-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
William or Harold?
- Thread starter Rival
- Start date
I'm not a huge fan of William. He seems to have been remarkably cruel even for his times. But I'm not sure Harold was much better, kings being kings. Anyway, I voted for Harold on the grounds that the only thing I like about William is the poetic justice of his death.
Well I voted William, without really knowing much. I chose Willam because he won and that generally increases your life expectancy.
but.... then I remembered the mass killings and laying waste to the north of england. Here's Wikipedia: Writing about the Harrying [of the North], over fifty years later, the Anglo-Norman chronicler Orderic Vitalis said:
"The King stopped at nothing to hunt his enemies. He cut down many people and destroyed homes and land. Nowhere else had he shown such cruelty. This made a real change.
To his shame, William made no effort to control his fury, punishing the innocent with the guilty. He ordered that crops and herds, tools and food be burned to ashes. More than 100,000 people perished of starvation.
I have often praised William in this book, but I can say nothing good about this brutal slaughter. God will punish him."
but.... then I remembered the mass killings and laying waste to the north of england. Here's Wikipedia: Writing about the Harrying [of the North], over fifty years later, the Anglo-Norman chronicler Orderic Vitalis said:
"The King stopped at nothing to hunt his enemies. He cut down many people and destroyed homes and land. Nowhere else had he shown such cruelty. This made a real change.
To his shame, William made no effort to control his fury, punishing the innocent with the guilty. He ordered that crops and herds, tools and food be burned to ashes. More than 100,000 people perished of starvation.
I have often praised William in this book, but I can say nothing good about this brutal slaughter. God will punish him."
But also this was written:
William ruled England until his death in 1087. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle recalls the Norman King in its entry for that year: "But amongst other things is not to be forgotten that good peace that he made in this land; so that a man of any account might go over his kingdom unhurt with his bosom full of gold. No man durst slay another, had he never so much evil done to the other; and if any churl lay with a woman against her will, he soon lost the limb that he played with. He truly reigned over England; and by his capacity so thoroughly surveyed it, that there was not a hide of land in England that he wist not who had it, or what it was worth, and afterwards set it down in his book."
And wiki mentions this little slice:
His marriage to Matilda appears to have been quite affectionate, and there are no signs that he was unfaithful to her – unusual in a medieval monarch.
William ruled England until his death in 1087. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle recalls the Norman King in its entry for that year: "But amongst other things is not to be forgotten that good peace that he made in this land; so that a man of any account might go over his kingdom unhurt with his bosom full of gold. No man durst slay another, had he never so much evil done to the other; and if any churl lay with a woman against her will, he soon lost the limb that he played with. He truly reigned over England; and by his capacity so thoroughly surveyed it, that there was not a hide of land in England that he wist not who had it, or what it was worth, and afterwards set it down in his book."
And wiki mentions this little slice:
His marriage to Matilda appears to have been quite affectionate, and there are no signs that he was unfaithful to her – unusual in a medieval monarch.
I don't know who I would have sided with in 1066, but today, an absolute monarchy is not compatible with democracy or libertarianism or our liberal traditions, the philosophy of Hobbes notwithstanding; I therefore would support whichever would be supportive of this. If neither were supportive, then I would have backed someone who was.
As for the excerpts from the various historical documents: remember, history is generally written by someone with an agenda, and what they chose to focus upon is likely only part of the picture.
As for the excerpts from the various historical documents: remember, history is generally written by someone with an agenda, and what they chose to focus upon is likely only part of the picture.
I didn't put him in considering Godwinson killed him at Stamford. I was just making it about the 'bigger' battle and the two main contesters, if I may call it.
Bah. Let's not make this a debate about Monarchy.
Yes, excerpts are always that way inclined, I agree. Nothing is completely unbiased especially when it comes to war and monarchy. Just the way it is.
With the benefit of hindsight, I'd back William. He was an effective leader, and a reformer. He was also seemingly capable of pretty much total war (as close as it got in 1066 anyway) which isn't really a positive character trait, but is another reason NOT to be on the other side of things...ahem...
Perhaps Harold would have been an effective king, but based on his family history, the ability of he and his brother to be...err...pragmatic in the keeping of their oaths, and in the fact that he wasn't rightful king in any place, I'd go with William and his proven benefits (and admitted deficiencies) over the unknown.
If I was alive at the time, I have no freaking idea who I would back. Harold, quite possibly.
@Nietzsche ... I guess you were joking with the Harald comment, but I reckon there are at least some very broad similarities in mindset between Harald and William.
PS. I forgot to add, neither William nor Harold had bullet proof claims to the throne. Harald had some passing claim, and Edgar had the 'true' claim. But he was always an unlikely monarch, unless one of the more serious players used him as a figurehead.
Perhaps Harold would have been an effective king, but based on his family history, the ability of he and his brother to be...err...pragmatic in the keeping of their oaths, and in the fact that he wasn't rightful king in any place, I'd go with William and his proven benefits (and admitted deficiencies) over the unknown.
If I was alive at the time, I have no freaking idea who I would back. Harold, quite possibly.
@Nietzsche ... I guess you were joking with the Harald comment, but I reckon there are at least some very broad similarities in mindset between Harald and William.
PS. I forgot to add, neither William nor Harold had bullet proof claims to the throne. Harald had some passing claim, and Edgar had the 'true' claim. But he was always an unlikely monarch, unless one of the more serious players used him as a figurehead.
I guess I read too much of Westeros' troubles to feel that there is such a thing as a rightful King.
That said, I would choose Harold on the grounds that he is not William, who strikes me as rather unadmirable a person.
Then again, if I can't trust the living memory of Ronald Reagan or even Obama, how much trust can I have in what I know of 11th century claimants?
That said, I would choose Harold on the grounds that he is not William, who strikes me as rather unadmirable a person.
Then again, if I can't trust the living memory of Ronald Reagan or even Obama, how much trust can I have in what I know of 11th century claimants?
mindlight
See in the dark
According to my family tree I am from the Angle tribe in the Midlands and so would have supported Harold by fact of birth. However I must say it probably worked out better for English development to have this Norman invasion. The Normans were very well organised and brought with them French influences that probably enriched and challenged the culture
Ewww! Not that William! :OMy Sweet William flowers are doing great this year.
Palehorse
Active Member
Well when I look closely at that picture, I can kinda see William and Harold. Harry should have never gave the ring to William. Diana wanted him to give it to the love of his life. Each poppy represents their fallen soldiers. They should have used Sweet William flowers.
I see that I never voted in this poll before...obviously, because my reasoning wouldn't support either as a legitimate claim to leadership in a syndico-anarchist commune trying to practice democracy...
but, I'll vote that the long-term outcome of history that actually occurred would be better than if Harold had won...
but, I'll vote that the long-term outcome of history that actually occurred would be better than if Harold had won...