorkshire, England, 1461. The largest and bloodiest battle to ever take place on British soil, one of the largest battles to ever take place in Europe. 65.000 men, half of all of England's fighting strength was assembled in one spot for control of the English throne.

35.000 were killed in one day, thousands more mortally wounded. It doesn't sound like much, but considering the population of England was only around 4 million at this time, this was the Somme Ypres and Verdun rolled into one . 1 in 2 English fighting age men were present at this battle, which is staggering. Half of them died, and more left disabled for life after.

If you survived, however, you were spoilt for choice with women; in 1462 women outnumbered men by about 2 to 1 because of this battle. Consequently there was an upsurge of women entering Convents.

Practically unheard of today, except for people local to the area and history enthusiasts.

The Harrying of the North: Northern England, 1069

After the successful Battle of Hasting in 1066, William set about those who still opposed him. Contemporary chronicles vividly record the savagery of the campaign, the huge scale of the destruction and the widespread famine caused by looting, burning and slaughtering. Contemporary biographers of William considered it to be his cruelest act and a "stain upon his soul". Writing about the Harrying of the North, over fifty years later, the Anglo-Norman chronicler Orderic Vitalis wrote (summarized):

"The King stopped at nothing to hunt his enemies. He cut down many people and destroyed homes and land. Nowhere else had he shown such cruelty. This made a real change. To his shame, William made no effort to control his fury, punishing the innocent with the guilty. He ordered that crops and herds, tools and food be burned to ashes. More than 100,000 people perished of starvation. I have often praised William in this book, but I can say nothing good about this brutal slaughter. God will punish him."

Indeed, upon his death bed, it is said that William was indeed begging God to forgive him for what he had done to the Saxons in the North, and was something he is said to have felt deeply remorseful of near the end.

The Harrying of the North is today considered the worst genocide in British history.

[WarriorRob]

What's so weird about Englands History is the Saxons, Angles and Jutes were Germanic and Danish tribes, the Normans were originally Danish and Norwegian tribes.

I heard the Marxists in England want to erase Saxons from History, saying they didn't exist:geez:

[Oceander]

The Battle of Towton:

Fought between the Houses of Lancaster and York in Yorkshire, England, 1461. The largest and bloodiest battle to ever take place on British soil, one of the largest battles to ever take place in Europe. 65.000 men, half of all of England's fighting strength was assembled in one spot for control of the English throne.

35.000 were killed in one day, thousands more mortally wounded. It doesn't sound like much, but considering the population of England was only around 4 million at this time, this was the Somme Ypres and Verdun rolled into one . 1 in 2 English fighting age men were present at this battle, which is staggering. Half of them died, and more left disabled for life after.

If you survived, however, you were spoilt for choice with women; in 1462 women outnumbered men by about 2 to 1 because of this battle. Consequently there was an upsurge of women entering Convents.

Practically unheard of today, except for people local to the area and history enthusiasts.

The Harrying of the North: Northern England, 1069

After the successful Battle of Hasting in 1066, William set about those who still opposed him. Contemporary chronicles vividly record the savagery of the campaign, the huge scale of the destruction and the widespread famine caused by looting, burning and slaughtering. Contemporary biographers of William considered it to be his cruelest act and a "stain upon his soul". Writing about the Harrying of the North, over fifty years later, the Anglo-Norman chronicler Orderic Vitalis wrote (summarized):

"The King stopped at nothing to hunt his enemies. He cut down many people and destroyed homes and land. Nowhere else had he shown such cruelty. This made a real change. To his shame, William made no effort to control his fury, punishing the innocent with the guilty. He ordered that crops and herds, tools and food be burned to ashes. More than 100,000 people perished of starvation. I have often praised William in this book, but I can say nothing good about this brutal slaughter. God will punish him."

Indeed, upon his death bed, it is said that William was indeed begging God to forgive him for what he had done to the Saxons in the North, and was something he is said to have felt deeply remorseful of near the end.

The Harrying of the North is today considered the worst genocide in British history.

Wow. From the wiki article on The Harrying: Records from the Domesday Book (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesday_Book) of 1086 suggest that as much as 75% of the population could have died or never returned.

[UKSmartypants]

Wow. From the wiki article on The Harrying: Records from the Domesday Book (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesday_Book) of 1086 suggest that as much as 75% of the population could have died or never returned.

The population of England was stable between Domesday and the Black Death, ie 1086 to 1347, about 4 million. If thats correct it would put the 1066 population around 10 million, which im a bit dubious. Of course we'll never know, there arent any records to go by. Even Domesday only records land holdings and worth, not actual population numbers.

[UKSmartypants]

What's so weird about Englands History is the Saxons, Angles and Jutes were Germanic and Danish tribes, the Normans were originally Danish and Norwegian tribes.

I heard the Marxists in England want to erase Saxons from History, saying they didn't exist:geez:


The irony is the lefties spent most of the time before 1990 insisting there was no such thing as 'races', and we were all the same. They only did a U turn and started insisting there WERE races and calling us all racists when DNA proved there was such a thing as distinct genetic groups , and the Out of Africa Theory also got popular about the same time, which pulled the rug from under them.


I spent years telling lefties that the English, irish, Scottish and Welsh were a distinct indigenous peoples, like the native Americans, or the Aborigines, or the Inuit, only to be derided mocked and insulted - until Dr Stephen Oppenheimer, a world class Paleoanthropoligist and Forensic Geneticist wrote a book on it proving i was right.

[BooBoo]

Seems William was a Busy Bloke way back when :

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP. FnerfGn_c6i3872Vd2uI1AHaGs%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=dbacb0b9c52f31cd91788406b65aa1177107d5680c5703 38e6637ee2e7263d27&ipo=images

w/o GunPowder and Cannons, using only Arrows, Spears, Battle Axes, Swords and People...!!! What a Bloody Mess...!!

[kazenatsu]

The devastation of this military campaign could be part of the explanation why Northern England (specifically the northeast) fell behind and never developed as much wealth as the South.

In an alternate future, Newcastle and York might have been like smaller slightly second-class versions of London, that still had independent economic centers. Maybe a little analogous to the relationship between Boston and New York in the U.S.

[Sunsettommy]

The Battle of Towton:

Fought between the Houses of Lancaster and York in Yorkshire, England, 1461. The largest and bloodiest battle to ever take place on British soil, one of the largest battles to ever take place in Europe. 65.000 men, half of all of England's fighting strength was assembled in one spot for control of the English throne.

35.000 were killed in one day, thousands more mortally wounded. It doesn't sound like much, but considering the population of England was only around 4 million at this time, this was the Somme Ypres and Verdun rolled into one . 1 in 2 English fighting age men were present at this battle, which is staggering. Half of them died, and more left disabled for life after.

If you survived, however, you were spoilt for choice with women; in 1462 women outnumbered men by about 2 to 1 because of this battle. Consequently there was an upsurge of women entering Convents.

Practically unheard of today, except for people local to the area and history enthusiasts.

The Harrying of the North: Northern England, 1069

After the successful Battle of Hasting in 1066, William set about those who still opposed him. Contemporary chronicles vividly record the savagery of the campaign, the huge scale of the destruction and the widespread famine caused by looting, burning and slaughtering. Contemporary biographers of William considered it to be his cruelest act and a "stain upon his soul". Writing about the Harrying of the North, over fifty years later, the Anglo-Norman chronicler Orderic Vitalis wrote (summarized):

"The King stopped at nothing to hunt his enemies. He cut down many people and destroyed homes and land. Nowhere else had he shown such cruelty. This made a real change. To his shame, William made no effort to control his fury, punishing the innocent with the guilty. He ordered that crops and herds, tools and food be burned to ashes. More than 100,000 people perished of starvation. I have often praised William in this book, but I can say nothing good about this brutal slaughter. God will punish him."

Indeed, upon his death bed, it is said that William was indeed begging God to forgive him for what he had done to the Saxons in the North, and was something he is said to have felt deeply remorseful of near the end.

The Harrying of the North is today considered the worst genocide in British history.

An illegitimate child can do that much damage too bad Duke of Normandy created this slimeball. :angry20:

[WarriorRob]

Seems William was a Busy Bloke way back when :

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP. FnerfGn_c6i3872Vd2uI1AHaGs%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=dbacb0b9c52f31cd91788406b65aa1177107d5680c5703 38e6637ee2e7263d27&ipo=images

w/o GunPowder and Cannons, using only Arrows, Spears, Battle Axes, Swords and People...!!! What a Bloody Mess...!!

Anglo-Saxon Harold Godwinson didn't have a chance he was attacked by William the Bastard in the south and Harold Hardrade in the North, by some miracle after a long march he beat Harold Hardrade in the north then lost to William the Conqueror.

[LadyMoonlight]

The Battle of Towton:

Fought between the Houses of Lancaster and York in Yorkshire, England, 1461. The largest and bloodiest battle to ever take place on British soil, one of the largest battles to ever take place in Europe. 65.000 men, half of all of England's fighting strength was assembled in one spot for control of the English throne.

35.000 were killed in one day, thousands more mortally wounded. It doesn't sound like much, but considering the population of England was only around 4 million at this time, this was the Somme Ypres and Verdun rolled into one . 1 in 2 English fighting age men were present at this battle, which is staggering. Half of them died, and more left disabled for life after.

If you survived, however, you were spoilt for choice with women; in 1462 women outnumbered men by about 2 to 1 because of this battle. Consequently there was an upsurge of women entering Convents.

Practically unheard of today, except for people local to the area and history enthusiasts.

The Harrying of the North: Northern England, 1069

After the successful Battle of Hasting in 1066, William set about those who still opposed him. Contemporary chronicles vividly record the savagery of the campaign, the huge scale of the destruction and the widespread famine caused by looting, burning and slaughtering. Contemporary biographers of William considered it to be his cruelest act and a "stain upon his soul". Writing about the Harrying of the North, over fifty years later, the Anglo-Norman chronicler Orderic Vitalis wrote (summarized):

"The King stopped at nothing to hunt his enemies. He cut down many people and destroyed homes and land. Nowhere else had he shown such cruelty. This made a real change. To his shame, William made no effort to control his fury, punishing the innocent with the guilty. He ordered that crops and herds, tools and food be burned to ashes. More than 100,000 people perished of starvation. I have often praised William in this book, but I can say nothing good about this brutal slaughter. God will punish him."

Indeed, upon his death bed, it is said that William was indeed begging God to forgive him for what he had done to the Saxons in the North, and was something he is said to have felt deeply remorseful of near the end.

The Harrying of the North is today considered the worst genocide in British history.

I envy people from the UK, Western and Eastern Europe, and Russia. All of these countries have fascinating histories. Don't get me wrong, I cannot imagine ever living anywhere but Australia, and I do think Australia is a great country (less so in recent years with the immigration and PC), but our history compared to yours is just so uninteresting. Imagine wandering around England, knowing that the Romans and Celts lived and fought there, walking down an old Roman road, exploring castles, the artefacts, the buildings, the written records. Sure, lots of brutal history, death, disease etc., but that makes for fascinating history. We have had no revolutions, no wars fought on our soil (a few Aboriginals killed in a few skirmishes and settlers also killed does not a war make, especially in light of your post). I wonder how many people who live in Europe and the UK really appreciate the interesting history that surrounds them.

[BooBoo]

^^^ Most of US here in that West, have Relations, In and From the East = Europe and the UK...!!!

[WarriorRob]

I like reading about the History of England or Britain. I like the Anglo-Saxon period and Viking Age the best:thumbsup20:

[kazenatsu]

Anglo-Saxon Harold Godwinson didn't have a chance he was attacked by William the Bastard in the south and Harold Hardrade in the North, by some miracle after a long march he beat Harold Hardrade in the north then lost to William the Conqueror.
Some believe the Norwegian king Harold Hardrade played an inadvertent role in history in allowing William the Conqueror to take England.
(William was a "Norman", also the partial ancestors of Norwegian raiders who had come to live for a few generations in northern France)

I've read some fascinating theories about why William chose to venture north and conquer all of England rather than further expand his empire into France. Perhaps he realized that an empire in France would be too difficult to defend, whereas England was an island with only weak forces to the north. Perhaps he did not care to fight against his other fellow Normans to whom he was related. Perhaps he sensed an opportunity in England, realizing that Godwinson was at a weak point from having just barely managed to defeat the Norwegians. William did have a blood claim to the English throne, which could justify the notion of claiming what he saw as rightfully his. While this was a very weak blood claim, the claim of Harold Godwinson was equally weak. It was important to be able to have some sort of claim to legitimacy to be able to consolidate support from vassals to lend him military aid. (Harold also had not been crowned by the pope, and William framed the invasion in terms of a religious crusade, since the clerics in England were viewed as corrupt and William managed to secure the blessing from the pope) France was also far more populated than England at that time and already had many castles. It also seems that Anjou (in France) was powerful.

[Physics Hunter]

I envy people from the UK, Western and Eastern Europe, and Russia. All of these countries have fascinating histories. Don't get me wrong, I cannot imagine ever living anywhere but Australia, and I do think Australia is a great country (less so in recent years with the immigration and PC), but our history compared to yours is just so uninteresting. Imagine wandering around England, knowing that the Romans and Celts lived and fought there, walking down an old Roman road, exploring castles, the artefacts, the buildings, the written records. Sure, lots of brutal history, death, disease etc., but that makes for fascinating history. We have had no revolutions, no wars fought on our soil (a few Aboriginals killed in a few skirmishes and settlers also killed does not a war make, especially in light of your post). I wonder how many people who live in Europe and the UK really appreciate the interesting history that surrounds them.

You could start a revolution and make it interesting. :smiley20::sofa:

[WarriorRob]

Some believe the Norwegian king Harold Hardrade played an inadvertent role in history in allowing William the Conqueror to take England.
(William was a "Norman", also the partial ancestors of Norwegian raiders who had come to live for a few generations in northern France)

I've read some fascinating theories about why William chose to venture north and conquer all of England rather than further expand his empire into France. Perhaps he realized that an empire in France would be too difficult to defend, whereas England was an island with only weak forces to the north. Perhaps he did not care to fight against his other fellow Normans to whom he was related. Perhaps he sensed an opportunity in England, realizing that Godwinson was at a weak point from having just barely managed to defeat the Norwegians. William did have a blood claim to the English throne, which could justify the notion of claiming what he saw as rightfully his. While this was a very weak blood claim, the claim of Harold Godwinson was equally weak. It was important to be able to have some sort of claim to legitimacy to be able to consolidate support from vassals to lend him military aid. (Harold also had not been crowned by the pope, and William framed the invasion in terms of a religious crusade, since the clerics in England were viewed as corrupt and William managed to secure the blessing from the pope) France was also far more populated than England at that time and already had many castles. It also seems that Anjou (in France) was powerful.

I read a book called Harald Hardrade he had a very interesting life, he fought for the Bizantines as a leader of the Varangian Guard, he became King of Norway and died in England. Some say he was the last Viking:dontknow:

I like reading about that time period.

[LadyMoonlight]

You could start a revolution and make it interesting. :smiley20::sofa:
That would require energy I simply don't have!

I told my last senior Ancient History class before I retired, that I had dreams of ruling the world. Dictator Me (benevolent of course). The gift they gave me when they graduated, was a book that they had all signed in the inside cover with a short message, and all of them stated that they would support me as Dictator of the World! Ahh, the foolish young...they should have done some research on what happens when a Dictator takes power!

[Physics Hunter]

That would require energy I simply don't have!

I told my last senior Ancient History class before I retired, that I had dreams of ruling the world. Dictator Me (benevolent of course). The gift they gave me when they graduated, was a book that they had all signed in the inside cover with a short message, and all of them stated that they would support me as Dictator of the World! Ahh, the foolish young...they should have done some research on what happens when a Dictator takes power!

Everybody wants to rule the world, or so the song goes.

I used to want to own all motorcycles. I would loan them out to anyone that would reasonably maintain them...

It was more of a joke and moral tale than a vision.

[UKSmartypants]

Anglo-Saxon Harold Godwinson didn't have a chance he was attacked by William the Bastard in the south and Harold Hardrade in the North, by some miracle after a long march he beat Harold Hardrade in the north then lost to William the Conqueror.


Harold Godwinson did a stirling job, but it was too much, he force marched his already knackered army from the victory over Harold Hardrade in three days, half the length of england on foot, to tackle William. Had he tackled William first he'd likely won, and then could have waited for Hardrade to come for him in the south, giving him time to rest , recoup and rearm. The history of England would have been very different then.

[kazenatsu]

Had he tackled William first he'd likely won, and then could have waited for Hardrade to come for him in the south, giving him time to rest , recoup and rearm. The history of England would have been very different then.
Godwinson barely defeated the Norwegians. Hardrade came close to becoming king of England, or at least the Northeast of England.
(This might sound strange, that Norwegians may have been able to establish a kingdom in England, but actually is not so strange when you remember the Anglo-Saxons had done the same thing only a few hundred years before, coming from the coast of what today is the Netherlands and Denmark. I think most likely such a combined kingdom based in both Norway and England would not have lasted very long and would have split apart after Hardrade's death, and the Norwegians would have just become assimilated into the English genepool, a continuation of earlier history)
In my opinion, Godwinson would not have been able to defeat both William in the South and Hadrade in the North, within a short span of time, regardless of the order of which one was dealt with first.
Had Godwinson not existed, another hypothetical, England may have become split into North and South, and it would remain until later for that to be sorted out. Probably there might have been some union through a strategic marriage. Or perhaps William would have won because he would have been more easily able to consolidate support from the disorganized vassals in England (he seems to have been much more politically and diplomatically adept).

Godwinson's forces were just a little bit more powerful than Hardrade's forces in England, and William's forces were probably a little bit more powerful than Godwinson's, but Godwinson had an advantage of having already established himself and was fighting in home territory, while William probably could not move all of his forces into England because some had to be left to defend his territories in France. So the invasion by Hardrade was critical in allowing William to invade. I think all three of their forces were near equal in power though. So if any two out of the three had fought first, it would be remaining one that would end up being the winner.

[WarriorRob]

Godwinson barely defeated the Norwegians. Hardrade came close to becoming king of England, or at least the Northeast of England.
(This might sound strange, that Norwegians may have been able to establish a kingdom in England, but actually is not so strange when you remember the Anglo-Saxons had done the same thing only a few hundred years before, coming from the coast of what today is the Netherlands and Denmark. I think most likely such a combined kingdom based in both Norway and England would not have lasted very long and would have split apart after Hardrade's death, and the Norwegians would have just become assimilated into the English genepool, a continuation of earlier history)
In my opinion, Godwinson would not have been able to defeat both William in the South and Hadrade in the North, within a short span of time, regardless of the order of which one was dealt with first.
Had Godwinson not existed, another hypothetical, England may have become split into North and South, and it would remain until later for that to be sorted out. Probably there might have been some union through a strategic marriage. Or perhaps William would have won because he would have been more easily able to consolidate support from the disorganized vassals in England (he seems to have been much more politically and diplomatically adept).

Godwinson's forces were just a little bit more powerful than Hardrade's forces in England, and William's forces were probably a little bit more powerful than Godwinson's, but Godwinson had an advantage of having already established himself and was fighting in home territory, while William probably could not move all of his forces into England because some had to be left to defend his territories in France. So the invasion by Hardrade was critical in allowing William to invade. I think all three of their forces were near equal in power though. So if any two out of the three had fought first, it would be remaining one that would end up being the winner.

The Norwegians and Danes did conquer England in 1013 remember Sweyn I the father of Canute The Great who ruled over the Great Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms that included parts of Sweden. I think his reign in England was shortlived though. England has some very interesting History.

[UKSmartypants]

The Norwegians and Danes did conquer England in 1013 remember Sweyn I the father of Canute The Great who ruled over the Great Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms that included parts of Sweden. I think his reign in England was shortlived though. England has some very interesting History.
ON a side note, Canute, or C'nut declared his capital at Gainsborough in Lincolnshire, which sits on a tidal section of the River Trent, giving him access to the sea by boat. Gainsborough today itself is a small run down backwater market town, which enjoyed a brief burst of prosperity after WW2. The section of the Trent it sits on is tidal, and its thought this is where Canute tried to turn the tide back.

[Moonie]

.
At least my English surname translates into both German and Swedish.
.

[UKSmartypants]

Some believe the Norwegian king Harold Hardrade played an inadvertent role in history in allowing William the Conqueror to take England.
(William was a "Norman", also the partial ancestors of Norwegian raiders who had come to live for a few generations in northern France)
It also seems that Anjou (in France) was powerful.

The Angevinians were a branch of the french Nobility, the Merovingians, and gave rise to the Normans and Willaim I. The Merovingians were founded as far we can trace by Dagobert I in around 660 AD. One of my ancestors was a compatriot of William, and almost certainly Frankish Nobility, which makes me a Merovingian too :D