I came across this very interesting first hand account of the war in Iraq. Just one story but a different view point. At one point the soldier talks about the manner in which his action changed when reporters were with his squad - watch the way the rest of the panel nods in agreement.
The video does contain some graphic images.
When I turned up at my children's primary school this morning I was approached by a five year old carrying this:
(Click on the picture for a bigger version)
He wanted to know if it was a cannon ball. I had no idea but here's the facts:
Any ideas?
In this post I discussed the events leading up to the Battle of Hastings 1066.
Briefly...
William landed unopposed, established two Motte and Bailey castles and then set about ravaging the surrounding countryside. Harold marched south and the Battle of Hastings occurred on the road to London.
In my pervious post I argued that William the Bastard tried to force King Harold into a situation where the invasion of England could be resolved politically, rather than militarily. I suggested that since any battle was such a gamble, William wished to avoid combat if at all possible and instead upset the delicate political environment of England, tipping events into his favour. After all he felt his claim to the throne had legal and papal backing. I argued that William set about ravaging the county to force Harold's hand and upset the political apple cart, so to speak.
I am in the process of reading Stephen Morillo's Warfare under the Anglo-Norman Kings 1066-1135 and he has much to say regarding the role of ravaging the country. He acknowledges it was a common aspect of warfare during the period and puts forward six goals the strategy could achieve:
In the case of 1066 I think goals 1, 5 and 6 can be discounted. This means that, according to Morillo, William's ravaging reduced the enemy's capacity to make war, whilst attempting to provoke a response and gather supplies.
I suspect Morillo is correct but when applying his argument to the events of 1066 the devil is in the detail. Harold reacted quickly to the invasion and, as far as we can tell, moved south faster than ever expected. Even when taking Morillo's argument into account I still fall on the side of John Gillingham. I remain convinced that it was in fact Harold that forced William's hand, and it was the English king that left William with little choice but to fight the Battle of Hastings. A risky strategy that very nearly worked.
Go here to read more about the Battle of Hastings.
Gavin Robinson is hosting the next Military History Carnival and has set the theme of contested boundaries. He has challenged the blogshere to post on the subject so here goes...
I am a historian.
I would consider myself a professional historian. I have a post graduate degree in Military History. I have carried out original research that has furthered an historical debate.
I have obtained research skills, sat in dusty libraries and read obscure books. I can spot a Marxist historian from twenty paces.
But I don't publish.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But I do publish.
On the other hand I am a writer and researcher. I write children's history. It requires no original resource. I regurgitate other people's work. I devour the knowledge and then reform it in a way that the younger generation can read. I do this for money. Don't get me wrong I love the subject, but ultimately I do it for money.
But there's more...
For years I have worked as a researcher for Terry Deary. I have helped write the ultimate in popularist history - the Horrible Histories series.
Am I a historian?
Let's face it Google Reader is great.
It allows me to sit and read loads of blog posts without the hassle of skipping around the internet visiting each site in turn. However, this brings me two problems. The first is because I don't actually 'visit' the blog I read, I don't get to see their blog roll. The second is that, as far as I can tell, RSS stats don't show up on most blog stat readers.
So to try and give a little back here's a list of my most visited history blogs (according to Google Reader trends):
Blog them out of the stone age
Came across of new blog called Famous Wars - looks interesting, though their is little information about the author.
The events of the Battle of Hastings have been constructed from a series of primary sources, each of which possess distinct strengths and weaknesses. This series of posts looks at the five most important primary sources and attempts to tease out the 'facts' of the battle.
William of Poitiers' account of the Norman invasion of England, 'The Deeds of William, duke of the Normans and the King of the English', is one of the most important primary sources for the Battle of Hastings. William of Poitiers was a Norman who served under Duke William as a warrior, chaplain and priest. Though he was a military man he wasn't involved in the actual invasion of 1066. He did however, have access to soldiers and leaders who had fought at the battle.
His account was written in 1071.
Here are it's strengths and weaknesses:
You can read the full account here.
If you wish to read an account of the battle go here or here.
Below is a list of the keys events and important points as detailed by William of Poitier.
William of Poitiers account contains the bones on which all other accounts are built. However, the most elusive element is the death of Harold. Some historians have suggested William of Poitiers simply didn't know the details, others have suggested that the manner of Harold's death was an embarrassment to Duke William and therefore left from the narrative. Either way, there is no evidence for the whole arrow-in-the-eye debate.
The latest Military History Carnival is up at the excellent Osprey Publishing Blog. Enjoy!
I was listening to a radio program last week that was discussing the importance of preserving battlefields. When asked just why they should be protected, the historian being interviewed explained that the battlefields were the last witness of war.
This got me thinking, just what is the importance of protecting battlefields.
Here's a list of three reasons that I thought were relevant:
Increases your understanding: I once spent a whole day walking the battlefield at Waterloo. This was a battle that I had known well since childhood. Yet, my understanding of the battle was revolutionised by the experience. For example, I had located the position at which the French Old Guard had begun their attack towards the end of the battle. I then walked the exact ground they trod as they marched into the British cannons and gunfire. The result? It was a long way! It gave me a whole new understanding as to just why those brave French soldiers turned and ran for the first time in their lives.
Catalyst for study: It is now part of the UK GCSE syllabus for students to study the First World War. I believe this task is made far easier by the fact that pupils often visit the battlefields in the Western Front. An experience that, if done correctly, can inspire the pupils with a life long love of history.
Last Witness: After much thought I decided that a battlefield was in fact the last witness to a battle. I often travel to see friends in the South of England and the route I travel takes me across the battlefield at Naseby. Though I have stopped many times, I don't always. Yet, every time I drive past that sign a little part of me is reminded of what happened on that day. The battlefield acts as a voice, a reminder of the past, challenging us to dare forget.
I have the great pleasure of hosting the next Military History Carnival. I will be posting on the 7th November.
If you have any suggestions please send them to me at garysmailes at gmail dot com or use this form.
Check out Airminded for last months carnival.
