Forums

Posted: 29-05-2012 07:43 Post subject:

'Tudor era' is misleading myth, says Oxford historian
By Sean Coughlan, BBC News education correspondent

The idea of a "Tudor era" in history is a misleading invention, claims an Oxford University historian.
Cliff Davies says his research shows the term "Tudor" was barely ever used during the time of Tudor monarchs.
There are also suggestions the name was downplayed by Tudor royals because of its associations with Wales.

Dr Davies says films and period dramas have reinforced the "myth" that people thought of themselves as living under a "Tudor" monarchy.
"The term is so convenient," says Dr Davies, of Wadham College and the university's history faculty. But he says it is fundamentally "erroneous".

During the reigns of Tudor monarchs - from Henry VII to Elizabeth I - he said there was no contemporary recognition of any common thread or even any recognition of the term "Tudor".

Dr Davies, who specialises in 16th-Century history, says "the rather obvious thought occurred to me" of investigating whether there had been any references to "Tudor" during the years of the Tudor monarchs.
His years of trawling through contemporary documents yielded almost no references - with only one poem on the accession of James I recognising the transition from Tudor to Stuart.

Surprised by this absence of any contemporary usage, he says he expected "clever American professors to come up with examples to prove me wrong" - but so far there has been no such evidence.

There might also be suggestions that the use of "Tudor" was deliberately omitted - as monarchs, always sensitive to rival claims, wanted to assert their legitimacy.
"I do think that Henry VII was defensive about his past and wanted to downplay 'Tudor', which might have been used by his opponents."
He says that in Welsh documents the name of Tudor is "celebrated" but it was "considered an embarrassment in England".
Henry VIII preferred to represent himself as the embodiment of the "union of the families of Lancaster and York", says Dr Davies.

Dr Davies suggests that the idea of a distinct Tudor period of history was first established in the 18th Century by the historian and philosopher, David Hume.
This has proved a very "seductive" way of approaching history, he argues. It also helps to create the idea of a separate historical period, different from what came before and after.

But the text-book writers and makers of period dramas should re-think their terminology, as he says that talking about "Tudor men and women" introduces an artificial concept which would have had no contemporary resonance.

If historians aim to "recover the thought processes" of past generations - he says it means understanding how they saw themselves and their own times.
Dr Davies says that in the late 16th Century people in England would have understood the idea of living in the reign of Elizabeth I - but would not have identified her as a Tudor.
"The word 'Tudor' is used obsessively by historians," says Dr Davies. "But it was almost unknown at the time."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-18240901

Posted: 29-05-2012 10:30 Post subject:

I'm not sure this is 'news' even in the historical sense. There is a whole host of labels that we naturally think in terms of that are wholly historiographical and had no contemporary currency whatsoever. The further back one goes, the more frequently such appellations appear. To limit oneself to just dynastic terms, if you were to trawl the archives for around 1953, you'd find a host of media references to the 'Second' or 'New Elizabethan Age' - heard a reference to that lately? Do you think of yourself as a [New] Elizabethan? - probably not, but we may all become them in the sweep of history.

Posted: 29-05-2012 12:05 Post subject:

Jst wht I ws thnkg!

Posted: 29-05-2012 15:14 Post subject:

Posted: 29-05-2012 15:46 Post subject:

Yeah, a lot of terms used by modern historians were never used by the people themselves. Case in point, the entire idea of Byzantine Empire was entirely the invention of 19th century English speaking historians, not even Hellenes or Greek speakers in general. The people we call Byzantines today always considered themselves Romans because they were the Eastern Roman Empire, and we were apparently to stupid to differentiate two groups of Romans.

Ironically, for us Muslims, the the term Rum (Rome) became synonymous with Anatolia. In fact its even in the Quran. So pretty much any time you see Arab accounts of 'Romans,' they mean Byzantines. Who called themselves Romans, but spoke Greek and had a capital in Constantinople (which, ironically, was still colloquially known as Constantinople for centuries after the Ottoman conquest, popular novelty songs notwithstanding). And just to confuse things the Russians claimed Moscow as a THIRD Rome...

Posted: 01-06-2012 20:04 Post subject:

Posted: 05-08-2012 19:34 Post subject:

Posted: 12-08-2012 14:51 Post subject:

Isnt this a fastinating story?

Posted: 18-08-2012 13:02 Post subject:

Posted: 15-10-2012 09:02 Post subject:

Why Churchill thought attacking Italy could win him World War TwoBBC Four's World War Two: 1942 and the Soft Underbelly explores why Churchill thought an attack on Italy was vital, writes Neil Midgley.
By Neil Midgley
7:00AM BST 14 Oct 2012

David Reynolds, professor of international history at Cambridge and fêted documentary-maker, is making a habit of asking BBC Four viewers to think anew about the Second World War. His last film, World War Two: 1941 and the Man of Steel, argued that Stalin’s bloody resistance to Hitler on the Eastern Front was where the war in Europe was really won (and has been shortlisted for a Grierson Award). His new one, World War Two: 1942 and the Soft Underbelly, challenges modern assumptions that Churchill was concerned only with defending the British Isles – and only then by re-invading France.

There is one central question, says Reynolds, that his film sets out to answer. “Why did we and the Americans spend a lot of the Second World War in the Mediterranean, rather than crossing the Channel?” he asks. This new programme, he explains, hinges around the second battle of El Alamein in Egypt in 1942 (and is timed to coincide with its 70th anniversary).

“People of Churchill’s generation thought imperially, so that’s part of it,” he says, explaining El Alamein’s territorial importance in protecting the Suez Canal – and its links to the Empire on which Britain still depended. He goes on to tick off a few other good reasons for the Mediterranean campaign. Churchill could not contemplate another British bloodbath like the Somme, and US troops were not ready in sufficient numbers to mount a cross-Channel attack. And while the Royal Navy and the RAF had been built up during the re-armament of the 1930s, the Army was under par – it had been intended to play second fiddle to the French Army, which was now out of the war. A North African campaign would allow Churchill to rebuild the Army’s battle-hardness for any later invasion of France.

And Churchill’s American allies had their own opinion on the matter, too. “Both Churchill and Roosevelt need a victory in 1942,” he explains. “The US have a million men out in the Pacific, fighting against the Japanese. But Roosevelt is quite convinced that in the end the critical thing is defeating Hitler. If Churchill will not cross the Channel, where else are we going to go?” And strength in North Africa allowed the Prime Minister to suggest that victory in Europe might come not from crossing the Channel, but from attacking Italy. It was, said Churchill, Europe’s “soft underbelly”.

But Hitler decided to fight both for north Africa and for Rome – contrary to intelligence reports. “Even Bletchley Park was reliant on the material they got from the intercepts of German messages, most of which did not hit the absolutely top level of German high command,” says Reynolds. “In particular, they didn’t get into the manic mind of Adolf Hitler.” So the Allied Forces’ job in that “soft underbelly” turned out to be anything but soft and, says Reynolds in the film, by late 1943 Churchill's “bright idea would become a dark obsession”.

etc...

World War Two: 1942 and the Soft Underbelly is on BBC Four on Monday at 9.00pm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9598435/Why-Churchill-thought-attacking-Italy-could-win-him-World-War-Two.html

Posted: 15-10-2012 09:41 Post subject:

Anyone who takes more than a cursory glance at WW2 will realise that the only reason we were able to establish a front in France was the fact the three quarters of the German army were tied up in Russia, and the rest spread very thinly indeed about the various European theatres.

Without Russia's contribution it would probably have been down to who was first to use an A-bomb, with all the consequences that would have had for post-war Europe.

Posted: 15-10-2012 12:48 Post subject:

Posted: 16-10-2012 13:33 Post subject:

I'd be inclined to stick to the _only_ reason, actually. Maybe I should have added 'in 1944'.

If we had been facing say 18 German armies instead of 4 then I doubt the decision to invade would have been taken. There were 22 total armies engaged in Russia in 1944 and just 4 in France when we invaded. I seem to recall an army is two or three divisions. so the numbers might be a bit more complex than that, but we would have been facing a force several times stronger than the one we defeated. The Germans internal logistics would have been much simpler also.

It was a 'damn close run thing' - to use a quote out of context - as it was. All the more heroic for that, of course.

Posted: 16-10-2012 13:59 Post subject:

Posted: 26-10-2012 09:48 Post subject:

Are bodies of 10,000 lost warriors from Battle of Hastings buried in this field?
Historian believes the 10,000 victims of the Battle of Hastings may be buried in a field one mile north west of the official site at Battle.
10:08AM BST 25 Oct 2012

The site of where the Battle of Hastings has been commemorated for the last 1,000 years is in the wrong place, it has been claimed.
Ever since the 1066 battle that led to the Norman Conquest, history has recorded the event as happening at what is now Battle Abbey in the East Sussex town.

But although some 10,000 men are believed to have been killed in the historic conflict, no human remains or artefects from the battle have ever been found at the location.
This has given rise to several historians to examine alternative sites for the battle that was a decisive victory for William the Conqueror and saw the death of King Harold.

Now historian and author John Grehan believes he has finally found the actual location - on a steep hill one mile north west of Battle.
It is documented that Harold assembled his English army on Caldbec Hill before advancing on Senlac Hill (Battle Hill) a mile away to meet the invading Normans.

But Mr Grehan believes his research shows Harold never left his defensive hilltop position and the Normans took the battle to the English.
He has studied contemporaneous documents in the national archives and built up a dossier of circumstantial evidence that, when put together, make a more than convincing argument in his favour.

Witness accounts from 1066 state the battle was fought on steep and unploughed terrain, consistent with Caldbec Hill. Senlac Hill was cultivated and had gentle slopes.
The Normans erected a cairn of stones on the battle site to commemorate their victory, known as a Mount-joie in French. The summit of Caldbec Hill is still today called Mountjoy.
One English source from the time, John of Worcester, stated the battle was fought nine miles from Hastings, the same distance as Caldbec Hill. Senlac Hill is eight miles away.

Harold is supposed to have abandoned his high position to meet William on lower ground, a tactical move that makes no sense at all as he would have been moving away from his reinforcements.
Furthermore, Mr Grehan believes he has identified the site of a mass grave where the fallen soldiers were buried after the battle at a ditch at the foot of Caldbec Hill.
He is now calling for an archaeological dig to take place there straight away.
If he is proven right, the history books published over the last millennium may have to be re-written.

Mr Grehan, a 61-year-old historian from Shoreham, West Sussex, has made his arguments in a new book about to be published called 'The Battle of Hastings - The Uncomfortable Truth'.
He said: "I assumed everything was known about the Battle of Hastings but I found that almost nothing is known by way of fact.
"The evidence pointing towards Caldbec Hill as the scene of the battle is, at present, circumstantial, but it is still more than exists for the current Battle Abbey site.
"Excavations have been carried out at Battle Abbey and remnants pre-dating the battle were found but nothing relating to the conquest.

"The Battle of Lewis took place 200 years later 20 miles down the road and they dig up bodies by the cart load there.
"Some 10,000 men died at the Battle of Hastings; there has to be a mass grave somewhere.
"You would have also expected to find considerable pieces of battle material like shields, helmets, swords, axes, bits of armour.

"Having carried out the research, there are 11 main points which suggest the battle was fought in the wrong place.
"Harold is supposed to have abandoned his assembly point on Caldbec Hill to take up a position on the lower ridge of Battle Hill even though many of his men had still not arrived.
"This means that even though he could see the Normans approaching he moved further away from his incoming reinforcements. This makes no sense at all.

"The primary sources state Harold was taken by surprise.
"This means he could not have been advancing to meet the Normans as his troops would have been in some kind of formation.
"The only possible interpretation of this can be that Harold was not expecting to fight at that time and was taken unawares at the concentration point with his army unformed.
"This must mean that the battle was fought at the English army's assembly point."

Mr Grehan said he believes the human remains from the battle were hastily rolled down the hill and buried in an open ditch by the victorious Normans.
He said: "Two days after the battle the Normans moved on towards Winchester. They had two days to get rid of the thousands of bodies. You can't dig that many graves in such a short space of time.
"At the bottom of Caldbec Hill is Malfose ditch, I believe the bodies were rolled down the hill and dumped in this ditch which was filled in.
"A proper archaeological dig of that ditch now needs to happen.

"Whatever the outcome, it doesn't make a difference which hill the battle was fought on.
"But history books may need to be re-written if I am proved right."

Roy Porter, the regional curator for English Heritage which owns Battle Abbey, said they were obliged to look into alternative theories for the battle site.
But he said the spot the abbey is built on was not the most obvious at the time as it required major work to dig into the hill.

He said: "Archaeological evidence shows that the abbey's impractical location required extensive alterations to the hill on which it sits.
"Any suggestion that the battle occurred elsewhere needs to explain why this difficult location for the abbey was chosen instead.
"The tradition that the abbey was founded on the site of the Battle of Hastings is based on a number of historical sources, including William of Malmesbury and is documented before 1120.

"It would be premature to comment on Mr Grehan's thesis until the book is published.
"The interpretation of our sites is subject to periodic revision and this process involves our historians reassessing the available evidence and considering new theories.

"Battle Abbey will be the subject of this work in due course but at the present time there is little reason to discount the scholarly consensus regarding the site."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/archaeology/9632922/Are-bodies-of-10000-lost-warriors-from-Battle-of-Hastings-buried-in-this-field.html