Battle of Hastings [Archive]

Mithrandir

09-05-2002, 21:07

Be afraid...I'm posting something serious here...

Call me underdevelopped but where did it take place, who were in it and please supply me with as much USEFUL links and books about it...

I've got to do a major report on school (at least 40 hours of work have to be in it) to enter the exams...everyone seems to know about this battle but me so I thought I'd pick that as a subject...

Thanks,

-Mith-

------------------
http://www.mith.netfirms.com/Pictures/icontest1.gif http://members.home.nl/jvanbaars/kingmith.gif http://members.home.nl/jvanbaars/mith3.gif

BlackWatch McKenna

09-06-2002, 00:31

1066 was the year.

England was the place. The Normans were the Invaders (hence, the Norman Invasion).

My favorite book on it is called: "1066: The Year of Conquest". Its a short book that TOTOALLY captures the flavor of the time, and gives great background on it (discussing the Wykings, Normies and the Limeys).
http://www.ibiscom.com/bayeux.htm
http://www.infokey.com/hon/hastings.htm
http://www.pastforward.co.uk/vikings/stamford.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/normans/hastings_01.shtml

It's a whacky battle - I wont go into it here...

Mithrandir

09-06-2002, 01:03

Thanks m8!

Great links, esp. the last one http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif.

How would you suggest to set up my project (got to divide it in main question-subquestions)I was thinking about

How did the battle of Hasting influence the history of Great-Brittain
-What factions were fighting who
-Which weapons&armour was used?
-Who were the leaders&generals?
-How did the battle proceed?
-What were the effects for Brittain?

Any more suggestions are very much welcomed,also some links to sites&books to were I could find more info on the leaders,generals &consequences would be great http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif.

Thanks again.
-Mith-

------------------
http://www.mith.netfirms.com/Pictures/icontest1.gif http://members.home.nl/jvanbaars/kingmith.gif http://members.home.nl/jvanbaars/mith3.gif

BlackWatch McKenna

09-06-2002, 03:24

Have they told you what your Main Thesis is?

If you get to pick it, then that is very nice, too. How long until you have to submit your Main Thesis and/or report? If you have time, go read 1066 this weekend and that will help.

TAKING A LOOK AT YOUR THESIS:

How did the battle of Hasting influence the history of Great-Brittain
-1. What factions were fighting who
-2. Which weapons&armour was used?
-2. Who were the leaders&generals?
-2. How did the battle proceed?
-3. What were the effects for Brittain?

I have divided the 5 sub-divisions into 3. Everyone on this board knows that the middle three topics are the BEST - but if its for school... and for a teacher... I just dont think a teacher would have the LOVE of history that we do. But its your call: YOU know you audience better than I do.

Breaking it up that way actually gives you three nice sub-divisions:
BEFORE
(the factions: Normans/Englanders/Vikings)

DURING
(leaders/weapons/tactics)

AFTER
(an ongoing Hate/Hate relationship between France and England)

Now, I am from So.California, so I would like to hear from some folks from the UK on what their thoughts are on the AFTER part.

//black

Tachikaze

09-06-2002, 04:01

The result doesn't have to center on the hatred. That's Robin Hood stuff. The Normans introduced the contemporary culture of France to Britain, especially vocabulary, and court and judicial systems.

I visted the battlefield a number of years ago. It's rather small, but is quite like the descriptions I read.

------------------
http://members.cox.net/ramen/icon09.gif

Knowing the Tao saves you thousands of dollars in psychiatric bills and credit card debt.

[This message has been edited by Tachikaze (edited 09-05-2002).]

ShadeWraith

09-06-2002, 04:05

The Normans werent actually French at all. And it has been argued that in fact following their somewhat fortuitous victory, they inherited a culture superior in most respects to their own.

Wraith

BlackWatch McKenna

09-06-2002, 04:27

Great points.

Here is an overview of the whole situation http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/normans/index.shtml

And a little more insight into what those North Men did for us:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/normans/hudson_norman1.shtml

BlackWatch McKenna

09-06-2002, 04:29

And an oh so brief history of those Norse Men of the North:
http://www.regia.org/norman.htm

Red Peasant

09-06-2002, 18:14

"Englanders"......Who are they, DUDE?! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
To see a world in a grain of sand,
And Heaven in a wild flower,
To hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

William Blake.

Mithrandir

09-06-2002, 19:45

Thanks again, I'm still in doubt if this subject has enough information&content to fill 40 hours though...

------------------
http://www.mith.netfirms.com/Pictures/icontest1.gif http://members.home.nl/jvanbaars/kingmith.gif http://members.home.nl/jvanbaars/mith3.gif

BlackWatch McKenna

09-07-2002, 00:07

Mith-

Do you mean you have to do 40 hours of "work" on this project?

Where:

Typing + Book Reading + Other Research + Retyping = 40 hours?

I am a fast reader, but I still think 4 big books could take up 20 hours (I read those BIG 600 pagers). Plus, writing the Outline and preparing the rough draft (of a 10 page paper) should take you a few hours. Then retyping the final draft, with Table of Contents and Bibliography and Footnotes ... that's at least a four hour job.

Anyways, that's my flash back from college and beyond.

And, if you wanted to "stretch it out", you could concentrate a bit more on the AFTER part (the impact of the Normies on the Englanders).

//black

BlackWatch McKenna

09-07-2002, 00:10

Hjey~!

Can you add maps and graphics?

Having constructed both in Illustrator and PhotoShoppe, I ken tell you that that is at least a six hour proposition.

I mean, a nice three part map of the battle itself, with pictures of the opposing generals and a graphic of the armor used at that time could certainly eat up some of that 40 hour budget.

Of course, they might want a purely literal presentation (and not give any bonus for graphic design) ... you will have to be the judge of THAT decision.

Mithrandir

09-07-2002, 00:18

I have to put 40 hours in total, though ofcourse it'll have t show in the project so I cant get away with reading a book for 30 hours, making some pictures for 5 hours and then typing 5 pages with little info http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif.

It'll have to be big,real big&good.
Anyone knows if there's a Dutch name for Hastings or that it's just the same?

BlackWatch McKenna I appreciate your help http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif.

------------------
http://www.mith.netfirms.com/Pictures/icontest1.gif http://members.home.nl/jvanbaars/kingmith.gif http://members.home.nl/jvanbaars/mith3.gif

NinjaKilla

09-07-2002, 22:00

Mith Anglo-Saxon England was my main subject for my history degree. If I recall, I have a number of essays that discuss various aspects of Hastings. I have also just started a Masters in War Studies - and I guess I'll probably be going over my Hastings notes in the next week or so. If you have any specefic questions, go for it, otherwise you can e-mail me. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

BTW be careful with web-sites you might find - some of them are a little romanticised to say the least, and if you haven't got a general background you might not be able to distinguish the bullshit and the misinterpretation of the sources from the facts and viable ideas.

------------------
Clan Kenchikuka (http://www.totalwar.org/kenchikuka)

Mithrandir

09-07-2002, 22:18

http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/eek.gifNo background at all on that battle... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/eek.gif.

Your help would be greatly appreciated, my email adres is elflands@hotmail.com ,if you've got material still on the PC could you please email it to me ?
otherwise can I jsut have your email adres for questions I may have once I start to work on it?

Thanks http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif.

-Mith-

------------------
http://members.home.nl/jvanbaars/icons/icon1.gif http://members.home.nl/jvanbaars/icons/icon2.gif http://members.home.nl/jvanbaars/icons/icon3.gif
Think about it :
"There is no alternative for death"-J van Baars,Book of lore.

NinjaKilla

09-08-2002, 19:28

Quote Originally posted by Mithrandir:
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/eek.gifNo background at all on that battle... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/eek.gif.[/QUOTE]

LOL nah I didn't mean it like that. It's just that I've seen some people interpret the sources far too literally. For example there is a reference to a crazy bard running out from the English battleline- signalling the start of the battle. In fact it is very doubtful that this occurred: there are other similar examples of this and it is likely that the writer was using a historical model. What's more there is debate into the accuracy of the figures used in the primary sources... there are some good studies on this but I doubt they'd interest you. My point is beware. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Incidentally I just saw on BBC2 tonight Simon Schamer's show is on the Battle of Hastings (8:00 I think). If I recall this show is pretty good and concentrates on the actual battle events themselves.

I'll look through my essays and sent you anything useful. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
Clan Kenchikuka (http://www.totalwar.org/kenchikuka)

Mithrandir

09-08-2002, 19:34

*bows*
Great thanks! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
*bows*
*kisses feet*
*spits out toecheese*
*bows*
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif.
Thanks again http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif.

------------------
http://members.home.nl/jvanbaars/icons/icon1.gif http://members.home.nl/jvanbaars/icons/icon2.gif http://members.home.nl/jvanbaars/icons/icon3.gif
Check out the Fantasy Total War mod! (http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000587.html)
Think about it :
"There is no alternative for death"-J van Baars,Book of lore.

NinjaKilla

09-09-2002, 02:31

Bollox, I thought I had all my essays on disk, but the one most useful for you isn't there - I only have a hard copy. I'm abit miffed about it, I'll have to try put it through an OCR next weekend at my parents. I do have one on the cultural impacts on English society subsequent to the invasion. Is this any use?

I only caught the end of that show as I thought I'd seen it, but I hadn't. Regarding the battle, I was glad to see that he didnt labour on the issue of Norman cavalry feigning retreat - personally I think it is doubtful they could have managed this. I would say that I think the Normal archers were pretty ineffective - this was one of the first uses of massed groups of archers in western European and their employment was not perfected. Firing up a hill into a sheild wall, I doubt that they caused significant casualties. Fundamentally it was the death of Harold (which is in the essay... grrr!!) which was the key reason why the English lost the battle. The English were on a favourable defensive position and Harold's troops were probably the best foot soldiers in Europe at the time. However, the ill discipline of troops on the wings also played an important role in the outcome of the battle.

I was also suprised that he didnt emphasis the cultural impact on England. Most (in fact I think all that I ve read) seem to think that the English defeat at Hastings paved the way for a massive influx of Norman customs, institutes of government, language, social structure, architecture, etc. Personally I'm more conservative and think that most of the changes that took place were not uniquely Norman and others were part of a Europe wide trend. What's more in the long run the invaders were absorbed into English society and our cultural influence proved stronger.

*gasps for breath*

Sorry I rambled a bit there - hehe I love this stuff. Any questions go for it. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
Clan Kenchikuka (http://www.totalwar.org/kenchikuka)

Mithrandir

09-09-2002, 03:07

I saw the (a ?) show too on the BBC http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif.

The English was a bit hard for me to follow- all the names followed eachother up quite fast. I was dissappointed however in the lack of info on the actual battle itself...

the only real info they gave was that the keypoint (according to them) was when a flank of the Britons Flyx (? -something like that, the ashigaru) chased the routing cavelry...

anyway, I've still got many weeks to do the report, but if you send me it once you;ve got it ,great.

Thanks (last time for me to thank you -just imagine a thank you under each of my posts http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif)

------------------
http://members.home.nl/jvanbaars/icons/icon1.gif http://members.home.nl/jvanbaars/icons/icon2.gif http://members.home.nl/jvanbaars/icons/icon3.gif
Check out the Fantasy Total War mod! (http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000587.html)
Think about it :
"There is no alternative for death"-J van Baars,Book of lore.

Red Peasant

09-09-2002, 05:05

Good stuff NK.

Strange thing about the battle is the behaviour of the respective leaders. William was not thought of as a great fighter but he excelled himself in the circumstances, whereas Harold was renowned as a warrior yet he was subdued during the battle, not showing much at all and letting the flow of battle apparently overwhelm him.

There is a school of thought that maintains that Harold was either a) Carrying an almost mortal, debilitating injury from the fearsome Battle of Stamford Bridge, or b) that he was dead before the Normans got to him. His demeanour and lack of positive action during the battle is totally out of character and seems to require some explanation.

------------------
To see a world in a grain of sand,
And Heaven in a wild flower,
To hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

William Blake.

NinjaKilla

09-09-2002, 18:02

Yeah Red Peasant, I find Harold's role interesting. Although I wouldnt like to blame him for any specefic events during the battle - the English were on a defensive position and I don't think that he is directly responsible for the discipline of what were effectively peasants on the wings of the army. Nevertheless, it is clear that in the month leading up to the invasion, Harold failed to recognise the signs: it seems that he assumed William would attack the next summer. However when he did attack the Norman effort was well coordinated and Williams decision to pillage southern England forced Harold into an early battle. It is interesting to speculate what effect Stamford Bridge had on his army. How many of his troops at Hastings were veterans from the previous battle, and/or how many had he lost on the march south? Was this an advantage or a disadvantage? What is clear though is that he had little problem raising an army... which leads on to the major question: how was it that the powerful English kingdom was conquered as a result of a single battle?

The reason for this is the same as the reason, which in my opinion, why Hastings was lost: Harold's death. In fact during the battle a rumour went round the Norman forces that William himself had been killed. (The resulting retreat has been mistaken for French hit and run tactics IMO.) It was only when William revealed himself that his men rallied and rejoined battle. This demonstrates the importance of the king in battle - and when Harold was killed it is likely that a number of English left the field, while others paniced or hesitated enough for the Normans to capitalise.

What's more the death of the English king, meant that there was a power vacuum in England. Previous succesion crisises demonstrate that the natives would have been unable to cooperate in order to elect a King to resist William. In fact past experience had taught the nobles that the best course of action in such a situation was to spot the eventual winner early on and back him in order to garuntee their status in the new regime. Hence despite the exist of a legitimate English heir, the English nobles opted to install William as their King - after all he had an army and it is likely that he would take the throne for himself after killing any resistance.

That's the key point to be made Mith: Harold died. Hehe as you can see, I love this stuff, so apologies again if I ramble. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif Where did you see that about Harold having been injured Red? I'd like to read that.

------------------
Clan Kenchikuka (http://www.totalwar.org/kenchikuka)

Red Peasant

09-09-2002, 23:05

TBH, can't remember where I saw that stuff, but I thought it was an interesting point, though highly speculative.

You're probably right about the so-called feigned retreats, the Normans just got lucky and Harold missed his chance. A strong opinion is that the Normans were in complete disarray on that first retreat and a massed attack by the whole of the English army would have finished them off.....another historical 'what-if' http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
To see a world in a grain of sand,
And Heaven in a wild flower,
To hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

William Blake.

Purple Fencer

09-17-2002, 20:51

I think the most significant impact of the defeat at Hastings was the consequent slaughter of much of the English nobility fighting alongside Harold. The battle removed many of the most powerful and influential English lords thus leaving the English leaderless and fragmented - and therefore easily conquered.

RegiaSaxon

09-19-2002, 17:33

The argument that Harold raced to face William because of the burning of his lands has been roughly handled recently.

I believe the reason he did so, before waiting for the reinforcements, was simply because he realised he had to keep William bottled up against the sea before his cavalry could break out into open land. He could then wait for the reinforcements to arrive.

Harold was also very familiar with the land and clearly viewed what later became the battle area as a strong defensive position.

Both men were great commanders and had proved their worth in several engagements in their respective localities. I don't believe neither were foolish enough as to allow raw emotion to dictate their battle strategy - especially Harold who only needed to keep William contained throughout the day in order to be victorious.

By the time of the conquest, the Normans could be said to be French - they spoke French, their courts were French, their dress was French and their laws were French. It does appear also that the Norman element of the conquest was fairly minor compaired to the other contingents.

The remaining earls of England and the Godwin family did attempt to fight back at the Normans in one form or another but there was really little chance of success without the warriors killed at Hastings and the charismatic leadership of Harold. In fact, rebellion continued for about 20 years after the conquest.

Apart from the architecture the Normans made little positive impact on England. They murdered thousands of people, wasted the land, pushed the native language underground and introduced the cruel and oppresive feudal system.

As for the laws and system of government - they maintained the Anglo-Saxon methods as they were incapable of coming up with anything better. Over time (and due to rebellion) the English church and administrators were soon replaced with Normans.

Still, it did give us the opportunity for Crecy ;-)

Phew! And all in one breathe!

Cheers

Mithrandir

09-22-2002, 02:07

Sorry, changed my mind, I think I'm going to do it about the battle of Waterloo, there's more info on that item, and I have to fill in 40 hours...

Thanks though http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif.

------------------
http://members.home.nl/jvanbaars/icons/icon1.gif http://members.home.nl/jvanbaars/icons/icon2.gif http://members.home.nl/jvanbaars/icons/icon3.gif
Check out the Fantasy Total War mod! (http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000587.html)

NinjaKilla

09-27-2002, 22:51

LOL now you tell us. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

Actually Waterloo happens to be a battle that I have also read a fair bit about. To be honest I know little about the events building up to it but I play Napoleonic on line war games and am pretty clued up about the battle itself. You need any help?

I've just started a Masters in War Studies and my first option is Clausewitz so I am reading about Napoleonic warfare. I'd never heard of this guy before, but his book: On War is great stuff if anyone fancies it.

------------------
Clan Kenchikuka (http://www.totalwar.org/kenchikuka)

BlackWatch McKenna

09-28-2002, 02:38

The Prussians won that battle.

It was the old "flank em with cavalry" trick. Works every time.

Red Peasant

09-28-2002, 08:49

Quote Originally posted by BlackWatch McKenna:
The Prussians won that battle.

It was the old "flank em with cavalry" trick. Works every time.[/QUOTE]

********! Brits never get credit for anything!

The Prussians were very important to the battle, but to say that they alone won the battle is complete ****....what a ******! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

If it wasn't for Wellington (and his English, Scots, Irish, and Welsh troops) then we would all be eating frogs' legs!...I won't mention the Dutch and Belgians cos they ran off before the battle began! Cowards!...Fact is, Boney had more troops and they were generally better troops, so it always ****** me off when people assume that we Brits were certs to win. That was far from the case!!

------------------
To see a world in a grain of sand,
And Heaven in a wild flower,
To hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

William Blake.

[edited foul language]

[This message has been edited by Ithaskar Fëarindel (edited 09-28-2002).]

Vlad The Impaler

09-28-2002, 14:06

NinjaKilla u said that u study Clausewitz? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gifgreat book! i read that book now.an colonel in reserve from romanian army give me that book and his notes from military academy;

------------------
One sword to behead the white ruler sitting on the white throne in the Vatican.
One sword for the ruler who will come and unite us under the sign of the cross
with broken arms. Eleven swords to behead eleven lords and rulers of the land
united under the blue banner. A hundred swords to defend our southern
boundaries against black plague and half moon.
And one axe for me to defend my stronghold, and may I call this axe, "Bane of
Christendom" soon.

NinjaKilla

09-28-2002, 16:46

Yeah its great stuff eh. I ve just ordered another book about Frederick the Great's notes on warfare - I guess there will be similarities with Clausewitz.

------------------
Clan Kenchikuka (http://www.totalwar.org/kenchikuka)

Pellinor

10-01-2002, 22:04

If you want an odd fact to throw in as a result of the Battle of Hastings:

William was Duke of Normandy; when he took over from Harold he became King of England as well, but the two titles were independent. Later Kings of England were Dukes of Normandy too, but by descent from the previous Duke, not because they were King (if you see what I mean).

The French later conquered Normandy from the Duke, but never got the Channel Islands. The Duchy of Normandy was thus reduced to these small islands, but still existed independently of England and of France. The current Queen is therefore Duke of Normandy, and the Islanders have a traditional toast to her: "The Queen, our Duke".

The Channel Islands are still *not* part of the UK or of the EU. They have their own governments, although they tend to follow the UK's lead. This means they can do all sorts of nifty tax-haven stuff, irritating the OECD and the EU no end :-)

Could be worth throwing in at the end of the project, as a modern repercussion of Hastings.

BlackWatch McKenna

10-02-2002, 04:41

The Duke!

I've read the Big Book on Wellington. It's a super read (from India, to Spain, to Waterloo - what a trip).

You've got to give props to the British soldiers, too; they were fighting in line against those crazy french columns. You've got to love that.

Damn, I love history.

//Black

p.s. To Red:

Yahr, in reading the accounts of that era and the battle of Waterloo, you get how dicey it was. Waterloo was a close call. Heck, that whole era was a close call.

It's a great era for us to study. Lots of stuff written about it - plus you have two great commanders squaring off: Nap and Welli.

[This message has been edited by BlackWatch McKenna (edited 10-01-2002).]

Del

10-03-2002, 05:31

I can't remember where I read this, but the impression I got about Hastings, and the way it made most sense to me, is thus--

Harold force marches to get to the famed ridge, thus totally trapping William within the Hastings peninsula. William is rudely startled, and as quickly as he can prepares for battle.

The Norman archers are generally ineffective througout most of the battle, and the Normans clamber up the hill and are beaten back twice.

The sources I've read all talk about hit and run cavalry. I see no reason at all to disbelieve this. This is a very common tactic probably used at one time or another by every group of horse warriors since the beginning of warfare. We can look at the Crusades and see that the Arabs used it extensively, yet Christian cataphracts also did. This is such a very basic and indispensable component to the mounted soldiers' repertoire that I would have to imagine that the Normans must have been very poor fighters indeed to be incapable of it. It is like saying that only Michael Jordan can put a ball through the hoop....

Anyway, cavalry feignts or no, the Normans were beaten back twice, the day was waning, and Norman archers were running out of ammo (not enough incoming arrows to reuse). Then, according to the source I read, William had a moment of innovation and ordered his archers to lay down plunging fire upon the Anglo-Saxon line. This circumvented the shield wall and began falling on the peasants in the deeper ranks, who had the least protection.

Then, due to this sudden mayhem from the archery, the general level of Saxon fatigue, and some dumb Anglo troops who had chased back down the hill after the retreating Normans and been annihilated by cavalry-- the third Norman charge broke the shield wall, there was alot of slaughter, Harold ended up dead somehow or another, etc etc.

I wish I could remember where I read all of that. All I can say is that I've done a good deal of reading on a great variety of military history, and everything I just recounted to you makes total sense to me, based on comparison to other situations.

Cheers,

Del

Hakonarson

10-03-2002, 10:00

Quote Originally posted by Red Peasant:
I won't mention the Dutch and Belgians cos they ran off before the battle began! Cowards!...[/QUOTE]

No they didn't - some of them took very heavy casualties during the battle - especially the infantry. Some of the Cavalry did run away, but then consider that 6 months before they had been part of Bonapartes army!!

some of the DB's were brand new conscripts and the army was in the process of being reorganised, reuniformed and re-equipped when the 100days campaign started.

The retreat of Bylandt´s Brigade (tired from the Quatre Bras battle) at the start of the Battle of Waterloo has been depicted as a flight, where really it was a redeployment behind the ridge with the rest of the Army. It was conducted in good order and far too late: that brigade should never have been left on the exposed side of the ridge (Wellington saw them there but did nothing about it) in the first place.

That some Dutch-Belgian Cavalry units refused to charge is true: the 5th (Belgian) Light Dragoons had been mistaken by their allies for the French 6th Chasseurs á Cheval and were shelled by their own troops. The next charge they refused to move.

There were also German troops in the battle - Hanoverians, Brunswickers, Nassau (under Dutch Belgian command)

Red Peasant

10-04-2002, 01:50

Lol! I knew that would get a reply http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
To see a world in a grain of sand,
And Heaven in a wild flower,
To hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

William Blake.

Hakonarson

10-04-2002, 03:50

It was a safe bet - post historical BS and you'll certainly get a rise out of me - it's no secret and not too difficult to do.

However usually people do so because they don't know better. Someone doing it deliberately seems like a bit of a wasted intellect to me.

Red Peasant

10-04-2002, 05:39

I didn't know who you were mate, so I doubt if I did it deliberately just for you. That said, it was a popular view in this country, about the allies at Waterloo, and they weren't generally reliable, but there were reasons for that. Must admit, I'm not a scholar of the period, just a general reader, so I bow to your superior judgement, if that be the case. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
To see a world in a grain of sand,
And Heaven in a wild flower,
To hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

William Blake.