Talk:Battle of Fulford

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merger[edit]

A merge would be a great idea. We can take the best of both articles and put them together. Rshu 16:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Top idea. Support Paulleake 17:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Ian Dalziel 20:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The merging has been finished. Rshu 16:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What City?[edit]

From Harald's Countermove section "The remaining men in Fulford surrendered under the promise that the victors would not loot their city. The treaty was kept, as King Harald turned his attention towards York." Which city is this? Fulford is barely larger than a hamlet and certainly couldn't have been construed as a city at the time.Jatrius (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Need a map?[edit]

Could we have a map indicating where the battlefield lies on today's terrain? (I must go past the site every few weeks, but I don;t know where it is.)

Johnbibby (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


speculation[edit]

all the speculation that "It could have changed Hastings" is not suitable, this is an encyclopedia, not your local tabloid newspapper..

allsow:

WikiProject Yorkshire [show](Rated Start-class, Low-importance) WikiProject Middle Ages [show](Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)


lol ? Srsly, it should be the opposite, it's Mid-importance > high importance to Yorkshire, while LOW important to Middle Ages..

--Byzantios (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly speculation the disaster that befell the English army at the the Battle of Fulford plus the losses by Godwinson's army in defeating Hardrada at Stamford Bridge would have weakened his forces. This, and the forced marches between London and York and York and Sussex, contributed to William’s victory. Historians have emphasized this, going back to Florence of Worcester in the 12th century. Thus in this case it is quite appropriate to comment, we are just reporting what historians have said. Wilfridselsey (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wilfridselsey on this. If Harald had.lost, it is unlikely that the Battle of Stamford Bridge would have happened and this would have left the English army more prepared to fight William of Normandy. Qwerty number1 (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Old Norse, English and modern Norwegian nickname for Harald III of Norway[edit]

I would like to ask the person who keeps adding information about Hårdråde as "modern Dano-Norse" for Hardrada (the nickname Harald III of Norway) to stop. I am sure that it is done with good intent, but it could be interpreted as vandalism. The Old Norse form of the nickname was Harðráði, the English is Hardrada and the modern Norwegian is Hardråde. The latter is the name listed by the Norwegian Royal Palace ([1]), and the form "hård" for "hard" does not exist even as a side form in the Norwegian dictionary ([2]). The form Hårdråde is Danish (and Swedish) and is irrelevant to the article. -- Nidator T / C 17:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Pact" and "Aftermath"[edit]

Hello,

I will try to dig up some references later, but regarding Tostig's landing on the South coast, I read that he failed to inspire support and therefore did not collect many troops from the South and then he learned that King Harold was assembling the largest army ever seen and was approaching. This drove Tostig to flee to Scotland.

Furthermore, modern historians have suggested that King Harold is likely to have sailed at least part of the way up country with some / all of his housecarls rather than the traditional forced-march theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.177.199 (talk) 09:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources definition[edit]

Primary sources are records of events as they are first described, usually by witnesses or by people who were involved in the event.

Secondary sources offer an analysis or a restatement of primary sources.

Orderic Vitalis was born in 1075, some 9 years after the Battle of Fulford. He wrote most of his "Ecclesiastical History" in the early 12th century. He put his own "spin" on material facts for example the number of people slaughtered in the Harrying of the North has been questioned by modern historians. Thus by definition he was a secondary source for the Battle of Fulford. Wilfridselsey (talk) 09:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is still considered a primary source not only in pure historian terms but also in WP:PS terms. A primary source recounts events without analyzing a lot of sources. OV doesn't gather a number of sources and compare and analyze them. A secondary source uses multiple primary sources that in the best secondary sources are identified. This doesn't describe OV's work. A primary source can be written after the event ... even well after the event. For Wikipedia purposes - Suetonius' The Twelve Caesars is a primary source. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Citing WP:PS could actually support my point as much as yours. Orderic is certainly a Primary Source for Norman England. However, not for Fulford, as he was not even born, also he wrote his EH two generations after the Battle of Fulford so hardly contemporary with events. I was born after WWII, so if I write a book about it now ,will they say I am a primary source in 1000 years? The fact that other annals, that were contemporary with events and were definitely primary sources, are different to the Orderic version indicate that Orderic certainly was putting his own analysis on the subject. Antonia Gransden covers all this in her book "Historical Writing in England: c. 500 to c. 1307" particularly pages 130 -139. Regards Wilfridselsey (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in a 1000 years, if no diaries/letters/documents survive from now and only your account of WWII survives (or is one of only a few survivals), then, yes, your account would be considered a primary account. I've hopefully got a book on Fulford coming and it should be updated soon. THe best practice on Wikipedia is not to use non-modern historians for anything - this avoids using things that aren't the best sources we can use. I don't even open up any work like the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle or Orderic for Wikipedia writing (unless I'm using the introductions written by the translators). That's what historians do - the interpret things like Orderic. We work from the folks who interpret Orderic. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Orderic has been regarded by many as the first "historian chronicler" of the events in 1066 however he never actually mentions Fulford and there is speculation that he possibly never knew the place. The Norse invasion that he reports is probably a direct copy from other sources, hence my point. I look forward to you updating this article. You can rest assured I will NOT be writing on WWII. Wilfridselsey (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Fulford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Fulford&oldid=1217145394"