Page: 1 2 3
TimesArrow
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 08-2007
Posts: 16
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Harold: the People's Choice in 1066
I find myself wondering what would have happened if Harold had won in 1066 (as he so nearly did). What might his achievements have been? Would his reign have seen a revolution in English governance? Indeed, what would his reputation be today?
Harold was certainly unique. His kingship depended on the previous king's nomination and (crucially) the support of the Witan; he was 'elected' to the throne despite his lack of royal blood. The circumstances were unprecedented; but then so probably was Harold: no mere subject had ever been so powerful nor so popular in AS England.
He was by all accounts a remarkable leader (and far more attractive a personality than his father, Swein and Tostig seem to have been). The Normans hated but did not underestimate Harold. AS accounts verge on panegyric: the author of the 'Vita Edwardi' describes him as wise, patient, merciful, courageous, temperate and prudent - able to take contradiction without flinching - but also ruthless when necessary. Ordericus Vitalis (writing 70 years later) claims that Harold quote:
was much admired for his great stature and elegance, for his bodily strength, for his quick-wittedness and verbal facility, his sense of humour and his honest bearing.
The events of 1066 culminating in the extremely close-fought battle of Hastings demonstrated Harold's military abilities; what he would have been like as a king in peacetime is less clear, though Florence of Worcester states that he quote:
immediately began to abolish unjust laws and to make good ones; to patronize churches and monasteries; to pay particular reverence to bishops, abbots, monks and clerics; and to show himself pious, humble and affable to all good men. But he treated malefactors with great severity, and gave general orders to his earls, ealdormen, sheriffs and thegns to imprison all thieves, robbers and disturbances of the kingdom. He laboured in his own person by sea and by land for the protection of his realm.
|
|
8/27/2007, 9:21 pm
|
Send Email to TimesArrow
Send PM to TimesArrow
|
TimesArrow
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 08-2007
Posts: 16
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Harold: the People's Choice in 1066
There are a number of other indications that this was a man of exceptional abilities, whose reign (had he lived) might have proved interesting.
Was Harold simply an overmighty subject who usurped the throne? The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle didn't think so, recording that Edward quote:
committed the kingdom / to a distinguished man, Harold himself, / a princely earl, who at all times / loyally obeyed his superior / in words and deeds, neglecting nothing / of which the nation's king was in need.
He had been the virtual ruler of England for thirteen years of Edward's reign, a period of relative peace and prosperity. Moreover, I would argue that Harold proved himself a patriot in his dealings with William. If, according to English law, the election of kings was a matter for the Witan, so not in Edward's gift – still less in Harold's? - then it was greater treason for Harold to have sworn the oath (which he is said to have made in 1064) than to break it. This interests me because Harold could conceivably have consented to be William's man in England (to his own advantage), but ultimately chose not to do so. Understandably, Norman propagandists set much store by the (extorted) oath, to emphasise Harold's 'dishonour' - but skirt over the fact that William had effectively offered a great bribe, which is emphasised by Eadmer's account – in return for Harold's support, William apparently proposed a marriage alliance with one of his daughters (presumably with lands and wealth in Normandy for which Harold did him homage when he was knighted?), confirmation of Harold's premier position in England, the release of the hostages on William's succession and everything 'you ask of me which can reasonably be granted'. In which case, the Norman argument that Harold was a Perjurer is rather less relevant than William's attempt to bribe Edward's chief minister to support his tenuous claim to Edward's throne. (Imagine what (English) history would say about Harold had he agreed!) Of course, there is plenty of evidence that Harold swore under duress, anyway, with threats of harm to himself, his kinsmen and retainers (King Edward's nephew, Walter of Mantes, had 'died' mysteriously while imprisoned in Normandy) ... but ultimately Harold was prepared to perjure himself (and lose his immortal soul) rather than betray his country.
Though a formidable warrior, Harold was known for his diplomatic skills and displayed the 'Pax' motif on his coins. He made peace with Aelfgar and Gruffydd in 1055-6. He avoided civil war in 1065 at the expense of his own brother and in 1066 chose to take Bishop Wulfstan with him to *persuade* the rebellious northerners to accept his rule ... note the marked contrast with William's infamous (& genocidal) 'Harrying of the North'. One wonders whether after Hastings he would have sought more peaceful relations with England's neighbours. He had married Aldith, who as well as being the sister of the Northern Earls Edwin and Morcar, was the widow of Gruffydd ap Llywelyn, the Welsh king whom he had finally destroyed in 1063. (Harold had already come to an arrangement with Gruffydd's brothers who would rule most of Wales.)
The assumption inherent in a lot of writing on the conquest is that England was somehow less united than it should have been in 1066 – as a result of Harold having seized the crown. Everyone would have fought for Edgar, it is alleged, but Harold as Usurper couldn't command their loyalty. (In point of fact only Southwark fought for Edgar in '66.) Yet – with the proviso that AS England was *never* as united as it should have been – I fail to see evidence of such damming disloyalty (to Harold). Edmund Ironside faced far worse in 1016 – and he was a Prince of the Blood. After Harold's visit to York in Easter 1066, the kingdom proved remarkably united. No one gained a small fortune by betraying the approaching English to Hardrada at Stamford Bridge. The House of Godwin was joined to the House of Leofric by marriage, with Siward's son Waltheof as Earl of Huntingdon and Oswulf, Earl of Bernicia.
Harold was half Danish. His foreign policy might (or did) lean towards his cousin, Swein Estrithson of Denmark, whom the conquered English looked to as their deliverer in the revolt of 1069/70. His treatment of Prince Olaf after Stamford Bridge impressed the Norwegians sufficiently for them to offer asylum to Harold's relatives after 1066, so no more trouble was to be expected from that quarter. What sort of treatment would a defeated William have received? And would the Normans have ever given up? One possibility is that when the Frankish King Philip came of age, Harold might have offered him an alliance against Normandy; perhaps to have included Earl Godwin's old allies in Flanders as well as the Counts of Ponthieu and Boulogne.
Domestically, Florence of Worcester recalls rather vaguely that Harold 'immediately began to abolish unjust laws and to make good ones'. It is difficult to draw much of an inference from Harold's nine-month reign, yet there are intriguing possibilities around Harold's support for Bishop (later St) Wulfstan of Worcester, which suggest that he might have been a notable reformer. Wulfstan became Harold's confessor and it is said that Harold thought nothing of riding thirty miles out of his way to see him. The closeness of their relationship is further suggested by the way in which Harold chose Wulfstan to accompany him to York in early 1066 and by Wulfstan's reputed cure of Harold's daughter Gunnhild. Wulfstan was a prominent anti-slavery campaigner and something of social reformer who is said to have warned Harold bluntly of the moral decline of the English ruling classes prior to 1066. if Harold had listened to him when wonders what changes might have been made to the English penal code to improve life for the common people (including perhaps the outlawing of slavery and – William's favourite – mutilation, as punishments?). (Instead of which, the hundred years following the battle of Hastings has been described as the worst English century.)
Harold is known to have been ambitious for his foundation at Waltham Abbey, which he wished to turn into a centre of learning. (Shades of Alfred?) He had a collection of books and he had himself written a book on falconry. His daughter Gunnhild was educated at Wilton. In 1062, Harold had founded a secular college at Waltham with the celebrated physician Adelard - a native of Liège who had studied at Utrecht and was famed for his lectures - as chancellor. This suggests a cosmopolitan outlook, which should be no surprise given Harold's various European journeys (including a pilgrimage to Rome). There is a suggestion that Harold intended Waltham to be a seminary on the model of Rheims 'where boys would be taught not only letters and the intricacies of the canonical rule, but could go on to administrative careers.' (Mary Frances Smith Robin Fleming and Patricia Halpin , 'Court and Piety in Late Anglo-Saxon England')
Who would have succeeded Harold? One would think that his chief priority as king would be to ensure there was no repeat of the succession crises which had dogged the English monarchy throughout the eleventh century. This might have been difficult in practice as Harold had heirs from his two marriages – the 'love-match' with Edith Swanneschals and the later political marriage to Aldith of Wales. There is no reason to think that Harold's illegitimate children would not have become earls – Harold and Edith's oldest son Godwine had already received some land from his father before the conquest. Aldith's son Harold (born posthumously, in the event) would have been an Atheling. Yet Harold's chosen successor might well have been the candidate he is sometimes (unfairly IMHO) accused of supplanting: Edgar, the grandson of Edmund Ironside (whose youth ruled him out as a potential candidate in Jan 1066). Certainly, Harold seems to have supported the recall of Edgar's father, Edward 'the Exile', from Hungary. (Harold's father had been a supporter of Edmund Ironside.) And it was Edgar the Atheling who was proclaimed king in London immediately after the battle of Hastings ... when the English (including Harold's supporters) had no intention of submitting to William.
Speculative, of course, but given all that Harold did (and attempted to do) in 1066 it seems only fair to consider what he might have become and how this might have affected the course of English history.
|
|
8/27/2007, 9:37 pm
|
Send Email to TimesArrow
Send PM to TimesArrow
|
mousteriana
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 03-2005
Posts: 887
Karma: 6 (+6/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Harold: the People's Choice in 1066
Time's Arrow:
I really don't think speculating about what Harold might have been like, had he lived long enough, is very useful. Interesting, certainly, but not very useful. Because, among other things, even if Harold hadbeem victorious at Hastings/Senlac/Sand Lake or whatever you want to call it, he might, for example, have been so badly wounded that he died as a consequence soon after. And then you would have ended up with Edgar Aetheling. What sort of ruler would hehave made? I have no idea. But his subsequent career doesn't suggest much of anything. The situation might have remained substantially the same, with England being eyed greedily by outsiders, because it was such a well-ordered place.
However, I will agree with you that Harold had a number of rather useful qualities in a ruler at that time. One, he was apparently something of a diplomat. He also was a good leader. He could be persuasive. And he had a far more appealing personality, by all accounts, that William did. I don't think, BTW, that William had much choice in the way he turned out, if he wanted to stay alive, He had people who "looked after him" till he was old enough to look after himself, and as an adult, he was smart enough to size up the situation. Normandy was a lot more "disorderly" than England, even though, for the most part, the rulers tended to be "stronger" in Normandy. England had what might now be called a "bureaucratic structure"; that structure could keep on functioning no matter who was on the throne. Which is why it survived some abysmally weak rulers.
Be that as it may, much of your assessment is on target, and some of the possibilities you suggest are interesting.
Anne G
|
|
8/28/2007, 4:49 am
|
Send Email to mousteriana
Send PM to mousteriana
|
Housecarl 1066
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 02-2006
Location: Northern-most Saxon border.
Posts: 580
Karma: 1 (+1/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Harold: the People's Choice in 1066
Hi Times and welcome.
Interesting speculation and well written, though alot of this hypothetical and actual event stuff has been covered here in previous posts recent and old. Feel free to browse.
Basically Harold in 1064 was forced with threats of harm (veiled or not?) to himself, retainers, Hakon & Wulfnoth, to swear an "oath" over "hidden relics" - invalid outside of England and useless anyway, as only kings and witan had powers to elect English kings, which was what happened.
Harold had secured his heirs, though would there have been family trouble over the succession (Edward the Elder & Aethelwold; Harald & Harthacnut and possibly Edmund Ironside & Edred)?
--- 
http://anglosaxonengland.darkbb.com
Historian Simon Schama on William;- "maybe not just the 'bastard'...but lucky bastard!" |
|
8/28/2007, 5:44 am
|
Send PM to Housecarl 1066
Blog
|
mousteriana
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 03-2005
Posts: 887
Karma: 6 (+6/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Harold: the People's Choice in 1066
Housecarl and Time's Arrow:
It's really hard to say what "would" have happened, since Harold died before a "proper" heir was even born. I kind of wonder if his numerous offspring with Edith "Swan Neck" wouldn't have had something to say about this. But again, we're running into a lot of speculation here.
Anne G
|
|
8/28/2007, 8:32 pm
|
Send Email to mousteriana
Send PM to mousteriana
|
TimesArrow
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 08-2007
Posts: 16
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
 Re: Harold: the People's Choice in 1066
Thanks, both of you, for the welcome. :-)
I'll enjoy having a root around on here...
From mousteriana:
quote:
I really don't think speculating about what Harold might have been like, had he lived long enough, is very useful. Interesting, certainly, but not very useful.
Sorry! I guess that's the same with most counterfactuals, really. The only defence, I would suggest, is that it guards against Providentialism – the belief that certain outcomes were necessarily 'destined' – (i.e. 'the Norman revolution') – which is one of the problems with history being written by the victors!
And, of course, Harold *is* interesting. The embroiders of the Bayeux Tapestry must have felt so when they (so unnecessarily?) chose to show him rescuing some of William's men from the quicksands at Couesnon. (The iconography is Christlike, as has recently been demonstrated, echoing the many Medieval depictions of the 'Harrowing of Hell'.) And he emerges vividly (and often sympathetically) from the various chronicles – as when he refused to hurt his own people by adopting a scorched earth policy or let his brother Gyrth ride before him at Hastings (Wace).
Housecarl, I suppose some kind of trouble over the succession would seem like almost a safe bet, in the period.
One question which I have not seen asked/answered before is: did the English have much of a plan after Hastings and how far should the failure of any contingency plans be attributed to Harold? Certainly, the fact that the English did not submit immediately is interesting. Do you think Edgar was betrayed by Edwin and Morcar? What was the role of Ansgar, Staller of London? And how significant was the so-called Battle of Suffolk? Why oh why did Harold insist that *both* his brothers were present at Hastings (or did they insist)? Thanks...
|
|
8/28/2007, 8:49 pm
|
Send Email to TimesArrow
Send PM to TimesArrow
|
Housecarl 1066
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 02-2006
Location: Northern-most Saxon border.
Posts: 580
Karma: 1 (+1/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Harold: the People's Choice in 1066
One question which I have not seen asked/answered before is: did the English have much of a plan after Hastings and how far should the failure of any contingency plans be attributed to Harold? Certainly, the fact that the English did not submit immediately is interesting. Do you think Edgar was betrayed by Edwin and Morcar? What was the role of Ansgar, Staller of London? And how significant was the so-called Battle of Suffolk? Why oh why did Harold insist that *both* his brothers were present at Hastings (or did they insist)? Thanks...
I think that the only 'plan' that the English had right then, (certainly for Harold who had sided with the 1065 rebels over Tostig and also made a vital northern alliance with Edwin/Morcar by marrying their sister)- was simply to survive! How many invasions was he expecting - Tostig? the Norse? the Danes under cousin Swein II? William? The Welsh or Scots rising up in alliance with Edwin or Morcar?
Maybe London felt obliged to fight at Southwark against William's post-Hastings army due to the new 'king' Edgar being there? Maybe they hoped to hold out as London had against the Vikings before in the late 10th and early 11thC's?
But it seems the pressure got to the English, by now despairing of hope to resist an encircling William, and any nobles in London- Edwin, Morcar and Waltheof(?) fled northwards perhaps aiming to continue the fight? The one example of old fighting spirit we know of was Ansgar, a wounded(at hastings?) warrior- carried in a litter- inspiring the Londoners to fight on.
regarding Gyrth and Leofwine, I think that Harold probably ordered them to accompany him- isn't that in one of the sources? Anyway, pride would have browbeaten them as well as post-Stamford euphoria.
Cheers
---
http://anglosaxonengland.darkbb.com
Historian Simon Schama on William;- "maybe not just the 'bastard'...but lucky bastard!" |
|
8/28/2007, 10:01 pm
|
Send PM to Housecarl 1066
Blog
|
mousteriana
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 03-2005
Posts: 887
Karma: 6 (+6/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Harold: the People's Choice in 1066
Time's Arrow:
In rejecting "counterfactual" speculation, I'm not falling victim to what you call "providentialism". Far from it. My objection to this kind of speculation comes from the fact that there is a whole subgenre of "couterfactual" fiction of a sort out there. Unfortunately, the vast majority of it isn't really a counterpoise to "providentialism". Instead, it's really "wish it were" history. IOW, the writers construct elaborate "alternate histories" of things theywish had happened, the way they would have liked things to happen. Which is an interesting imaginative exercise, but that's all it is. And after a while, it gets rather boring to read this stuff. It's basically a type of fantasy. In the hands or certain skilled writers, it comes off reasonably well(just as there is some very good fantasy around, but most of it is not so good). But I digress. About all we really know is, or so it seems to me, Harold was a far mor interesting and sympathetic character than William was. But he was unlucky in his family --- which he couldn't do anything about, and he was unlucky in the situation he ended up in, that is, having to more or less "maintain" Edward "the Confessor", who was basically a rather weak character whose ability to organize and run things was rather minimal. He was also unlucky in that William was rather strong. One might more profitably wonder what would have happened had (a) William had a stable family and childhood, and (b) Harold had more reliable close family members and (c) Edward "the Confessor" had gotten his act together, as we on this side of the Pond like to say, and somehow reconciled with Edith and had kids. I don't know. But now to me, that's an interesting line of speculation!
Anne G
|
|
8/30/2007, 5:55 am
|
Send Email to mousteriana
Send PM to mousteriana
|
mousteriana
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 03-2005
Posts: 887
Karma: 6 (+6/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Harold: the People's Choice in 1066
Housecarl:
I was under the distinct impression that, soon after William won, his army kind of encircled London and more or less trashed(and burned) everything in their path. If that was true, no matter what the people in London thought they might have been able to do, they didn't want to get trashed and burned, either. So they "had to" surrender.
Anne G
|
|
8/30/2007, 5:59 am
|
Send Email to mousteriana
Send PM to mousteriana
|
Housecarl 1066
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 02-2006
Location: Northern-most Saxon border.
Posts: 580
Karma: 1 (+1/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Harold: the People's Choice in 1066
True, but at first the London citizens- witan, thegns, clerics, fyrdsmen and merchants etc- did resist the large cavalry detachment that William had sent to try to enter London through Southwark- proving that they still held out hope of holding him at bay and carrying on the 'war', even perhaps being encouraged that they could still rally behind someone around Edgar (Edwin/Morcar/Waltheof?)
That fierce repulse by a people he thought were beaten is why William was forced to ravage westwards and northwards around London in a show of terrorising the leaderless nation to his will, slowly cutting the city off from outside help.
As important cities surrendered and/or fell, it clearly dawned upon most of those still in power to flee or submit(apart from the feisty, wounded Ansgar, sporting his warrior's moustache!). This, before the 'snare' closed around London is when Edwin and Morcar fled London (supposedly betraying Edgar?) maybe in order to rally troops in the north? After all, a huge army of skilled rebels still revolted much later at Exeter, York, Northumbria, Chester and ELY?
There is evidence, from later charters and the Domesday Book, that William's army didn't ravage too far away from their chosen arc of march- partly for speed, partly for safety but perhaps also sparing lives, land and cattle for needing the 'newly-won' lands to generate wealth for him via taxes.
William could not have allowed his army to ravage too thoroughly & widely or he wouldn't have marched 350m in 7wks.
Off his line of march, the land in S.E.England was little damaged- 217 manors were ravaged by William's army during the ravaging post-Hastings,(value over 20% lower in 1068 than they were in 66- some at only 25% total by then!) yet careful research shows that the destruction was only consistent with a huge invading army feeding itself as it marched.
The northumbrian and Mercian rebels of 1065 that supported Earl Edwin after ousting Tostig, damaged lands/towns far more thoroughly and widespread than William did immediately post-Hastings.
Yet apparently many of those still defending London wouldn't surrender it's walls even when William himself appeared within sight of N.London with his huge army, no doubt rallied and fired up to resist by Ansgar, Sheriff of London & Middlesex.
Despite negotiations between William and the defiant Ansgar et al, in which access to the obviously victorious Normans was probably agreed so long as William agred to 'contain' his men, there were still skirmishes either within or immediately outside London's stout city walls as William entered (acc. to William of Jumieges).
Ludgate was opened from the inside to William's army (by a collaborator or a fearful commoner?)negotiating with Ansgar et al, and in the battle of Ludgate Hill, countless Londoners were slain.
Many of those Saxons that disagreed with the Berkhamstead embassy of submission would have fled before William reached London, to live abroad as exiles or mercenaries in foreign armies such as Byzantine (ie.Norfolk thegn, Eadric, maybe leader of the Saxon fleet, fled to Denmark- maybe with any surviving Lithesmen)
But Ansgar didn't run- taken captive by William, he was sent to a Normandy gaol until his death.
---
http://anglosaxonengland.darkbb.com
Historian Simon Schama on William;- "maybe not just the 'bastard'...but lucky bastard!" |
|
8/30/2007, 4:08 pm
|
Send PM to Housecarl 1066
Blog
|
Add a reply
Page: 1 2 3
Powered by AkBBS 0.9.5b - Link to us
- Blogs
- Hall of Honour
- Chat
Click here to get your own free message board
|
You are not logged in (login)
Board's time is: 7/4/2008, 7:48 am
|
|
|
