| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
 |
|
Around about the time 990 (according to ortho) Archbishop Sigeric of Ramsbury's was recording his chronicle, of 79 stopping places he used to travel from Rome to Canterbury a young dean of St Quentin (Dudo or Dudon) was also being commisioned by Richard of Normandy to write a now famous work.....
Between 996 and 1015, Dudo wrote his Historia Normannorum "a treatise on the customs and deeds of the Norman Land, the rights established within the kingdom of his grandfather Rollo"
It was fiction.
| Written between 996 and 1015, his Historia Normannorum—also known as Libri III de moribus et actis primorum Normanniae ducum and Gesta Normannorum—was dedicated to Adalberon, bishop of Laon. Dudo does not appear to have consulted any existing documents for his history, but to have obtained his information from oral tradition, much of it being supplied by Raoul, count of Ivry, a maternal half-brother of Duke Richard. Consequently, the Historia partakes of the nature of a romance, and on this ground has been regarded as untrustworthy by historians such as Ernst Dümmler and Georg Waitz.[citation needed] Other authorities, such as Jules Lair and Johannes Steenstrup, while admitting the existence of a legendary element, regard the book as of considerable value for the history of the Normans.[4] |
As indeed was Dudo/Dudon
| Dudo, or Dudon, was a Picard historian, and dean of Saint-Quentin, where he was born in the 960s.[1] He was an erudite scholar and he likely acquired his education in Liège or perhaps Laon.[2] By 987, Dudo had become a canon at St Quentin, the abbacy of which was held by the counts of Vermandois. In that year he was sent on a diplomatic mission to Richard I of Normandy by Albert I, Count of Vermandois, which was successful.[3] Dudo became a frequent visitor to the Norman court in the two years prior to Richard's death in 996. In a letter to Adalbero, Bishop of Laon, Dudo said that, as a result, Richard asked him to write a work recording "the customs and deeds of the Norman Land, the rights established within the kingdom of his grandfather Rollo".[2] During a second stay in Normandy, Dudo wrote his history of the Normans, a task which Duke Richard had urged him to undertake. Very little else is known about his life, except that he died before 1043.[4] | |
|
 |
|
 |
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
There are no contemporary records of the Conquest and the Battle of Hastings. The earliest versions, Gesta Normannorum Ducum and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, were produced in the twelfth century.
An account titled Gesta Willelmi ducis Normannorum et regis Anglorum ("The Deeds of William, Duke of the Normans and King of the English"), attributed to William of Poitiers (chaplain to Duke William according to a twelfth-century chronicler called Orderic Vitalis), is preserved in a manuscript dated c. 1100.The place of production is 'unknown' and its provenance is listed as sixteenth century..
The work, which was reportedly 'forgotten' for centuries, was first published in 1619. No wonder the site of the battle has never been located.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Yes it was! They built Battle Abbey on the site. 'Come and see where... er... English history starts. Re-enactments daily, Easter thru Michaelmas. Fun for all the family.'
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
The earliest written reference to Battle Abbey marking the spot where the battle was fought is in the Chronicle of Battle Abbey, produced in 1176. More specifically, according to Battle Abbey, the high altar marks the spot 'at which King Harold died'. They do not appear to know who said it or when, either way they're not telling.
Wiki, based on orthodox sources, says the site of the battle remains 'a matter of conjecture and debate'. Some historians, frustrated by the lack of archaeological evidence, claim the association between the abbey and the battlefield, as per the Chronicle of Battle Abbey, was invented by Battle Abbey monks.
| The Chronicle consists of two document bound together and narrates the circumstances of the formation of the Abbey in Battle in order to avoid paying taxes which were due to the King around 1180. The first document covered the initial period of the invasion and battle up to the building of the abbey foundations (folios 1-21). The second author writes the book concerning the site of the church at Battle and possessions given to it by William. The two were bound into one and became the Chronicle of Battle Abbey and the founding authorisation of the abbey. |
https://saxonhistory.co.uk/Battle_of_Hastings_1066AD_Chronicles_of_Battle_Abbey.php
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Did we ever come to a conclusion as to whether there was a battle at all? My own theory -- of a palace coup in London when the official king, Harold Godwinson, was away at the Battle of Stamford Bridge -- was put together long before I knew how radically English history needed revising.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Wileys view is that the Abbey served a christian then pilgrim function on an imaginary battle site.
Abbeys and monastries were in part built, to protect the Norman invaders from eternal damnation, in part as a penance for any atrocities committed during their crusades.
Battle Abbey is dedicated to St Martin of Tours. A massively popular Saint in France.
St Martin (Mars god of war) was a Roman cavalry officer, who converted to Christ and gave up fighting, to help the poor.
The main pilgrimage destination for Saint Martin of Tours was the Basilica of Saint Martin in Tours, France. It houses his historic tomb in the crypt and was one of the most important Christian shrines in medieval Europe.
The Benedictines took over many monasteries dedicated to St. Martin of Tours. They were good at inventing history to support their pilgrim trade, ie hosting travelers, housing holy relics, and manufacturing mass-produced souvenirs.
This was the spot where Harold fell.......was one of their best.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Wileys view is that the Abbey serves a christian function on an imaginary battle site. |
What Christian function? If it was an abbey, why build it on such a weird spot as a battle?
| Abbeys and monastries were in part built, to protect the Norman invaders from eternal damnation, in part as a penance for any atrocities committed during their crusades. |
I don't think the Normans gave a damn about damnation.
| Battle Abbey is dedicated to St Martin of Tours. A massively popular Saint in France. |
Tours is not in Normandy. It is in the realm of the Angevins who overthrew the Normans.
| St Martin (Mars god of war) was a Roman cavalry officer, who converted to Christ and gave up fighting, to help the poor. |
So they say.
| The main pilgrimage destination for Saint Martin of Tours was the Basilica of Saint Martin in Tours, France. It houses his historic tomb in the crypt and was one of the most important Christian shrines in medieval Europe. |
Tours is an important point on the main trade route running through to Santiago de Compostela.
| The Benedictines took over many monasteries dedicated to St. Martin of Tours. |
You'd have to provide a timeline for this. If the Normans introduced the Cult of St Martin, there's not much time for the Benedictines to take it over.
| They were good at inventing history to support their pilgrim trade, ie hosting travelers, housing holy relics, and manufacturing mass-produced souvenirs. |
So why didn't the Benedictines invent (or as maybe popularised the cult of) St Martin?
| This was the spot where Harold fell.......was one of their best. |
If they built Battle Abbey, what's to stop them building the basilica of St Martin of Tours?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Thanks, but I will stick with my re-ordering for now.
I probably will remain and die on this uninhabited planet.......
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Did we ever come to a conclusion as to whether there was a battle at all? My own theory -- of a palace coup in London when the official king, Harold Godwinson, was away at the Battle of Stamford Bridge -- was put together long before I knew how radically English history needed revising. |
My own theory is that this is an imaginary battle, based on a retelling of another imaginary battle Gaugamela.
For those interested both battles featured an inplausable decisive shock use of heavy cavalry. This follows a inplausable feint to encourage well entrenched defenders to break ranks, creating gaps which the cavalry then exploit.
Alexander and William are both cavalry leaders and both lead by example.
Each battle is a preordained victory. Before Gaugamela there was a lunar eclipse, the Persians interpret this as a terrible omen signifying the downfall of Darius. In contrast, the Macedonians see this as a sign of victory.
Before Hastings there were sightings of Halley’s Comet portending doom for the Anglo-Saxon kingdom ruled by King Harold, whilst William sees it as a positive signal.
In general terms Wiley reckons whilst Heavy Cavalry (more armour the better) and Chariots (more horses the better) make for wonderful
subject matter on coins, their military utility is questionable, I dout of any use at all in large field engagements........(I am on my own on this one)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| My own theory is that this is an imaginary battle, based on a retelling of another imaginary battle Gaugamela. |
OK
| For those interested both battles featured an inplausable decisive shock use of heavy cavalry. This follows a inplausable feint to encourage well entrenched defenders to break ranks, creating gaps which the cavalry then exploit. |
The Anglo-Saxons claimed they dismounted to fight. Which is wise without heavy armour. William's cavalry could in no way be described as 'heavy'. Perhaps they employed horses to leave and then re-enter the battlefield.
| Alexander and William are both cavalry leaders and both lead by example. |
I had thought it was the phalanx that got the credit. The Persians were famous for their steppe cavalry, weren't they?
| Each battle is a preordained victory. Before Gaugamela there was a lunar eclipse, the Persians interpret this as a terrible omen signifying the downfall of Darius. In contrast, the Macedonians see this as a sign of victory. Before Hastings there were sightings of Halley’s Comet portending doom for the Anglo-Saxon kingdom ruled by King Harold, whilst William sees it as a positive signal. |
I wouldn't have put much store in either if I had been a soldier. But these reported miracles are too common to set much store by.
| In general terms Wiley reckons whilst Heavy Cavalry (more armour the better) and Chariots (more horses the better) make for wonderful subject matter on coins, their military utility is questionable, I dout of any use at all in large field engagements........(I am on my own on this one) |
Hardly. Nobody gave decisive credit to cavalry before the heavily armoured knights of the Crusades. The Norman horse-soldiers were more nimble than heavy. Still, it's not a bad theory. At least it wasn't a rerun of Cannae, the usual choice.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Still, it's not a bad theory. At least it wasn't a rerun of Cannae, the usual choice. |
Thats one in the eye for Wiley. Bit like Harold really.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Still we note that the Abbey at Battle was dedicated by William to To St Martin.
St Martin was a Roman Cavalry officer, posted to Gaul, who later on becoming a christian who refused to then fight in field battles. Somewhat miraculously the Gauls accepted, and even embraced, his Christianization efforts.
The St Martin cult it seems was not brought in by William as penance (as is believed by ortho) but to further oppress/convert the locals.
This is indeed a good function for Armoured Knights..........a few Knights operating from a castle can police a large surrounding area.
You need Knights, Bishops Castles etc.....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
That was my model advanced in RevHist.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
One of the worst defeats for heavy cavalry was Agincourt.
There is no known battle site, extensive fieldwork and digs on the traditionally accepted site (near the modern village of Azincourt in northern France) have yielded no evidence.
The vicory is associated Saints Crispin and Crispinian as the battle is supposed to have happened on their feast day.
| Saints Crispin and Crispinian are the Christian patron saints of cobblers, curriers, tanners, and leather workers. They were beheaded during the reign of Diocletian; the date of their execution is given as 25 October 285 or 286. |
The battle was won by by the English
| At the Battle of Agincourt (October 25, 1415), the English foot soldiers secured a monumental victory against a heavily outnumbering French force. The army consisted of roughly 6,000 men: about 5,000 formidable longbowmen and roughly 1,000 dismounted men-at-arms |
Neat eh
Hastings.... Cavalry..... St Martin (cavalry officer)
Agincourt.... Foot soldiers.....St Crispin (cobbler)
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be rememberèd—
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day. |
Wiley is in tears.........
| Born to a noble Roman family in the 3rd century AD, Crispin and Crispinian fled persecution for their faith, ending up at Soissons (modern-day France), where they preached Christianity to the Gauls while making shoes by night. It is stated that they were twin brothers.[1] |
After their matyrdom in Soissons circa 286, their relics were kept, so they say firstly in a Basillica and then Soissons Cathedral.
Hmmmmm
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
This is interesting. (St Crispin gets some airtime in The Megalithic Empire.) 1415 is getting a bit late to interfere with the historical record on this scale but it is the same era when I myself claimed the Bayeux Tapestry was made so who knows? This is the critical bit:
| There is no known battle site, extensive fieldwork and digs on the traditionally accepted site (near the modern village of Azincourt in northern France) have yielded no evidence. |
It must be remembered that medieval battlefields were picked clean by various people, official and non-official, so it is not surprising that surviving artefacts are at a premium. Nevertheless, the actual site would be certain to provide archaeological evidence of some kind.
But how certain would that site be, half-a-millennium on? I don't think we know the exact site of any medieval battle, do we? And without the exact site, archaeologists would be more or less helpless.
Which brings us to an AE point. How keen would French archaeologists be to find the site of a battle which is not well-regarded in France?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
