I dont know a lot about this period of history but am very happy that enough people do to ensure its kept alive as it forms an important part of our nations past.
Following the success at Stamford Bridge the English went on a bender, whilst those nasty Frenchmen gathered in readiness to invade. I mean, William only gave Harold and his men a few days before they attacked - our guys were still having a few bevvies - no wonder we went down.
William of Malmesbury reported: "The courageous leaders mutually prepared for battle, each according to his national custom. The English, as we have heard, passed the night without sleep in drinking and singing, and, in the morning, proceeded without delay towards the enemy; all were on foot, armed with battle-axes. On the other side, the Normans passed the whole night in confessing their sins, and received the Sacrament in the morning.
Following the success at Stamford Bridge the English went on a bender, whilst those nasty Frenchmen gathered in readiness to invade. I mean, William only gave Harold and his men a few days before they attacked - our guys were still having a few bevvies - no wonder we went down.
William of Malmesbury reported: "The courageous leaders mutually prepared for battle, each according to his national custom. The English, as we have heard, passed the night without sleep in drinking and singing, and, in the morning, proceeded without delay towards the enemy; all were on foot, armed with battle-axes. On the other side, the Normans passed the whole night in confessing their sins, and received the Sacrament in the morning.
walking from near York to Hastings with a monster hangover !! .. t'was a wonder they could stand let alone fight
This was follow on from the battle of Fulford. Had the English got a result there, the battle of Stamford Bridge might not have taken place, the King could have left his troops in London and the outcome at Hastings may have changed.
This was follow on from the battle of Fulford. Had the English got a result there, the battle of Stamford Bridge might not have taken place, the King could have left his troops in London and the outcome at Hastings may have changed.
Sounds to me then that the King concentrated on the Cup match then (With the Vikings putting their Reserve squad out for Stamford Bridge) and ignored the two League fixtures
No the vikings sent their first team to Stamford Bridge, however they were sum what weakened by injuries sustained in the victory at Fulford.
The King sent a squad down from London for the second leg at Stamford Bridge. But tiredness from the matches against the Scandinavians combined with travel exhaustion handed the advantage to the French in the next round at Hastings.
No the vikings sent their first team to Stamford Bridge, however they were sum what weakened by injuries sustained in the victory at Fulford.
The King sent a squad down from London for the second leg at Stamford Bridge. But tiredness from the matches against the Scandinavians combined with travel exhaustion handed the advantage to the French in the next round at Hastings.
Ah I see.
Why cant lessons be learnt from this... Its obvious that even in 1066 squads needed a good rest between League matches and European encounters, if Premier League sides are forced to play on Tuesdays in one competition and then the following Saturday in another then we'll surely see a repeat of these ghastly events once more.
I know I said that Saxon v Viking was a League fixture yet thats no different to Cardiff or Swansea being in the English Leagues.
Following the success at Stamford Bridge the English went on a bender, whilst those nasty Frenchmen gathered in readiness to invade. I mean, William only gave Harold and his men a few days before they attacked - our guys were still having a few bevvies - no wonder we went down.
William of Malmesbury reported: "The courageous leaders mutually prepared for battle, each according to his national custom. The English, as we have heard, passed the night without sleep in drinking and singing, and, in the morning, proceeded without delay towards the enemy; all were on foot, armed with battle-axes. On the other side, the Normans passed the whole night in confessing their sins, and received the Sacrament in the morning.
I wouldn't have fancied going on a bender and then having to jog to Hastings for another battle. There must have been a few deserters on the way.
This was follow on from the battle of Fulford. Had the English got a result there, the battle of Stamford Bridge might not have taken place, the King could have left his troops in London and the outcome at Hastings may have changed.
Harold had ordered the army of the north not to engage the Danish army which included his brother Tostig.
They did and got beaten leaving Harold short of trained men.
He still won at Stamford Bridge but came south with a much smaller army due to the losses at Fulford.
On such decisions history turns.
The Danes had been ravaging the countryside and the northern commanders felt they had to defend their land and people (and reputations as leaders).
After William the Bastard had usurped the throne Yorkshire and the north rose up against him and he laid large parts of the north to waste (insert joke about "you can still see that" here but it didn't recover for centuries)
If only they had waited for Harold's southerners to help.
This was follow on from the battle of Fulford. Had the English got a result there, the battle of Stamford Bridge might not have taken place, the King could have left his troops in London and the outcome at Hastings may have changed.
After William the Bastard had usurped the throne Yorkshire and the north rose up against him and he laid large parts of the north to waste (insert joke about "you can still see that" here but it didn't recover for centuries)
Where was Sheffield?
Our army would have been massive had they shown up!!... Once more they just didnt come good!!
After William the Bastard had usurped the throne Yorkshire and the north rose up against him and he laid large parts of the north to waste (insert joke about "you can still see that"
BUT .. this was well after the Battle of Stamford Bridge .. what else does your book say about the battle in question ?
After William the Bastard had usurped the throne Yorkshire and the north rose up against him and he laid large parts of the north to waste (insert joke about "you can still see that"
BUT .. this was well after the Battle of Stamford Bridge .. what else does your book say about the battle in question ?
Not from a book or like you the BBC website.
Sheffield mentioned Fulford which was the first battle and which is now often forgotten. Let's never forget as someone on this thread said.
Fulford had an impact on Stamford Bridge and an even bigger one on Hastings.
Fighting the Danes as Fulford to prevent the ravaging of the north let to the far great ravaging by the Bastard a few years later.
Comments
Following the success at Stamford Bridge the English went on a bender, whilst those nasty Frenchmen gathered in readiness to invade. I mean, William only gave Harold and his men a few days before they attacked - our guys were still having a few bevvies - no wonder we went down.
William of Malmesbury reported: "The courageous leaders mutually prepared for battle, each according to his national custom. The English, as we have heard, passed the night without sleep in drinking and singing, and, in the morning, proceeded without delay towards the enemy; all were on foot, armed with battle-axes. On the other side, the Normans passed the whole night in confessing their sins, and received the Sacrament in the morning.
Puts it all into perspective.
This was follow on from the battle of Fulford. Had the English got a result there, the battle of Stamford Bridge might not have taken place, the King could have left his troops in London and the outcome at Hastings may have changed.
No the vikings sent their first team to Stamford Bridge, however they were sum what weakened by injuries sustained in the victory at Fulford.
The King sent a squad down from London for the second leg at Stamford Bridge. But tiredness from the matches against the Scandinavians combined with travel exhaustion handed the advantage to the French in the next round at Hastings.
Why cant lessons be learnt from this... Its obvious that even in 1066 squads needed a good rest between League matches and European encounters, if Premier League sides are forced to play on Tuesdays in one competition and then the following Saturday in another then we'll surely see a repeat of these ghastly events once more.
I know I said that Saxon v Viking was a League fixture yet thats no different to Cardiff or Swansea being in the English Leagues.
They did and got beaten leaving Harold short of trained men.
He still won at Stamford Bridge but came south with a much smaller army due to the losses at Fulford.
On such decisions history turns.
The Danes had been ravaging the countryside and the northern commanders felt they had to defend their land and people (and reputations as leaders).
After William the Bastard had usurped the throne Yorkshire and the north rose up against him and he laid large parts of the north to waste (insert joke about "you can still see that" here but it didn't recover for centuries)
If only they had waited for Harold's southerners to help.
Our army would have been massive had they shown up!!... Once more they just didnt come good!!
(Sorry couldnt resist)
BUT .. this was well after the Battle of Stamford Bridge .. what else does your book say about the battle in question ?
Sheffield mentioned Fulford which was the first battle and which is now often forgotten. Let's never forget as someone on this thread said.
Fulford had an impact on Stamford Bridge and an even bigger one on Hastings.
Fighting the Danes as Fulford to prevent the ravaging of the north let to the far great ravaging by the Bastard a few years later.