h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: The Battle of Hastings - October 14th 1066 - A1302003
Author: Tenaka - U186694

As we approach the 937th and in the larger view the 1000th anniversary of the Battle of Hastings I thought it would be appropriate to add a recollection of this battle to the guide.

Neat Entry

Wasn't Winchester England's capital prior to William, though?

I seem to remember that, after the Conquest, William only made London a joint-capital along with Winchester (certainly he was crowned in both cities). London only became undisputed capital around 14thC.

Pin (not a Scout, note)

From what I remember yes the Capital was also at Winchester, in that that is where the royal court was. But the centre of England was still London. Winchester was the seat also of the Earl's of Wessex (IIRC) and so was Harold's capital. However, from the big picture Westminster Abbey was were the King's recieved the full Crown and were annointer. Winchester's claim as capital was based on the Royal court. That in enough was not enough to make it the capital. Otherwise Windsor would be the capital today. And all the other places the Royal Family have made the seat of there court's throughout history.

I think I'm justified in declaring London as the capital, as it was the most important city in the country, the traditional seat of power, the traditional location for the annointing and crowning of kings, including Harold and Edward the Confessor, and also by virtue of size and wealth.

Just my opinion if anyone else disagrees or points me in the right direction to refute me I'll change it

Thanks



Tenaka

Nice start...

Couple of points...

Firstly the obvious one is that in the first paragraph you mention 2 different Harolds, then go on throughout the whole entry to talk about a single Harold without actually telling the reader which one you're talking about.

Secondly, it might well be worth a brief comment about the battle of Stamford Bridge and the possible effect that had on the battle of hastings (the fact that harolds troops were all still in York when William landed!)

I'm sure other points'll come up, but that should improve things a little

Oh, nearly forgot, you might want to link to the BBC history site as well...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/normans/hastings_01.shtml

Oh, nearly forgot, you might want to link to the BBC history site as well...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/normans/hastings_01.shtml

Oh, nearly forgot, you might want to link to the BBC history site as well...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/normans/hastings_01.shtml

Right that should solve the two Harold's problem. Stamford Bridge is mentioned in footnote 8.

Is that OK? Thanks for the criticisms. Please keep them coming.

Tenaka

Oops!

I realise this about the battle and not William (or Harold, or..) but I'd like to see long biog pieces on the main players (I'd love it if ya could mention Matilda in William's). I t might be also worth mentioning that Harold was the brother of Edith wife/queen to Edward the confessor. And... er.. no mention of Stamford Bridge?
"had no claim to the throne by blood" maybe but he did have Royal blood (though much watered down)
"William was crowned King" might be nice to point out that he was Crowned King of the English & not King of England.
just a few thoughts...

Stamford Bridge is mentioned in footnote 8

worth more than a footnote..?

"Exchequer, the archaic name for the Treasury."
again might be worth mentioning that the name came form the board used to calculate royal accounts which looked like a big Chequers board

and...

at no point do ya indicate that Harold was King Harold II of the English.

Also no mention of the Papal approval William obtained for the invasion or the fact that he fought under a Papal banner at Hastings.

re:The Aftermath, no mention of the oath of fealty at Salisbury (1088)

nb: regards previous post & my King of the English comments

Harold II last King of the English
William I first King of England

my mistake

I didn't see the need to mention Harold being King Harold II as his legitimany to that title was being questioned, even though he was crowned, and as you stated of the English not of England.

The Oath of Fealty was both to specific and to far away. I might add it.

As two people felt Stamford Bridge deserved more recognition I've added it in a new paragraph.

I mentioned Papal approval in sentence two of the paragraph titled invasion.

I didn't know about fighting under that banner. Will add something about it. It must only have been a secondary banner as he fought under the colours of Normandy primarily at the battle.

Thanks, really useful.
Please give me more, but please remember it is on the Battle not William and the conquering of Britain

Tenaka

Harold II as you was crowned, and was the holder of the English crown almost 10 months, as such is generally recognised as an English King.

you have now mentioned Stamford Bridge, but you have not really indicated the effect it had on Harold II's trops. The fact they were depleted, weary, and bloodied as opposed to Williams fresh troops.

Fair point and taken on board and added.
Tenaka

After all that I get a
Sir you deserve a drink and I know I need one:


Oh and have a loo brush too, because you never know:



Thanks for all that and staying with me, I think it is a better article for it.

Tenaka

That's what Peer Review is for!

*sips *
It is looking good

the only thing I would say is as ya done a little extended biog on William I ("A Little About William") then just perhaps ya should do Harold II the same service ... as with all my comments, it's just a thought


of course, wot I'm really waiting for is some one to do a biog of King Eric Bloodaxe (947-954) (they just don't name kings like that anymore )...