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

[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

[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.

[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

I like reading about that time period.

[LadyMoonlight]

You could start a revolution and make it interesting.

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.