rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic - History Degree Dissertation on Isandhlwana

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 3:03 pm

Keith..got your book as usual speedily from Martin's RRW museum..thanks for all that work.. I will be perusing through it for a while...

Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 4:43 pm

Rich wrote:

Keith/George:
The book '1006: the Hidden History in the Bayeux History" attempts to show that the tapestry rather than celebrating William's victory at Hastings
was the work of English weavers noting hidden texts and codes which slyly undermines William's claims to the English crown..."at a time when it was not possible to record the English view in writing the artist did so pictorily".
The tapestry then was really a Trojan Horse that the Normans unwarily accepted. For example, the part of the tapestry showing William high on his throne with sword in his hand looking down at the captured Harold supposedly is an argument that the oath was not freely given and therefore invalid. Of course this is a theoretical argument but really the tapestry's meaning still eludes most today so it adds to the scholarship.

Et Fuga verterunt Angli......

Of course! I'd heard the theory that Harold's oath on the relics was made under duress, and after having looked at pictures of that particular scene, one can perceive William in a threatening light.
In addition, I noticed how the Harold is never actually given a negative/derogatory label by any of the text in the tapestry. As a piece of "Norman propaganda", you'd expect phrases like "traitor", "perjurer", and "perfidious" (the latter, ironically, a persistent Norman trait...) to crop up, but Godwinson is actually portrayed in quite a neutral light, even without delving into the hidden meanings and metaphors probably included by the embroiderers.

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 4:55 am

I've been meaning to add this for a while, but have not been close to my books to get the title right, but "Zululand at War" by Sonia Clarke is a great primary source, if you can find it. Made up primarily of letters from officers serving in Zululand, most addressed to the chief of intelligence dept in Britain, they are quite candid. One letter by Crealock describes Col Bellairs as a hybrid hermaphrodite!

The book is a limited edition but might be worth seeking out, George, as I don't think you could find a more primary source!

Dawn
PS Love the stuff on the tapestry. I remember studying this at junior school and it sparked my interest in history. The tapestry has a lot to answer for! Wink

Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 11:13 am

1. There's a difference between historical revisionism - which is about an interpretation of the facts, basically an opinion, and a correction of those facts. Most of the 'complaints' about TWOTS revolve around the latter rather than the former and even though this results in a 'revised' view of the battle, I'm not sure this is strictly speaking termed 'historical revisionism'
2. The Bayeux Tapestry most certainly was English-made and -designed (in St Augustine's abbey, Canterbury). There are several modern works incl the ones quoted above which are simply rehashes or plagiarisms of David Bernstein's The Mystery of the Bayeux Tapestry - a seminal work in the history of the tapestry's creation and meaning. For my sins I have 2 strings to my historical bow, the Anglo-Saxon period and the Victorian Imperial period (I find there are interesting parallels and similarities between the two despite the age difference). Wolfgang Grape's The Bayeux Tapestry came out just after Bernstein's in an attempt to put the Norman case - it's generally held to be full of holes and Grape shoots himself in the foot on more than several occasions - but it's worth reading for comparison purposes. When I give lectures on the Tapestery i always present Bernstein's evidence, large chunks of which i notice have now been incorporated into the video and pre-viewing spiel at the Wm the Conq centre in Bayeux itself with much eating of French humble pie.