O/T Battle of Brunanburh

Monty - going back to your original reply. I was going to post that, purely in terms of logistics and the billigerents it would seem unlikely the England forces would have left their strong home position. Does that make the site more likely in Eng and on the North West coast (thank say inland, eg Rotherham).

Btw - didnt you take umbridge at what someone posted a while back and vow never to return. Good youre back though as it adds to the banter.

It was after seeing the Masborough Boat Tragedy thread that got me searching local history to read up on it and found Brunandurh. So your post have value!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WanChaiMiller

Monty - going back to your original reply. I was going to post that, purely in terms of logistics and the billigerents it would seem unlikely the England forces would have left their strong home position. Does that make the site more likely in Eng and on the North West coast (thank say inland, eg Rotherham).

Btw - didnt you take umbridge at what someone posted a while back and vow never to return. Good youre back though as it adds to the banter.

---

Well now you make some very interesting and pertinent observations. Historians often ignore things like logistics. For Brunanburh we should remember that the English king, Athelstan, had quite a sophisticated government organisation and in 934 had been able to muster a very large army at Winchester and Nottingham and a navy and take them all the way up to ravage much of Scotland, even reaching Caithness. On the enemy side the Vikings were very mobile. However, the Strathclyde Britons and Scots of Alba (Alba was located north of the Firth of Forth) almost certainly had only rudimentary government and a very limited logistical capability so they tended to limit their campaigns to what is now southern Scotland and northern England. I think that Brunanburh is therefore probably somewhere up around Hadrian's Wall.

Btw - didnt you take umbridge at what someone posted a while back and vow never to return. Good youre back though as it adds to the banter.[/QUOTE]

I did not. I banned myself because aggro was getting out of hand. However, Cam and several others felt that if I did not return the site would go into terminal decline.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CTMilller

Might be the time difference, monty. He's seven hours ahead of you and when you replied it was probably coming up to Saturday evening in Hong Kong. There's hope still!

I found your reply very interesting actually - at least in a general sense; it's not a subject I know much about but, from the clues you've given in the past, I know it's an area of academic expertise for you.

---

Interest rather than expertise, CT. I still get confused with time differentials and it takes me a week to get used to the clocks going back and forwards.

Going on old maps I’d say it’s more likely to have been Liverpool

Attachment 10471

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty_rhodes

Well now you make some very interesting and pertinent observations. Historians often ignore things like logistics. For Brunanburh we should remember that the English king, Athelstan, had quite a sophisticated government organisation and in 934 had been able to muster a very large army at Winchester and Nottingham and a navy and take them all the way up to ravage much of Scotland, even reaching Caithness. On the enemy side the Vikings were very mobile. However, the Strathclyde Britons and Scots of Alba (Alba was located north of the Firth of Forth) almost certainly had only rudimentary government and a very limited logistical capability so they tended to limit their campaigns to what is now southern Scotland and northern England. I think that Brunanburh is therefore probably somewhere up around Hadrian's Wall.

---

Yes, see what youre saying.

Obviously my knowledge only extends to having read 1 article and what you have just written - which makes me some what of an expert in modern social media times and, as such, I should be challenging your views - lol !!

Do you know the population of England and the population hot spots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WanChaiMiller

Yes, see what youre saying.

Obviously my knowledge only extends to having read 1 article and what you have just written - which makes me some what of an expert in modern social media times and, as such, I should be challenging your views - lol !!

Do you know the population of England and the population hot spots.

---

I forgot to say that Scotland did not then exist in any modern sense and the border of the English kingdom was much further north than today. In southwest Scotland the Britons hung on in Strathclyde while the Scots kingdom of Alba was north of the Firth of Forth. Most of what is today Lothian including Edinburgh was held by the English and after Athelstan conquered Northumbria in 927 all those land became part of his kingdom.
Millertop's point about a Liverpool location is shared by quite a few historians. It's been debated for decades - I have written a book and three academic articles on the topic and others like Andrew Breeze, Michael Wood and Paul Cavill have written on their own theories. Millersmad isn't really a suitable place to explore all the aspects of what is a very contentious area. It's one of those subjects that is unlikely ever to be resolved - very frustrating too!

P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty_rhodes

I forgot to say that Scotland did not then exist in any modern sense and the border of the English kingdom was much further north than today. In southwest Scotland the Britons hung on in Strathclyde while the Scots kingdom of Alba was north of the Firth of Forth. Most of what is today Lothian including Edinburgh was held by the English and after Athelstan conquered Northumbria in 927 all those land became part of his kingdom.
Millertop's point about a Liverpool location is shared by quite a few historians. It's been debated for decades - I have written a book and three academic articles on the topic and others like Andrew Breeze, Michael Wood and Paul Cavill have written on their own theories. Millersmad isn't really a suitable place to explore all the aspects of what is a very contentious area. It's one of those subjects that is unlikely ever to be resolved - very frustrating too!

---

Frustrating because it's so contentious or simply because there is so little evidence to prove it one way or another?

I think you're being modest when you say you're academic involvement is at the level of interest rather than expertise.

It fascinates me that, for a group of people united by a common passion for a fairly unfashionable football team currently punching above its weight, we have such a diverse set of demographics in terms of background, knowledge and geography...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CTMilller

P

Frustrating because it's so contentious or simply because there is so little evidence to prove it one way or another?

I think you're being modest when you say you're academic involvement is at the level of interest rather than expertise.

It fascinates me that, for a group of people united by a common passion for a fairly unfashionable football team currently punching above its weight, we have such a diverse set of demographics in terms of background, knowledge and geography...

---

Frustrating in the sense of not being able to prove its location definitively. Especially frustrating for me as I know where it is but can't prove it (and being 66 years old time is running out fro me to do so).

Here's a snippet on the Masbrough Boat Tragedy. In the 1960s it was widely reputed that the cellars of the Bridge Inn were haunted by ghosts of the victims. The landlord swore he'd seen and heard many inexplicable things and sometimes couldn't go into the beer cellar at night after the pub had closed.:O