Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

History HubΒ  permalink

1065: Earl Harold 'abandoned' his brother, Tostig.

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Wednesday, 13th July 2011

  Had Earl Harold not 'abandoned' his own brother, earl Tostig, in 1065, would England have been so divided and vulnerable?
  
  October 1065. Earl Tostig Godwinson of Northumbria- was ousted from his earldom after ten years of harsh or ineffective rule- depending upon the source- in a huge revolt (in his absence- he was in the south of England) begun by a powerful coalition of mighty nobles and thegns who marched southwards towards London, creating havoc en route.
  
  They had replaced him with Morcar Leofwinson, brother of Edwin, earl of Mercia. The Leofwinsons and the Godwinsons had a history of bad blood. The 1065 rebels said that they had many grievances against Tostig;
  
  * He was not local to Northumbria, but a southerner, always distrusted and disliked by resolute northerners.
  * He had had many minor Northumbrian nobles, the relatives of the rebels, assassinated
  * They complained that his rule was harsh- crime punishments and heavy taxes
  * He was rumoured to have covertly filled his own coffers unjustly
  * Whenever the Scottish king, Malcolm III (raised as an exile by the English king Edward's court) raided Northumbria, Tostig did nothing militarily.
  
  Tostig's older brother, Harold, earl of Wessex, one of the most powerful and wealthy nobles in the land after the ailing King Edward, was despatched as Royal ambassador to negotiate with the rebel army who were now at Oxford.
  Edward, who was fond of Tostig, was all for civil war, but wiser heads advised that England would be weakened to her enemies if so (ie. Scotland or Normandy). Tostig railed that Harold wasn't arguing hard enough to win back his earldom, and this seemed to confirm the suspicion to him when the rebels and Harold, acting for the dying king, agreed with the rebels that Tostig be exiled from England. Tostig was furious and swore revenge against his brother, Harold.
  
  King Edward was apoplectic with rage and sorrow, but was forced to relent. His queen - Harold's own sister- was unhappy with the situation, but Harold/Tostig's younger brothers, earls Leofwine and Gyrth, stood by Harold. Edward's health declined rapidly and he died on January 5th, 1066.
  The next day, two things happened- Edward was buried at his new Abbey, Westminster, and also Harold was crowned there by Archbishop Ealdred, whose piety was unimpeachable (unlike Archbishop Stigand, the pluralist, whom the Normans say crowned the earl)
  
  We know that the exiled Tostig led doomed raids along the south and eastern English coast before seeking military aid from various sources, which include King Swein of Denmark (his kinsman) and even duke William, also furious that his ambitions for England had been snubbed, and was then building an invasion fleet. Both declined to aid Tostig, but another King didn't - the world-renowned warrior, King Harald 'Hardaara' ('Hard Ruler') Sigurdsson of Norway.
  Tostig persuaded Hardraada to invade England and on the 20th September together their 300 shipfuls of veteran warriors slaughtered a northern English army, led by brother earls Morcar and Edwin, at the battle of Fulford Gate,York. A stunned King Harold, ready for a Norman invasion 250 miles to the south, immediately led a large, mounted army of elite huscarls and thegns northwards in a fast dash.
  
  On 25th September, Harold surprised Hardraada's Norsemen/Tostig and in an all day bloodbath, the English finally slew over 90% of the invaders, so that "only 24 out of 300" ships were needed to sail them home after the English king spared the battered survivors.
  A shattered and sorely depleted English elite rested and celebrated their stunning victory, but only four days later, Harold got news that Duke William had landed on the southern English coast. He dashed his men southwards again, giving word that any infantry trickling south when they could from York and the midlands and south. Pausing a few days at London, Harold awaited the gathering of his summoned forces.
  
  At daybreak on Saturday, October 14th, Harold met William's Norman-French-Breton army 50-odd miles south of London, at what the English called 'Santlache' and the Normans called 'Senlac'...we know it as 'Hastings'.
  

  Link to this forum: 1065: Earl Harold 'abandoned' his brother, Tostig.

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 14th July 2011

  "Had Earl Harold not 'abandoned' his own brother, earl Tostig, in 1065, would England have been so divided and vulnerable?"
  
  Hereword
  
  But surely the reason why Harold abandonned Tostig was because England was divided and vulnerable, and had been for some time. I think one needs to go back to the near disaster of 1052.
  
  The AS Chronicle says that in 1051 Archbishop Robert came from oversea with his pallium and earl Godwine and all his sons were banished from England. Godwine went to Bruges with his wife and Swein, Tostig and Gurth. Harold and Leofwine went to Ireland and over-wintered there.
  
  Then in 1052 Harold came from Ireland with ships to the mouth of the Severn and did much plundering. The people of Somerset and Devon gathered to oppose him, but he put them to flight and slew 30 good thegns. Then Harold sailed around Lands End.
  
  King Edward fitted out 40 small vessels which were based at Sandwich to stop Godwine coming from Bruges. But Godwine managed to get to Kent and managed to get much personal support from Kent, Sussex and Surrey, where people swore that they would live and die with him. Edward's forces tried to capture Godwin, but failed and then returned to London. Meanwhile Godwine and Harold joined forces near the Isle of Wight, where they did little harm merely seizing provisions, and winning over support.
  
  They then advanced to Sandwich gathering an overwhelming support from all the coastal regions. Edward sent up-country for reinforcements, but they were slow to arrive. Meanwhile Godwine advanced on London sailing to Southwark and negotiating to reassure the people of London while the tide was low.When the tide rose they sailed through the bridge, while Godwine's supporters on land amassed by the strand.
  
  It seemed that Godwine's ships might surround those of the King. But :
  "The King also had great land levies on his side in addition to his shipmen, but it was hateful to almost all of them to fight against men of their own race, for there were few men else of any consequence except Englishmen on either side: and besides , they were unwilling to increase the danger of leaving this land open to the invasion of foreigners, were each side to destroy the other."
  
  Wise men were appointed to act as intermediaries and arrange a truce. A deal was made that allowed Godwine and all his family back, and resulted in all the French being sent overseas, including Archbishop Robert and Bishop William.
  
  So England had pulled back from the brink of civil war. But it is surely very evident that the divisions were very deep and significant, reflecting what looks like a North-South divide amongst other things.
  
  It is interesting that Godwine found so much support for his ant-French stance amongst the populations just this side of the Channel,who were perhaps more conscious of getting overlooked by French power at court that would leave them as "piggy in the middle" in affairs between England and the near continent. The Viking connections of the Godwine's meant little since Scandinavia seemed very far away.
  
  The Northern earldoms, however, may have had similar feelings in their case about too much power being vested into a family that was connected to Viking royalty, and which might have turned regions like Yorkshire into something like a Viking version of later "English pale" in Ireland.
  
  Perhaps had Godwine not died suddenly in 1053, it might have been possible to stabilise the situation. He was a person of some experience and most historians accept of some political skill. I do not think that these qualities passed to his sons and the following years seem to have been filled with wars against the Welsh the Scots the Irish.
  
  Earl Siward of Northumbria invaded Scotland with a great host in 1054 and put King Macbeth to flight, but Siward lost his son Osbern, and his sister's son Siward. This meant that when Siward died in 1055 the earldom could pass to Tostig. etc.. But in 1064 the Northumbrians rose up, rather like Godwine had done, and once again England pulled back from the brink, with the King accepting that Morcar would replace Tostig, who was back in exile.. Until his brother Harold had been made King. Harold however learned at least something from his father and married a sister of earl Morcar and Edwin in an apparent attempt to bridge the North-South East-West divides.
  
  Cass
  

  Link to this forum: 1065: Earl Harold 'abandoned' his brother, Tostig.

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Thursday, 14th July 2011

  Well, no, I believe that Harold 'abandoned' Tostig was that he had proved to be a liability, weakening suypport for the family in the north. A liability that had not even proved militarily strong against the Scots, either.
  
  It wasn';t because Harold was treacherous or fickle- in over two decades he had proved to be a very trusted and capable ambassador/general for King Edward, with not one incident of dissent, coup, plot or treason.
  
  Harold knew that England (whether under Edward, Edgar atheling or himself) needed the support of the north, and this was proven in 1065 to be only possible via securing the backing of the Northumbrian nobles (Morcar et al) and the Mercians under Edwin, Morcar's brother, however inexperienced in war they were.
  
  Harold went to great lengths to do this, backing the 1065 rebels' demands over his own brother, even travelling north and marrying the brother earl's sister, Eadgyth.
  
  

  Link to this forum: 1065: Earl Harold 'abandoned' his brother, Tostig.

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 14th July 2011

  Hereword
  
  Well. You seem to have answered your own question. Harold was far from "unready" in keeping Tostig out of the picture. But I would suggest that Tostig's actions in 1066 were a reminder of those aspects of the founder of the Godwinsons' fortune that Harold would rather people had forgotten.
  
  Tostig's actions in 1066 seem to be based upon the divided England of 1052. He arrived at the Isle of Wight - as Harold and Godwine had done- and gathered a sympathetic force which made its way up towards the mouth of the Thames, presumably in the hope that Harold now King, would somehow restore him by at least lifting his exile..
  
  At this time this would have been precipitate and would have led people to question the suitability of Harold for the position of King, when he still had just about everything to prove.. Yes. Once his elder brother Swein had died he could live in daddy's shadow. And once daddy was dead he could serve Edward loyally.. But what did that mean?.. Edward the Confessor was hardly interested in "this world".. Harold seemed to be able to do little more than act as a couragious warrior. Kingship involved much more.
  
  And to my reading of 1066 he showed himself not up to the job according to the ideas, beliefs and priorities of English society at that time, NB It was a society that was founded upon a rock of oathworthiness.. Godwin had allowed his own trustworthiness be brought into question by the murder of Arthur the Atheling- by that blood feud retribution method of stabbing through the eyes.. But Harold made no secret of the fact that he had taken an oath having no intention of being bound by it.. Such a man was not to be trusted by any serious person at that time.
  
  Cass
  
  

  Link to this forum: 1065: Earl Harold 'abandoned' his brother, Tostig.

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Friday, 15th July 2011

  You seem to have answered your own question. Β 
  Well, yes, that's my personal belief on the subject matter I was throwing out for responses to.
  
  Harold and Tostig had had no precedent for their 1065 situation, so I don't think that the events of 1051-2 are directly relevant to this revolt.

  Link to this forum: 1065: Earl Harold 'abandoned' his brother, Tostig.

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 15th July 2011

  Hereword
  
  But your OP seemed to suggest that you were exploring whether England would have been more united and therefore less prone to invasions, attacks as in 1066 than it was had Harold not "abandonned his brother Tostig"..
  
  My reading of the AS Chronicle persuades me that a sense of disunity, disenchantment and loss of common purpose was already evident in the reign of Aethelred the Unready, and may well have predated and prompted the revival of the "Viking" raids that finally resulted in the Swein/Cnut invasions.
  
  And precedent is always a matter of finding the most appropriate "case law". As King, in 1066 Harold had to act as a King, and not as a brother. I do not know whether his treatment of Tostig at the time would have been seen as family squabbling and sibbling rivalry, or true Kingship..
  
  I suspect that Harold did not know either, and fell between stools as Gordon Brown did over the question of whether to have a General Election to show that his dubious elevation to Downing Street (like the dubious elevation of Harold by a Royal Household dominated by his brothers and associates) had the support of the people.
  
  But I think that you are mistaken if you think that the English people do not have long memories.. Long memories were fundamental to family status and oathworthiness, as they were to the operation of the blood feuds that were still endemic within the old Danelaw in England and Celtic regions neighbouring... Look at current events in Northern Ireland . Folk memory is alive and kicking.
  
  In the AS Chronicle the reign of Cnut stands out because so little happened that was worth noting down.. Chronicles like the Press seem to be obsessed with bad news and possible saviours.
  
  As I have mentioned King Harold's dubious position in the eyes of God, not least when the ill-omened star appeared at Easter and the opening of the first full year of his reign, it is appropriate perhaps to mention the Millenneniasm associated with the ending of the First Millennium.
  
  Having only recently entered upon the Third Millennium it is apparent that even in these days when people do not expect miraculous interventions by God, there has been, and to some extent still is, a sense that a new age was coming.
  
  Cass

  Link to this forum: 1065: Earl Harold 'abandoned' his brother, Tostig.

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Friday, 15th July 2011

  Cass
  
  I think you are mistaken in your comment regarding the English folk memory by suggesting that Harold may have been disliked etc?
  
  He was nominated king by Edward, witnessed even by the Anglo-Breton courtier, FitzWimarc, and was "unanimously" and 'popularly' elected to kingship, no-one revolted or dissented.
  
  I still do not think that the 1050's precedent was or is directly relevant to this debate, as the events de3cades prior to 1065 had no noticeable effect, major events as they were and affecting other scenarios as they did.

  Link to this forum: 1065: Earl Harold 'abandoned' his brother, Tostig.

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 15th July 2011

  Hereword
  
  Well .. I see it very differently..
  
  And of course no one dissented.. Harold and the Godwinson's had effective power- even before Edward was dead.. And England had its democratic means of affecting things from "the grass roots".. The power was not vested in "ones or twos". but within whole communities.
  
  It is in the nature of those whose power is the deeper and stronger currents of life to stick with their strength..and bide their time. The Parliamentarians did during the Eleven Years Tyranny.. They knew that sooner or later the King would need to come to the peope cap in hand. Kings always do.
  
  T.B. Macaulay acknowledged this in his piece on history c1828 when he said that so much of the telling of the stories of the past was obsessed with the waves and currents on the surface. But in fact the big movements involved deeper and more powerful currents in the larger volumes of water.
  
  You must remember that ,since the days that Alfred set up the system of burghal hidage and the fyrd, preparation for fyrd service had been part of the essential education of every young Englishman; and that meant also an education in the arts of war and its management. The English fyrd had a knowledge of rights and duties passed down across the decades, and the conduct of the people in the crisis events of Harold's reign was absolutely decisive.. The village elders did not send off their young men just to die in vain causes, since they were the future of the village..
  
  The AS Chronicle ends the story with "Nevertheless King Harold fought bravely along with all those who stood by him".
  
  As for folk memory, I had a very hard time in the late Sixties trying to persuade boys from the Afro-Caribbean that they really did not need to allow the experience of slavery that had ended over 130 years before to really be so dominant in their attitudes to their Present and their Future..
  
  But then NUT strikes and walk-outs were often accompanied by banners and slogans about "The Tolpuddle Martyrs" and that was almost as long ago as 1833 when Britain abolished slavery within the Empire.
  
  It is just convenient for historians and politicians who believe in establishment power to ignore the fact that almost all power within the establishment comes from the power generated by the people. Consequently it has suited the establishment of both left and right to ignore the way that the English people exercised their sovereignty over the centuries, not least because the other people within the UK do not seem to have managed it so consistently.
  
  It is a pity that my mother is now dead.. She could show you a thing or two about the folk memory of the people in her native Cotswolds, the region of Lark Rise to Candleford.. From such small places people still see the world: as I was reminded with something of a shock when I read the biography of the Orcadian poet George Mackay Brown written by the sister of a colleague. It is too easy to think of the Orkneys as a remote and isolated place: but not if it is the centre of the universe for an intelligent person.
  
  Cass

  Link to this forum: 1065: Earl Harold 'abandoned' his brother, Tostig.

  Report message8

Back to top