Talk:Harrying of the North

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met
Associated task forces (nations and regions):
	British military history task force
Associated task forces (periods and conflicts):
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500–c. 1500)

There are a whole lot of problems with this as it stands. It's obviously historically distorted by a strong point of view. I know different cultures at that time had different attitudes to kingship, with Scandinavians often having some degree of choice when it came to a succession, but William had some right to believe he was Edward the Confessor's legal heir and therefore the rightful ruler of the whole of England. The idea that Harold Hardrada brought an army over to provide security for people in the north of England is laughable - he wanted the throne. --Andrew Norman 09:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, Harold Hardrada was before the Battle of Hastings, he was not the Danish king (or nobleman) who attempted an invasion.

The main point behind the article, as I read it, is that William's claim to the throne was not supported by the people of England, and that in the north they simply accepted (or would have done, had they the chance) the kingship of a Dane. The main grounds for having a king at that time was to provide physical protection. William clearly took the legalistic view you have taken, thought himself the only rightful heir, and moved to 'quell' the 'rebellion'. Culturally, the northeners were only doing what they had always done - accepting or rejecting a king (see the Kingdom of York for more of the same).

From the article:

The new king brought with him an army

Which new king? AxelBoldt 18:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Here is a odd point in the article: their kings members of the House of Munsö of Sweden or the Fairhair Dynasty of Norway, or the Anglo-Saxon House of Wessex - the first one, no Swedish claim for England has ever been establish. The writer must be thinking about the Danish king (so many Nordic nations, hard to keep 'em apart I guess) - Finn Bjo --85.165.99.39 00:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How many harrys?

Reading I've done, (the History of Ilkley by Collier) suggests there were two Harryings, with about 10 years between them. Can anyone comment on that assertion? thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There was annother revolt in 1075 involving Hereford, Northumbria and Norfolk. I believe this was the event in which Countess Edith betrayed her husband to the king and became one of the first female land owners in England?Narson 15:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Which sounds a bit like Revolt of the Earls ... but it my recollection tallies with your "betrayed her husband to the king and became one of the first female land owners in England", which does not seem to be covered by that article's "Meanwhile the Countess held out in Norwich until she obtained terms for herself and her followers, who were deprived of their lands, but were allowed forty days to leave the realm. Thereupon the Countess retired to her estate in Brittany, where she was rejoined by her husband". I'm sure there's an article on her somewhere in wikipedia... the Revolt of the Earls doesn't sound much like a harrying, more your normal series of battles. --15:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagishsimon (talk • contribs)

Well, I acctually live in what was Countess Edith's land in Northamptonshire or so I believe... I suspect the problem is that for so many years many chronicles and chroniclers were considered 'unreliable' that we have ended up with quite a few versions of that period of English history. I mean, for the longest time the Anglo Saxon Chronicle was considered unreliable. Blasted historians. They shouldn't revert more than 3 times in a 24 decade period >.< Narson 17:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ooops. Judith, not Edith. Damn, my memory is failing in my old age. Narson 19:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A question

I'm not a historian and just read this page out of curiosity. But was very surprised to see the link between The Harrying and the present day relative poverty of the North. Is that credible? 80.229.137.151