Upon his accession of King of England after 05 January 1066 A.D., Harold Godwinson found himself simultaneously at the height of power and the height of risk.
As a king, he was likely the logical choice for the Anglo-Saxon nobility: for 21 years he had served Edward the Confessor. He was a demonstrated victorious general on land and sea. He was a skilled negotiator. His family was one of the most powerful in England, now holding four of six earldoms. The fact that there were no known revolts against Harold during his reign suggests that from the nobility and the common folk, all accepted the fact that the throne was not retained by the house of Wessex.
We do not know a great deal about the reign of Harold, largely because his time on the throne was brief - in fact, generally the history books I have seen dedicate almost no time to him. We have single verified document (Writ) from his reign. From all records, he essentially continued the policies and advisors of Edward and there was little, if any, change in his reign.
The issues he faced largely came from outside. In April of 1066 A.D. his brother, the former Earl Tosti, returned with a fleet supported by his brother in law, the Count of Flanders. He was, perhaps, trying to recreate the invasion of Godwine in 1051 but met with much less successful results; the people did not rally to him and King Harold raised a fleet to harry him. Tosti fled to his former earldom of Northumbria where, defeated again, he headed for Scotland and then for parts North.
But the invasion of Tosti was a warning sign to King Harold. If Tosti could cross, others could as well.
Yet there was risk. One, as have already discussed, was that Duke William of Normandy laid claim to the throne and, whether by made ups story or actual fact, used it to force Harold to swear that he would support William as King of England. The fact that Duke William was working to assemble an invasion force did not go by the spies of King Harold, and he took steps to raise an army, strengthen his navy, and prepare to defend against a potential Norman invasion.
Duke William's ability to conduct the invasion was less definitive than it seems in hindsight. He had to get the support of his barons, supply a fleet, and then sail across the English Channel. His fleet was likely made ready in mid July 1066 A.D., but contrary winds kept him on the French Coast into August and September.
The other was Harald Hardrada.
Harald Hardrada (or Harald Sigurdson, or Harald III) had led an almost exemplary Viking life to this point. He and his half-brother, Olaf Haraldson (St. Olaf) had been defeated in 1030 A.D. in an attempt to regain the Norwegian Throne. Olaf died; Harald went into exile, serving as a mercenary leader among the Kievan Rus (The Viking/Slavs of the East) and eventually becoming commander of the Varangian guard. He served throughout the Empire, from the Mediterranean to the Holy Land to the Black Sea. He returned to Norway in 1042 where he negotiated a joint rule with his nephew, Magnus the Good (Magnus had replaced Canute's son Svein as ruler of Norway). Magnus died the next year and Harald became sole king of Norway, which he ruled into 1066 A.D. It was at this point Tosti, Earl Godwin's son and King Harold's brother, arrived in Norway and suggested to the King that he invade England. It was a claim that Harald had been pursuing himself, as he considered himself heir to Hardecanute, the last Danish King of England.
King Harold was forced to release the bulk of his army and navy on 8 September, as they had reached the limit of the time of their required service. The fleet sailed back to London, and the army returned to their homes.
The timing could not have been worse: on 8 September 1066 A.D., King Harald Hardrada and Earl Tosti joined forces at the mouth of the Tyne river in Northeastern England. King Harald brought 300 ships, Tosti 12.
The re-invasion of Anglo-Saxon England had begun.
Works cited:
Brooke, Christopher: From Alfred to Henry III 871-1272. Norton Library: USA, 1961.
Hollister, C. Warren: The Making of England 55 B.C. to 1399. D.C. Heath and Company: United States, 1976.
Trevelyan, G.M.: History of England Volume 1: From the Earliest Times to the Reformation. Anchor Books: USA, 1953
There were no revolds because the Godwins controlled with an iron fist 4 of the 6 great earldoms of England.
ReplyDeleteAnd, yet, Tosti, revolted against him. And there were two invasions. And Malcolm, King of the Scots, had to block Harold and his forces from following Tosti into Scotland.
Harold didn't hold the throne long enough to really have any real revolts, which would have come from his family or the other two earldoms that were interbred and familialy connected with the Godwins.
Given another year or two, there would have been revolts. Or incursions of Scots given the go-to by Malcolm while he waited for Harold to be focused elsewhere.
Yep.
As to that serving Edward the Confessor for 21 years, it was not as nice as the above article suggests. More like Harold's father forced Edward to take Harold as an advisor.
Admittedly, Harold was a charismatic and actually able leader.
Until he looked up and asked if that arrow was getting closer. Then it hit him. In the eye.
A Beans comment. I have finally arrived!
DeleteMore than fair that there could have been revolts. We have virtually no written information (maybe one or two writs?) on what kind of king Harold was, although "Do not interfere with the traditional tax laws" seemed like a pretty good starting point given history. And agreed the Scots likely would have appeared on the scene again (or possibly the Welsh, although the completion of the previous war seemed pretty convincing and likely Harold would have followed the same successful strategy).
As to the service of Harold with Edward, I can only go off what I can gather. Likely he was at least far less irritating than his father (and Harold at least did not have the baggage of resulting in the death of Edward's brother, which I suspect Edward never truly forgot, even after Godwin's restoration in 1052 A.D. And sometimes we can reach accommodation with those we do not like, but further everyone's ends including our own.
And thanks in the last commenting for "pointing" to next week's installment (Sorry, low hanging fruit. I cannot resist.).
Thanks for stopping by!
You are welcome. I need to stop by more often.
DeleteAs to the 'Traditional Tax Laws,' two of the positive things that the Anglo-Saxons could say about William after he gained control was that the tax burden was more fair and that one could ride across boundaries without fear of being robbed by robbers or nobility.
Traditional Tax Law pre-William meant each area set it's own taxes, on top of what the Crown set. Each area being the 6 Earldoms, the lesser sections, individual noble's grants.
English Law, overall, was a mashup of Anglo-Roman, Anglo-something, Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Danelaw, Danelaw, and quite possibly alien, bigfoot, bigfoot alien laws.
It wasn't as bad as Irish Law, where there were 40-400 'kings' and numerous nobles all contentiously fighting to exert their laws upon the areas they controlled.
Or Scottish Law, which wasn't. I mean, you had the midlanders and lowlanders who each had their own laws under the King, but the Highlanders were always a tad off kilter with their laws.
And Welsh Law, which was enforceable by the Welsh King only when his forces were in the area to enforce them, otherwise Wales was as bad or worse than Scotland or Ireland.
In comparison, pre-William English Law was far more codified even though it was a mish-mash of greater and lesser laws that changed depending on what section of road one was walking on.
William changed that. For better or worse, common English Law was codified and more equally enforced under William.
Although Willliam's rule extends beyond the period of history I am reading on, certainly he was considered (I believe) a good administrator in Normandy.
DeleteLike Sarge, I try to publish most days (although obviously not with his talent for writing).
Sounds like troubled times for England no matter who sat on the throne. I find it interesting that it has been a target for invasion for a very, very long time.
ReplyDeleteLeigh, something I tend to forget is that for hundreds of years at least (arguably a couple of thousand) the sea was considered a major thoroughfare, not just a luxury way to travel and/or a way to ship heavy goods. We know that intercontinental trade was taking place among the Celts during the pre-Roman invasion times - thus why it seemed a logical and simple thing for Julius Caesar to simply "extend his Summer trip" into Britain.
DeleteI am reflecting as I right these last installments that the way I write them can skew things - after all, during Edgar the Peaceable's reign (959 - 975 A.D.) almost nothing happened invasion wise, yet I have have at least three posts about the years 1042 - 1080ish A.D. I think life is like that sometimes, where literally decades can pass where nothing "happens", and then so much can change in a few short years.