Hi u/BritishPodcast. Absolutely love your work, it adorns almost all my solo motorway driving. Just getting into the Alfred episodes (Elfred?) which are π€
So safe to say that Iβm not caught up, but Iβm aware that youβre in and around 1066 atm. Thereβs one facet in this period thatβs always piqued my curiosity - the potential appearance of Anglo-Saxon cavalry tactics used against Harald Hardrada at the battle of Stamford bridge.
Iβve seen it referred to in some academic papers (canβt find nor remember them, one of the many reasons I donβt have a history podcast), and I canβt remember what the evidence or reasoning is, but it seems to be plausible in context, with the Scandinavian force on the back foot, under-manned and without armour.
Do you have a take on this? Just seems like an interesting snippet as the Anglo-Saxons never fought on horseback and itβs one of the defining differences between the two armies at Hastings. Sorry if youβve covered this in the podcast, and sorry for reaching out in such unorthodox fashion - just found the sub and thought βey why not, Iβve been wondering what the BHP has to say on thisβ.
And many thanks to both of you for your time and effort on the podcast, itβs been a real gem in what has been a poop year for many β€οΈ
What changes in history if we change the order of these battles fought. If The English army faced William The Conqueror before going up north to face the Norwegians.
Harald was the short-lived king of Norway and attempted an invasion of England in 1066. He was killed by Harold Godwinson's army at the battle of Stamford Bridge, effectively putting an end to the Viking age, and weakening Godwinson's army such that William the Conqueror could defeat him at the battle of Hastings later that same year.
William's conquest changed the whole of English history and set it on a course to where it is now. But, what if William had faced off later against Harald Hardrada instead of Godwinson? Would Hardrada have won? Would that lead to a far more Scandinavian England?
I watched a Timeline documentary recently where presenter stated that Harold "defied the odds" to defeat Harald Hardrada and the Viking invaders, but most other evidence I've seen suggested King Harold had more men at his disposal.
The battle of Stamford bridge? Start from the city of coxwell after the slaughter. Agatha has to prevent the mason retreat. Missions along the way. Across the bridge and up the hill the time limit will then work against the defending team (Agatha) as what ever time limit set will be pushed to 3 minuets and Agatha like the masons in coxwell will have to kill all the masons upon the hill across the narrow bridge. Or better yet let them spawn a noble out of them they must protect once upon their extraction zone. Once there set their spawn behind it alittle so players can basically come back to the fight. and upon the noble's death they loose like what happened when king Harland fell. Then make it a last man standing.
Presumably William Duke of Normandy would have still invaded, would Hardrada have stood a chance of defeating him? If Hardrada had succeeded in becoming king of England, would Britain have become another Scandinavian country?
This is something that has puzzled me since I began learning about the Norman Conquest. The battle of Hastings has been detailed by two near-contemporaries on both sides of the conflict (Snorri Sturluson in the Heimskringla, and Henry of Huntingdon in his Historia Anglorum) with both agreeing that shortly before the Saxon charge at the Battle of Stamford Bridge, their leader Harold Godwinson met with Harald Hardrada, the leader of the invading Norsemen, and Tostig Godwinson, his brother who was supporting Hardrada's incursion. So how did Godwinson deploy a surprise attack while also personally confronting the two people leading the opposing forces beforehand? Wouldn't they have immediately known something was wrong? If not, why, and if so, how did the battle start?
The Battle of Stamford Bridge was incredibly badly timed for the Anglo-Saxon defenders. King Harold had to defeat a 9000 strong Viking landing in the North of England, and then almost immediately force March his battle weary army down the entire coast to meet William the Conquerer. As we know Harold was killed in battle and the Normans won the battle of Hastings. What do you guys think? As far as I've read the battle was not easily won and there were moments it could've gone either way. Harold lost many troops and important commanders in the Battle of Stamford Bridge. Would Harold, with a larger, more in tact and more energised army have defeated William, preventing the end of Anglo-Saxon rule of England?
I ask this because I'm currently stuyding History in my 2^(nd) semester and did run across this problem while researching the events around the death of Harald Hardrada and the fight of William of Normandy against Harald Godwinsson in 1066. I found only three books (1066. The Battle for the Crown of England by Joerg Peltzer, 1066. The Conquest of England by the Normans by Dominik WaΓenhoven and 1066. The Year of the Three Battles by Frank McLynn) and consider this to be a bare-bones minimum, but since I do not want to rely on three - possibly very different - perspectives given by the writers, I'm searching for more sources. It'd be nice if the fine folks around here could recommend some literature so I'm not completely boxed out of this topic.
Rog: I need to ask you this: did a Clattenburg refereed game have a personality, if so, what were its traits?
Clats: There's one game in particular, which was the "Battle of Stamford Bridge." It was Chelsea vs. Tottenham, if was the famous that year Leicester win the title, it was theater. I went in with a gameplan that I didn't want Tottenham Hotspur blaming Mark Clattenburg that they were gonna lose the title. It should've been 3 red cards to Tottenham; I allowed them to self-destruct so all the media, all the people in the world went, "Tottenham lost the title." If I sent 3 players off from Tottenham, what's the headlines? "Clattenburg lost Tottenham the title," and it was pure theater that Tottenham self-destructed against Chelsea and Leicester win the title.
Rog: In that game, were the Chelsea players not screaming bloody murder, they're like, "Clattenburg what are you doing we're getting massacred here!"
Clats: It was the first game where Diego Costa never got cautioned (laughs). It was so crazy when you look back at the game but, when Hazard scored to equalize to make it 2-2 I've never felt an atmosphere in a stadium before like that before, because of Chelsea had stopped one of the enemies winning the title.
Rog: In a way you scripted it.
Clats: ...I helped the game, I certainly benefited the game by my style of refereeing. Some referees would have played by the book and Tottenham would have been down to 7 or 8 players and probably lost, and Tottenham would've been looking for an excuse but I didn't give them an excuse, because me gameplan was let them lose the title.
Rog: Listening to this, I was like, "Wow, Mark Clattenburg, even crazier than Diego Costa" (Clats laughs) that is saying something, but you've said, "I want games to be a spectacle," and hearing you talk about the Battle of Stamford Bridge, is that the referee's job or is it really down to the players?
Clats: I think we're all part of theater. That's why the Premier League is the best league in the world. Its assisted by the best players, the best referees, the best coaches, and we've all got a duty to make sure the game's enhanced. The English style of refereeing is different; I had to referee differently when I went into Europe than I did in the Premier League because none of the top players in Europe would accept some of the physical contact that went on in the Premier League - but that was the theater, that's what people loved. They love a tackle, they don't want it punis
... keep reading on reddit β‘
