# You Wake Up and Find Yourself back In The 11th Century



## BAYLOR (Jul 6, 2014)

You don't know how you got there , all you remember is going to sleep and waking up in a back alley in (for the sake of argument) London. All You have are the clothes on you back and whatever happens to be in your pockets. What would you do? How would you survive and if so how long  ? Would you have the skills necessary to survive in that era?And would you exploit your knowledge of the future in any way?


----------



## Vertigo (Jul 6, 2014)

I don't know but suspect you would get taken out pretty quickly by bugs we no longer have any resistance to. 

Assuming you didn't then if you had a reasonable understanding of practical science (say how to make a good lens) then you could probably do pretty well. That is assuming you can manage to communicate. Even people who understand written English or French from that era (very few people I suspect) would probably be unable to understand it or be understood when spoken.

On the whole most of our modern knowledge would be very little use without our modern technology.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Jul 6, 2014)

I don't know, I think this would be a pretty tough scenario to establish yourself. 

You have no local currency and I think your ability to communicate with the locals would prove trying if not excruciating. (I believe that the English of the 16th Century was very different from modern usage and we'd struggle quite a bit. Now go back a further 500 years in development and you'll find a different language.)

I'm assuming that you'll have a few bits and pieces with you - say wallet and mobile, but apart from the wonderment that such trinkets and your clothes might generate, (and your mobile just becomes a curious trinket after the battery runs out), what use are these things to anyone else? (And they might be signs of the devil, see below!) 

I suppose you might try and search out a trade that you could apprentice in - just for the lodgings, food and the eventual chance to show some of your advanced sciences - so maybe a blacksmith, merchant? I'm reasonably good with numbers and physics I suppose! But would anyone take you on, a strange looking foreigner essentially begging for work? And anyway I don't think I'd be much use in any trade anyway, I really don't have any experience of 11th century trades and my guess is that only a handful of experimental archaeologists or re-enactors will have any experience at all. The rest of us would, my guess, be worse than a five year old child.

Head out and look for the centres of learning might be a possibility, clever people there that might be more curious in you and what you can tell them...But you're about 100 years too early (Oxford the first English university really starts to take off in 1167). 13th Century might be better because then you could go and search for that proto-scientist Roger Bacon. But for us stuck in the 11th I guess you'd have to go to the Church. Hope your 11th Christianity is reasonable or you met someone quite nice, because...

...what do you tell them or anyone. The truth? "I think I've come back from the future." Or does this run the risk of being branded potentially satanic? Taking Bacon as an example he "_gained a reputation as the epitome of a wise and subtle possessor of forbidden knowledge, a Faust-like magician who had tricked the devil and so was able to go to heaven_." He was also "_apparently imprisoned or placed under house arrest for his excessive credulity in alchemy_" Do I know enough about 11th Century religion to avoid being branded a heretic or worse? Probably not 

So I probably wouldn't say I was from the future of this country, too many issues. I'd have to come up with a iron-bottomed fictional back story. 

It does depend on the state of my knowledge right at the start, but assuming that I know with 100% certainty that I have slipped through time about 1000 years and I can't get back, and this is my lot - I'm in the London of Edward the Confessor/William the first. I'd try and hide from anyone's view and try my best to find the Thames, slip out along to the coast proper - again hidden from view as best as possible. This might require I steal some clothes, or movement only by night, both with many risks as I don't want to be found by anyone till I: 

Find a suitable bit of coast, make sure there has been rough seas a bit before and with a lump of flotsam swim out a bit, then 'wash up on the beach' as a shipwreck survivor, waiting to be discovered. Hopefully I get taken to someone in authority, where I'll spin a yarn that I'm from a faraway land. Which actually would be true of course, but in time not space... The ship I was sailing in, from a huge land way off to the West, was sunk in a storm as we were exploring these islands. Our language might be too far off for them to realise that I'm actually speaking English, but then I could spin a white lie if they notice ("We know Prester John and he mentioned you and your language to us, so this is our bastardised attempt at trying to speak it..)

Hopefully then as a legitimate traveller from some really exotic land I might be a bit of a celebrity, perhaps gain patrons that I could either entertain or talk ideas with, (set up a diplomatic embassy for my fictional country?) And perhaps then have a bit of time to generate something from my future knowledge for these Saxons and Normans that makes me valuable and able to thrive. Something like make paper or as Vertigo stated lenses. It'll take me a bit of time to perfect it, so I'll need the leeway. 

Or I get caught on day one and hung for stealing and being a foreign satanic spy


----------



## AnyaKimlin (Jul 6, 2014)

Theft seems to be the best option or get thee to a religious order.


----------



## Vertigo (Jul 6, 2014)

You know the other thing that would be difficult to explain if you are male, and therefore little chance of having been a milk maid, would be your flawless complexion (at least by the standards of the time). As I understand it pretty much everyone at that time had pock marked skin to a greater or lesser degree with the exception of milk maids who frequently contracted cow-pox which was much less severe than small pox but closely enough related to act as a vaccine.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 6, 2014)

Vertigo said:


> I don't know but suspect you would get taken out pretty quickly by bugs we no longer have any resistance to.
> 
> Assuming you didn't then if you had a reasonable understanding of practical science (say how to make a good lens) then you could probably do pretty well. That is assuming you can manage to communicate. Even people who understand written English or French from that era (very few people I suspect) would probably be unable to understand it or be understood when spoken.
> 
> On the whole most of our modern knowledge would be very little use without our modern technology.



A simple scratch or cut would be deadly and if you came  came down with appendicitis that would be game over as well . The life expectancy in that time was 35 if you were really lucky ? Then there is the problem of modern bugs like the common flu which would have dire consequence to the locals.


----------



## HareBrain (Jul 6, 2014)

VB, I'm impressed! Did you really have nothing better to do than think all that through?

As others have pointed out, the language would be totally different. Try reading the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and seeing how much sense you make of it, and then imagine hearing it spoken.

I have one skill that might be of interest to people back then, and which I can practise to a higher standard than pretty much anyone alive at the time, and that is drawing realistically and using perspective. So even without being able to speak the language, I might, if I were very lucky, be able to find a forward-thinking patron. On the other hand, a style of art so radically different from that of the time might be appreciated by no one.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 6, 2014)

HareBrain said:


> VB, I'm impressed! Did you really have nothing better to do than think all that through?
> 
> As others have pointed out, the language would be totally different. Try reading the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and seeing how much sense you make of it, and then imagine hearing it spoken.
> 
> I have one skill that might be of interest to people back then, and which I can practise to a higher standard than pretty much anyone alive at the time, and that is drawing realistically and using perspective. So even without being able to speak the language, I might, if I were very lucky, be able to find a forward-thinking patron. On the other hand, a style of art so radically different from that of the time might be appreciated by no one.



In the 11th century ?I don't think your realistic style of Art would catch on with he locals , especially the church . Didn't They tend to be rather narrow-minded in what they considered proper art ? That period of time was anti classical wasn't it?


----------



## Venusian Broon (Jul 6, 2014)

HareBrain said:


> VB, I'm impressed! Did you really have nothing better to do than think all that through?



Well, once you've 'slipped through time' a few times you get used to setting yourself up again in what ever time period you find yourself in...

whoops, <_cough, cough_>. No what I meant to say was...

...that F1 had finished and I wasn't going to watch Wimbledon, so plenty of time to write essays on net on a lazy Sunday. And I'm sticking with that explanation


----------



## The Ace (Jul 6, 2014)

Sneak into Siward of Northumbria's stronghold and assassinate Malcolm Canmore.

It would be interesting to see if MacBeth's descendants made a better fist of ruling Scotland (and maybe avoided the Union) than what we actually got.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jul 6, 2014)

This is a great topic, Baylor - literally it applies to something I'm working on, and I can see already I've completely mishandled it. 

Yes, language would be a serious problem. Death from thirst or starvation would be the biggest immediate threats. Even if - somehow - you were able to communicate enough to do skilled (non-seasonal) work, and earn money, famine and disease are a constant danger.

The 11th century is a curious choice, because a lot of major things happen in this time. 

The Norman conquest of 1066 changes everything. 

Language, art, culture, economics, will all change. Before the Normans arrive, slavery still occurs in Britain (I've seen estimates of about 10% of the population as slaves). However, the Normans will stop the practice - simply because they find it cheaper to employ seasonal labour, than pay to look after slaves all year round.

If you could read/write Latin you might do well - either join a religious group, else after the conquest join the disaffected English and travel to Constantinople to become Varangian Guard. Even if you can't fight, I'm inclined to think that Constantinople would be a safer place overall to live than London in this period. 

All that aside, possibly the best way to survive this period might be to join a monastery as a monk or lay brother - at least your food supply may be more reasonably stable. Just surviving might not sound very exciting, though. If you fancy travelling, there are always pilgrimages - or the crusades at the end of the century.


----------



## rwspangler (Jul 7, 2014)

I would act the mute and show promise as a medic or in chemicals depending on the opportunity. Geometry may also be handy for construction. Other than that, hunker down and be mute!


----------



## JoanDrake (Jul 9, 2014)

VB has the best idea. It would at worst keep you from being killed immediately and might allow you contact with certain people with necessary skillsets to utilize concepts that all moderns know, which would really be your only advantages.

One thing which I think most modern people know of and could make a real difference is how to do double entry bookkeeping. Another thing would be how to make gunpowder, and most moderns know the basic formula which could be worked out with the help of a good alchemist. Finally, couldn't most of us somehow get a Wine Press, a leadburner and become Gutenberg? 

 Beyond that I can't think of very much at all that would be helpful back then. If you were a chemical/mechanical engineer then yeh, you could do a lot, but most people have no idea how the miracles we use every day really run.


----------



## JoanDrake (Jul 9, 2014)

rwspangler said:


> I would act the mute and show promise as a medic or in chemicals depending on the opportunity. Geometry may also be handy for construction. Other than that, hunker down and be mute!


 
My understanding is that medieval masons and carpenters used most of the same geometry modern ones do. Beyond smaller structures they used rules of thumb. These worked well, usually, except at places like Rouen. Now if you know calculus and how to engineer a truss you might just be set, or burned as witch, I dunno.


----------



## JonH (Jul 9, 2014)

Depending when you arrive you could be under Danish, Saxon or Norman rule. You arrive in London 1015 or 1016 and the city could well be in the process of changing hands between Saxon and Dane, or it might just be under siege. You'd be far better off in the Danelaw than London.

After 1066 England becomes increasingly feudal. A place for everyone and don't you dare try to better yourself.

Depending on the exact date, I'd probably go to Toledo (via Rouen). I can cook, so that might be my ticket to work passage across the channel.

Having checked my pockets, I'd have to get an excellent price for my Swiss Army knife, because I've nothing else of any value. Tell a lie, I've a watch on my wrist. Battery's good for a couple more years at least, but that might be a bit too "witchcraft".

In Moorish Spain, I'd try lens grinding. The general theory of optics is known, so there'd be no devil-made-me-do-it. It would take a little getting used to, but all the supporting tech would be there possibly apart from the powders (which I could mill from various rocks and sands then grade in water). Any sea-going power would pay a lot for telescopes, even with a bit of spherical aberration, not to mention military uses. No one knows who invented the first specs, and I might find a far sighted near-sighted patron!


----------



## paranoid marvin (Jul 9, 2014)

However hard you tried, you'd stick out like a sore thumb. If you weren't robbed and murdered, arrested and put to death as a spy or witch, or starve to death then you'd succumb to whatever disease was doing the rounds at the time; hopefully before you'd killed all the local populace with your own germs.

A cheerful thought, but also the only realistic propositions. Monasteries wouldn't take in just anyone, they weren't just there as refugee camps. Just travelling from one village to another would be fraught with danger from brigands, wildlife or nobles using you as a bit of sport. You can't speak the language, you don't know the names of any person or place and you have no money ; so you're not much use to anyone. In all likelihood you would be seen as a foreign spy or witch and hung, but before that the first thing you ate or drank would probably kill you.


----------



## rwspangler (Jul 10, 2014)

JonH said:


> In Moorish Spain, I'd try lens grinding. The general theory of optics is known, so there'd be no devil-made-me-do-it. It would take a little getting used to, but all the supporting tech would be there possibly apart from the powders (which I could mill from various rocks and sands then grade in water). Any sea-going power would pay a lot for telescopes, even with a bit of spherical aberration, not to mention military uses. No one knows who invented the first specs, and I might find a far sighted near-sighted patron!



Excellent thought! Spain would be the perfect place to blend in and not be looked at so critically. The local knowledge level would be higher as well so improvising new things wouldn't be viewed as bad. I could also cook up some new dishes to impress and perhaps land a nice gig.


----------



## Vertigo (Jul 10, 2014)

It's sad but as I indicated in my earlier post I must agree with PM. I just don't think you'd survive long enough to do anything. Connie Willis' Doomsday Book has a pretty good take on this where they send the protagonist back to these times. However she has been studying medieval times for years and is fluent in the language of the day, which I seem to recall she still struggled to understand and be understood. A very realistic depiction on the whole.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Jul 10, 2014)

Vertigo said:


> It's sad but as I indicated in my earlier post I must agree with PM. I just don't think you'd survive long enough to do anything. Connie Willis' Doomsday Book has a pretty good take on this where they send the protagonist back to these times. *However she has been studying medieval times for years and is fluent in the language of the day, which I seem to recall she still struggled to understand and be understood*. A very realistic depiction on the whole.



Exactly this. You might know the words, but unless you know the pronunciation or even the local dialect, you wouldn't have a chance of communicating with anyone.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jul 10, 2014)

Vertigo said:


> Connie Willis' _Doomsday Book_



Never heard of this, but looks like potentially useful research material. Cheers for the recommendation - will order later this month.


----------



## Vertigo (Jul 10, 2014)

I found the story a bit clumsy in places but mostly good (that might be a little harsh; it gets 4.05 on Goodreads). The medieval setting is very gritty and thoroughly de-romanticised and largely set around the arrival of the Plague. The author is American and I thought she had a better understanding of medieval Britain than of 'modern' Britain! On the whole a pretty good book, though not exceptional. However it is an SFMasterworks book. Also there are three other books and one short (90 odd pages) all in the same setting that I've not read yet. I believe the second one - To Say Nothing of the Dog (Victorian I think) - is also in the SFMasterworks.


----------



## Mirannan (Jul 10, 2014)

My thoughts on this may well be typical. Were I sent back to the Middle Ages, I might last a week - if I was lucky - even if I wasn't burned as a witch or robbed or...

The reason is that I need four, maybe five, drugs to keep my arrythmia, blood clotting and hypertension problems under control. None of which, of course, were available in the 11th century.


----------



## JoanDrake (Jul 11, 2014)

Most of the plot points of S.M. Stirling's whole series "Islands in the Sea of Time" is based on how helpless most (but not all) moderns are when taken back some thousands of years and he has a whole town. Eric Flint's WVA town taken to 1633 Germany, however, has no problem, but they seem to have unending supplies of ammunition, probably from the same elves supplying most commando groups in WWII movies.


----------



## Mirannan (Jul 11, 2014)

JoanDrake said:


> Most of the plot points of S.M. Stirling's whole series "Islands in the Sea of Time" is based on how helpless most (but not all) moderns are when taken back some thousands of years and he has a whole town. Eric Flint's WVA town taken to 1633 Germany, however, has no problem, but they seem to have unending supplies of ammunition, probably from the same elves supplying most commando groups in WWII movies.



There is a throwaway mention of a cache of primers and cartridge cases, and tools for refilling said cases, somewhere in the series. And guncotton isn't actually all that difficult to make, although some failures in figuring out the precise conditions would be inevitable.


----------



## Gramm838 (Jul 11, 2014)

As I work in elf 'n safety, I'd be there stopping them building all the great cathedrals and other buildings as it's too unsafe - so all the workers would think I was a saint and I could live a life of luxury based on that.

LOL


----------



## chrispenycate (Jul 12, 2014)

Mirannan said:


> There is a throwaway mention of a cache of primers and cartridge cases, and tools for refilling said cases, somewhere in the series. And guncotton isn't actually all that difficult to make, although some failures in figuring out the precise conditions would be inevitable.



Actually, if you add the Grantville Gazette, there is lots about reloading cartridges - I cite the short 'Curio and Relic', which is largely about that. They've got more gun nuts on that site…

So, could you please dump me after the Norman invasion? I'm better on French based languages than Germanics. I'd try to get into a band of tinkers, who will always be worthwhile linguists, as villages at a day's travel will speak dialects which are essentially different languages and I can tink with the best of them.

Don't have long to learn, though; without medication, how long can I expect to last?


----------



## paranoid marvin (Jul 12, 2014)

Oppression of the masses ; 1% of the population owning 99% of the wealth; people starving to death whilst others gorge; a penal system that simply doesn't work; holy wars and jihads. There are times when I wake up and it feels like I'm living in the 11th Century!


----------



## Mirannan (Jul 12, 2014)

paranoid marvin said:


> Oppression of the masses ; 1% of the population owning 99% of the wealth; people starving to death whilst others gorge; a penal system that simply doesn't work; holy wars and jihads. There are times when I wake up and it feels like I'm living in the 11th Century!



How are your teeth?


----------



## paranoid marvin (Jul 13, 2014)

Mirannan said:


> How are your teeth?



True. But arguably they would have been in better shape thanks to not having a high sugar diet. I do prefer having anaesthetic though!


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 13, 2014)

paranoid marvin said:


> True. But arguably they would have been in better shape thanks to not having a high sugar diet. I do prefer having anaesthetic though!



In the 11 century even  with the absence of the kind sugar laden treats that we have now, they still must have had poor dental health


----------



## Aquilonian (Jul 14, 2014)

Venusian Broon's idea of pretending to be shipwrecked certainly offers the best chance of survival. There are various historical examples of such mysterious arrivals, eg the Green Children of Woolpit, and the woman washed up on the coast of Japan in some sort of round container that sounds like a modern life raft.

Ditch the mobile phone for sure. And thanks to our "nanny state", we British can't even carry decent knives any more- how insane would that seem to the 11th century? Almost all the knowledge and even practical skills possessed by any modern individual would be utterly useless, even if the language was learned quickly. For example, even if knowing the formula for gunpowder gained you royal favour, it would be little use if you couldn't also cast a decent cannon that wouldn't blow up. I reckon archery and fire making would be the most useful skills- you could live off hunting in the forests which then covered most of England. If you wanted to integrate into society, then for men blacksmithing would be about the most useful skill, as techniques and equipment don't seem to have changed that much. For women, midwifery- you'd achieve massive improvements on contemporary survival rates just by washing your hands and boiling your scissors- but to retain your Dark Ages credibility you'd need to recite some special prayers while so doing- let them ascribe your powers to a saint rather than to some eccentric habit like washing.


----------



## Vertigo (Jul 15, 2014)

That's a good point actually our normal modern basic standards of hygiene (washing, sterilising etc.) when applied to the medicine of the time and suitably attributed to a saint (probably best to pick one and consistently pray to and give thanks to them) would probably achieve almost miraculous results in their eyes.

Another might applying modern horticultural practices farming.


----------



## Vertigo (Aug 3, 2014)

A quick revive of this thread. I had an idea last night!

The only advantage you would have in medieval times would be your knowledge of modern technology and science. Not all of us have a great deal of that and even if we do the absence of a technology base makes most of that information useless. But here's an idea that could be achieved without much high technology: electricity.

They already had magnetite in medieval times so they were familiar with the 'curious _natural_ phenomenon' of magnetism (ie. nothing devilish there it was seen as natural). What wasn't discovered until around 1600 was that iron could be magnetised by hammering it. So that could be a very useful skill. However, given magnets, a crude but perfectly functional dynamo could easily be created using only the technology available at that time; their metal workers were fully capable of making wire. And that would constitute a seriously revolutionary bit of physics in medieval times.

So if you could achieve this (probably best done under the guardianship of a monastery) you really would be able to give yourself and edge (and seriously change history at the same time).


----------



## Michael Colton (Aug 3, 2014)

I assume I would end up considered a homeless wretch gone mad, not including the amount of diseases that would ravage my modern body.


----------



## Extollager (Aug 3, 2014)

Mirannan said:


> My thoughts on this may well be typical. Were I sent back to the Middle Ages, I might last a week - if I was lucky - even if I wasn't burned as a witch



Not much chance of that, popular stereotypes about the Middle Ages notwithstanding.  Your chances of being convicted of witchcraft and hanged for it would be greater in the 1600s.

I've often thought how I would like to teach a college history course devoted to exposing popular errors and propaganda about our supposedly benighted ancestors (e.g. 9 million witches executed during the "Burning Time," the flat earth myth, the ancients' supposed ignorance of the smallness of the earth, etc.).


Who burned the witches? - Salon.com

Amazon.com: Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians (9780275959043): Jeffrey Burton Russell, David Noble: Books

Questions:

Out of 4,000 witch trials during 1550-1750 as heard by the Spanish Inquisition, how many death sentences were there?  

Eleven

How many convictions for witchcraft in Portugal, 1536-1821?

One

Source: Steven T. Katz, Cornell University, in _The New York Review of Books _13 August 1992.

Yet these early modern trials occurred during the _height_ of the witch fear, in the early modern period, after the Middle Ages.


----------



## Michael Colton (Aug 3, 2014)

Those courses do exist - just saying. The folks who wrote those books typically have day jobs as professors. I once took a wonderful graduate seminar on religion and superstition in the Middle Ages. It was quite enlightening.


----------



## Extollager (Aug 3, 2014)

....Or the myth about medieval theologians spending their time debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin...

Angels on the heads on pins

Or Luther was the root of the Nazis' extermination of the Jews...

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0570048001/?tag=brite-21

The  one I'm wondering about at the moment is the claim that the migratory  patterns of sharks were (to this day!) changed when they began to follow  slave ships (the Middle Passage) and feasting off bodies thrown  overboard.

I could well believe that sharks followed the slave  ships, as they would follow other ships that discarded edible waste of  various sorts.  But what comparative study was done at the time to  establish what their route was and that it changed during the slave  trade?   And that they still follow this route -- what, because of some species memory?

I'm an English  teacher, not a historian, but historical questions come up quite often  in the interpretation of texts written earlier than the past 30 years or  so.  One runs up against "facts" that students have picked up from  popular culture and from public school teachers who picked up their idea  from the same source.  These become involved when, e.g., in a  Shakespeare course it's time for _The Merchant of Venice _(Jewish people), _Othello _(black persons), and _Macbeth _(witches).  Professors often introduce pet distortions of their own, e.g. in a Shakespeare course, when it's time for _Twelfth Night_ and anachronistic ideas about "gender" etc. get trotted out.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Aug 3, 2014)

We are descended from the people who survived plagues etc.
So you may be less susceptible than you think. 

you can do arithmetic without a board and stones. Possibly you can even do it with board and stones. 
You can write the Roman alphabet (stick to capitals!!).
So even though communication is very hard till you pick up more 11th C. English you can prove you are Educated.
You might know some Latin (I certainly know a little, more than any 11th C English). This also would suggest you are educated. It's the universal language of the Educated then.
You could claim to be from Normandy, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Little Britain (Brittany), rest of  the land of Franks, Cornwall or far off in England as any of those places most will not speak the "English" you are now encountering.
You seriously want to get to an Abbey and meet Abbot or Abbess etc.


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 4, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> We are descended from the people who survived plagues etc.
> So you may be less susceptible than you think.
> 
> you can do arithmetic without a board and stones. Possibly you can even do it with board and stones.
> ...




You could claim to be from Normandy or any of those parts would probably  work until  someone from those parts spotted you for an outsider.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Aug 4, 2014)

BAYLOR said:


> You could claim to be from Normandy or any of those parts would probably  work until  someone from those parts spotted you for an outsider.



Any time from 1066 onwards, that probably wouldn't be long - and in the meantime you probably wouldn't be welcomed by the locals either!


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 5, 2014)

paranoid marvin said:


> Any time from 1066 onwards, that probably wouldn't be long - and in the meantime you probably wouldn't be welcomed by the locals either!




They might be a little backwards ,but it's possible you might find locals that would be willing to accept you.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 2, 2014)

Of course , you could invent the Gutenberg printing press  and sell it to the church.


----------



## AnyaKimlin (Nov 2, 2014)

BAYLOR said:


> Of course , you could invent the Gutenberg printing press  and sell it to the church.



Before or after you're burned for Witchcraft?


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 2, 2014)

AnyaKimlin said:


> Before or after you're burned for Witchcraft?



For inventing a printing press?


----------



## AnyaKimlin (Nov 2, 2014)

BAYLOR said:


> For inventing a printing press?



Why not?  As late as the last decade of 1600s people were labelling inventors as witches or wizards.  The Wizard of Gordonstoun invented several things of use and may have been experimenting with electricity and the locals called him the "Wizard".  A couple of decades earlier he may well have found himself tried and convicted as a witch.

Gutenburg was a blacksmith, goldsmith etc which meant he had explainable understandable skills.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 2, 2014)

AnyaKimlin said:


> Why not?  As late as the last decade of 1600s people were labelling inventors as witches or wizards.  The Wizard of Gordonstoun invented several things of use and may have been experimenting with electricity and the locals called him the "Wizard".  A couple of decades earlier he may well have found himself tried and convicted as a witch.
> 
> Gutenburg was a blacksmith, goldsmith etc which meant he had explainable understandable skills.




But how printing  press works would have been perfectly understandable even to the mindset of the 11th century. They had some mechanical technology even at that time.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Nov 2, 2014)

I don't think the printing press was the problem - it was producing the Bible with one, in a world where the Roman Catholic Church had strict control over over its distribution.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 2, 2014)

Brian Turner said:


> I don't think the printing press was the problem - it was producing the Bible with one, in a world where the Roman Catholic Church had strict control over over its distribution.



If offered  it to the church , wouldn't that have been a good thing? Yes it would put the monks illuminating manuscripts out of the job, but it would enable them to print more books and bibles, In effect , give them a leg up on the publishing industry?


----------



## AnyaKimlin (Nov 2, 2014)

If you produced the printing press without any track record then you might run the risk of being accused of selling your soul to the devil.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 2, 2014)

AnyaKimlin said:


> If you produced the printing press without any track record then you might run the risk of being accused of selling your soul to the devil.



They had siege  engine technology, windmills , architects and builders in that time. If someone out of the blue invented a mechanical labour saving device like a printing press  doesn't necessity mean inventor gets burned at the stake.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Nov 2, 2014)

It depends what you printed on it.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 2, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> It depends what you printed on it.




Print the Bible or prayer books or classical literature.


----------



## thaddeus6th (Nov 2, 2014)

There were a wide array of schisms, heresies and disagreements about religious stuff. Even marriage vows are based on a mistranslation (love, honour and obey should be love, honour and respect). Easy to imagine a stray pronoun (filioque: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque) causing serious ructions.


----------



## Harpo (Nov 2, 2014)

And of course there was the invention of the typographical error, which caused a few problems later on


----------



## AnyaKimlin (Nov 2, 2014)

BAYLOR said:


> They had siege  engine technology, windmills , architects and builders in that time. If someone out of the blue invented a mechanical labour saving device like a printing press  doesn't necessity mean inventor gets burned at the stake.



Of course not but you could be accused of selling your soul to the devil to get the ability to make the printing press.  People were suspicious.  If you were a time-served smith or engineer of some description it would be less suspicious.  If you come out of nowhere with a new technology then pitch forks at dawn is a possibility.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 2, 2014)

AnyaKimlin said:


> Of course not but you could be accused of selling your soul to the devil to get the ability to make the printing press.  People were suspicious.  If you were a time-served smith or engineer of some description it would be less suspicious.  If you come out of nowhere with a new technology then pitch forks at dawn is a possibility.




interestedly, the Chinese invented movable  type in the 11th century. I wonder how the europeans of that era would have reacted to this kind of innovation if it had been brought to them via a delegation from China ?


----------



## thaddeus6th (Nov 2, 2014)

But Harpo, I'm unmarried! Can I commit fornication instead, sir?


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 2, 2014)

Harpo said:


> And of course there was the invention of the typographical error, which caused a few problems later on


I think any inventor would do his or her best to avoid those given the climate of the 11th century


----------



## Brian G Turner (Nov 2, 2014)

BAYLOR said:


> If offered  it to the church , wouldn't that have been a good thing?



Well, remember, it was the easy availability of printed Bibles - for anyone who could read - that was instrumental in causing the Protestant schism.


----------



## AnyaKimlin (Nov 2, 2014)

BAYLOR said:


> I think any inventor would do his or her best to avoid those given the climate of the 11th century



Its called the adulterers bible.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Nov 2, 2014)

Printing presses in the 11th Century wouldn't be much use as most people couldn't read! For those who could, books were a status symbol and a machine that could fire off cheap copies would not have gone down well.

Even when the printing press was available,people could read and books were more widely available there were a great deal of argument over the Bible being made available to the great unwashed. Those in authority didn't want ordinary folk reading it and deciding on their own interpretations - they wanted them to remain ignorant and be told what to believe in.

The problem you would have with any invention would firstly being able to get to speak to someone who was important enough to be able to do anything about your ideas. The second would be getting them to believe you're not crazy. And even if you did speak to someone, and did get them to listen to you , and they did go ahead and build the thing, the chances are that you would get none of the credit or any financial benefit.

The only way to get noticed, to have any kind of credulity or safety in the 11th Century is to be a warrior. Go back there with a platoon of Marines and a few thousand rounds of bullets and the world is yours.


----------



## BigBadBob141 (Nov 4, 2014)

Trouble with that is you soon run out of bullets, then what do you do?
You'd be better off with 18th century muskets, at least you can cast your own shot and make gunpowder.
You could even take some small bore cannons.
P.S. I'm sure I saw somewhere that, possible the Swedes, made cannons out of tree trunks, they were bound with iron rings to reinforce them.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Nov 4, 2014)

4000 Englishmen died at Hastings, probably similar amounts of French at Agincourt and 1,000 of Richard's men at Bosworth. Back then it only took one decisive battle and a few thousand enemy deaths to conquer a country; a couple of machine-gun nests from the trenches of WWI would probably have  won any major or minor skirmish up to the end of the 15th century.


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 14, 2014)

I doubt good dental hygiene was high on the list in that era imagine having a toothache. Not fun .


----------



## River Boy (Dec 17, 2014)

Surely the task would be to tip the balance at the Battle of Hastings (a close-run thing) so that the Anglo-Saxon way of life isn't destroyed by the Normans.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Dec 17, 2014)

You think they wouldn't demand a rematch the next year?


----------



## River Boy (Dec 17, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> You think they wouldn't demand a rematch the next year?



You can't hang around to achieve a major overseas conquest, but the key thing was that Harold took all his brothers into the battle. Poor strategy left the country leaderless during the months it took William to secure London and hence the throne. Don't think he would have pulled it off with another major rival around, even the Romans needed to strike up a deal after a couple of battles.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Dec 18, 2014)

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Harold held a strong defensive position on a hill, but William tricked them with a feint, causing the Saxons to charge down from their positions, where they were counter-attacked and defeated.

Interestingly enough, other sources tell me that a number of Saxon nobles who survived ended up in Constantinople, and became the backbone of the imperial Varangian Guard.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Dec 18, 2014)

Brian Turner said:


> Interestingly enough, other sources tell me that a number of Saxon nobles who survived ended up in Constantinople, and became the backbone of the imperial Varangian Guard.



Who where then fought (and on a few occasions heavily defeated) by Norman knights from Sicily/Southern Italy as yet another aggressive Norman king tried to procure kingdoms and land he didn't have.  Must have been 'oh no, not again...'


----------



## River Boy (Dec 18, 2014)

Brian Turner said:


> I seem to recall reading somewhere that Harold held a strong defensive position on a hill, but William tricked them with a feint, causing the Saxons to charge down from their positions, where they were counter-attacked and defeated.



It wasn't a feint so much as dumb luck, hence the nickname 'William the Lucky *******'. Had the Saxons not broke ranks thinking the day was won history would have been quite different, seeing as William needed to secure the hill by sunset.

I think there was a lot more to it as well, in terms of it being very close, but been a while since I read up.

Has anyone in these threads mentioned the upcoming dig to test a piece of folklore on Harold's survival?: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-29612656  Will be one for the folklorists like me if it turns out to be true - it's a very obscure piece of folklore saying he survived, compared to the amount of folkloric evidence for Robin Hood or Lady Godiva, for example.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Dec 18, 2014)

Was he called 'Lucky'? Never heard that before, do you have a source? It seems such a modern usage of the term! He definitely was given the title William the ******* by non-Norman sources, no doubt eager to point out his illegitimate birth and therefore to cast aspersions on his noble roots. I guess!


----------



## River Boy (Dec 18, 2014)

Venusian Broon said:


> Was he called 'Lucky'? Never heard that before, do you have a source? It seems such a modern usage of the term! He definitely was given the title William the ******* by non-Norman sources, no doubt eager to point out his illegitimate birth and therefore to cast aspersions on his noble roots. I guess!



Frank McLynn in 'The Year of Three Battles' does (had a quick skim through but haven't found page ref yet), though you have me wondering now if it was from a genuine source or if the nickname was the writer's suggestion.

I thought maybe 'The English Resistance' by Peter Rex too, but can't find my copy.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Dec 18, 2014)

River Boy said:


> Frank McLynn in 'The Year of Three Battles' does (had a quick skim through but haven't found page ref yet), though you have me wondering now if it was from a genuine source or if the nickname was the writer's suggestion.
> 
> I thought maybe 'The English Resistance' by Peter Rex too, but can't find my copy.



Just mildly curious, so don't go out of your way to hunt it down 

Anglo-Saxon English was a pretty 'earthy' language I believe, so they may well have given him that sort of title!


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 18, 2014)

Venusian Broon said:


> Just mildly curious, so don't go out of your way to hunt it down
> 
> Anglo-Saxon English was a pretty 'earthy' language I believe, so they may well have given him that sort of title!



I seem to recall reading that Anglo Saxon  was pretty much a germanic language before the coming of William the Conqueror. The Norman Conquest add words and expressions to Anglo Saxon english over time. 

When william took over he pretty much disenfranchised the Anglo Saxon nobility of their lands , titles and wealth because they sided with Harold .  Had the Anglo Saxon nobility sided with William would he  still disenfranchised them?


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Dec 19, 2014)

paranoid marvin said:


> In all likelihood you would be seen as a foreign spy or witch and hung, but before that the first thing you ate or drank would probably kill you.



I've thought about this thread several times since it was first posted, and that is the same conclusion I arrived at every time.

I just can't imagine any way that being transported to the 11th century could be anything but unmitigated disaster.  A quick and painless death (and the sooner the better) would probably be the best scenario.

Brian, the Willis book is something you might appreciate because of your own research, but not really useful as research material itself (except in the unlikely event that you didn't already know that the plague killed _a lot _of people).


----------



## River Boy (Dec 19, 2014)

BAYLOR said:


> When william took over he pretty much disenfranchised the Anglo Saxon nobility of their lands , titles and wealth because they sided with Harold .  Had the Anglo Saxon nobility sided with William would he  still disenfranchised them?



Don't think that would have mattered as the key complication was that William had promised the Norman nobility lands in England so they would join him in the conquest.

I think I'm right in saying that England was considered the 'Greatest Realm in Christendom' at the time, as it was before rival European nations like France and Spain had formed, so it was quite the prize. Also I get the impression that a lot of people overlook the fact that William was only a Duke in what is now part of France, in order to characterise in an English versus French context. William was head of a warrior people of Scandinavian background who had settled in part of what we now call France but wanted a greater realm, I don't think he gave a damn about relations with the Anglo Saxons.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Dec 19, 2014)

BAYLOR said:


> Had the Anglo Saxon nobility sided with William would he still disenfranchised them?


Yes.
Because he needed to reward his Nobles.
(the Normans were of course not proper French/Franks but originally Vikings?)


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 19, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Yes.
> Because he needed to reward his Nobles.
> (the Normans were of course not proper French/Franks but originally Vikings?)



So The Anglo saxon Nobility was trapped between a rock and a hard place no matter what they did.

If Harold Godwinson had been able to rest his army before Hastings , he might have won.


----------



## Vertigo (Dec 21, 2014)

Which he could have done. He should have stayed in London to rest and consolidate his army. All of William's troops were already landed so Harold would have lost little by delaying and would have gained much. I believe he was so advised but ignored it.


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 21, 2014)

Vertigo said:


> Which he could have done. He should have stayed in London to rest and consolidate his army. All of William's troops were already landed so Harold would have lost little by delaying and would have gained much. I believe he was so advised but ignored it.



End result , he lost the throne and his life. Foolish man  . 

Emperor Valens at Adrianople in 378 AD made a similar mistake against the Goths, same result.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Dec 21, 2014)

Playing devils advocate @Vertigo & @BAYLOR - as hindsight makes things soo easy  - Harold had just utterly crushed the Norwegians (and a rebellious family member). He and his troops probably felt invincible. Perhaps he felt delaying and taking a rest might take the sheen off this feeling, allowing doubt to creep back in. And another factor - the less time they allowed the Normans in England the less deprivations against the Saxon population in the South. Harold was a seasoned fighting man, particularly on the Welsh border, who presumably acted from past experience and knew his strengths and weaknesses when it came to campaigns and battles with his men.

At the end of the day - like many battles - the result was actually on a knife edge. Harold, if he had held out that day, would have got stronger - as men were coming down from London, William weaker and presumably fighting a worsening morale - as practically all of the Normans 'plan A' frontal attack failed. It was probably in fact Harold's overly aggressive and confident elite troops (now a negative feature of the that morale Harold maybe tried to maintain?) that threw the battle by charging in piecemeal and getting destroyed bit by bit rather that sitting up the slope and being defensive.

oh...we're back to resting and perhaps giving the troops some time to get some 'fear' back 

Mind you difficult thing being a king, no? This decision really had to be made instantly. It almost paid off.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Dec 21, 2014)

BAYLOR said:


> End result , he lost the throne and his life. Foolish man  .
> 
> Emperor Valens at Adrianople in 378 AD made a similar mistake against the Goths, same result.



But he did have a Viking invasion at Stamford Bridge. If he'd left that then he could have been fighting a war on two fronts. What he also feared was sitting waiting for an invasion from Normandy that may not even come. So he dealt with the Vikings first. In all honesty they were a greater threat than William was, with more men and the potential for more reinforcements.

William was more of an upstart, a chancer who landed with probably no more than 10,000 troops. He was lucky in that he arrived around the same time that Harold was dealing with the Viking invasion, as if he had come when he had originally intended to then he would have been soundly defeated. He was also lucky in the fact that when he did come half of Harold's army was still in the North, with the remainder fatigued from fighting and marching. 

The only thing Harold did wrong was  getting himself killed; if that hadn't happened, and with reinforcements from the North, he would have lost the battle at Hastings but certainly  ot the war.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Dec 21, 2014)

Venusian Broon said:


> Playing devils advocate @Vertigo & @BAYLOR - as hindsight makes things soo easy  - Harold had just utterly crushed the Norwegians (and a rebellious family member). He and his troops probably felt invincible. Perhaps he felt delaying and taking a rest might take the sheen off this feeling, allowing doubt to creep back in. And another factor - the less time they allowed the Normans in England the less deprivations against the Saxon population in the South. Harold was a seasoned fighting man, particularly on the Welsh border, who presumably acted from past experience and knew his strengths and weaknesses when it came to campaigns and battles with his men.
> 
> At the end of the day - like many battles - the result was actually on a knife edge. Harold, if he had held out that day, would have got stronger - as men were coming down from London, William weaker and presumably fighting a worsening morale - as practically all of the Normans 'plan A' frontal attack failed. It was probably in fact Harold's overly aggressive and confident elite troops (now a negative feature of the that morale Harold maybe tried to maintain?) that threw the battle by charging in piecemeal and getting destroyed bit by bit rather that sitting up the slope and being defensive.
> 
> ...



Haha, great minds think alike!

Yes, he couldn't afford to rest. The last thing you want an enemy force to do is gain a foothold; especially one that has a penchant for building castles (which he had already started to do). Drive them back into the sea, destroy the beach-head. The thing with William (and with many invaders in general) was that lost battle would lose you the war, whilst the 'home side could afford to lose on several occasions and still come out victorious.

As for Harold, he was obviously an incredibly brave man, who lived by the sword and also died by it (well probably an arrow on this occasion!)


----------



## Vertigo (Dec 21, 2014)

Well of course anything is hindsight when we look back on history. How can it not be?

However, and I freely admit my knowledge of this period is definitely not deep, my understanding is that all his advisors were telling him to wait in London for all his stragglers to arrive and then go South in strength.

William already had his beach-head, Harold was already too late to do anything about that. Any castles William built were only going to be wooden forts. Enough to hold off Harold's forces in these pre-gunpowder days maybe but they wouldn't have lasted long in a siege situation. Harold would have had ample supplies for that; William would have had almost none.

English morale might have been strong but they had travelled South so fast they must have been exhausted.

It was a rash decision made more out of patriotic anger, as I understand it, than from any serious strategic thought.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Dec 21, 2014)

Vertigo said:


> It was a rash decision made more out of patriotic anger, as I understand it, than from any serious strategic thought.



I can't deny your logic (Even playing devil's advocate I swing back towards the 'rest and take stock' position anyway!). I was just playing about with the thought that it perhaps was a less rash decision than we think it was. He also may have attempted to surprise William, as he done against the Norwegians and struck very fast, or he may have been worried that fyrd - the common soldiery of the Anglo-Saxons - would have drifted off to go home and get the harvest in, as he had called them out for a very long time and it was getting late in the season. And like I said, his chosen course did result in a close run thing at the end of the day.

After all Alexander the Great made a career out of very bold and rash decisions and that served him very well  (Although I have to admit there must have been a degree of luck for him to survive all the quite psychopathic and crazy things that he decided to do on the battlefield.)


----------



## Vertigo (Dec 21, 2014)

I'll grant you that VB; surprise was probably a major factor in the decision. And, as you, say it very nearly paid off. The Saxons were, I believe, famous for their supremely disciplined shield wall which was totally effective at Hastings until that discipline broke. It is almost certainly that break in discipline that led to defeat rather than the rather dubious story of an arrow in Harold's eye.


----------



## Michael Colton (Dec 22, 2014)

I would certainly die of something or someone, somehow. I am not built to live in them harder times. I don't even like contemporary camping that has electricity and a portable restroom.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Dec 22, 2014)

Michael Colton said:


> die of something


YOU ALL DO MERE MORTAL.



Michael Colton said:


> camping that has electricity and a portable restroom


That's not camping! Unless the electricity is solely in a battery torch going flat. Though finding a pub used to be the only way to get a Public Toilet  in Ireland, once you left Norn Iron.  
*"Portable Restroom"?* Isn't that a heavy thing to cart around?



Thanks to Walsh Waste for Image


----------



## Michael Colton (Dec 22, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> YOU ALL DO MERE MORTAL.
> 
> 
> That's not camping! Unless the electricity is solely in a battery torch going flat. Though finding a pub used to be the only way to get a Public Toilet  in Ireland, once you left Norn Iron.
> ...



Those are not that uncommon in camping grounds in certain areas of the US. Well, it might be a bit rare to see a handicap one - but generally speaking, people do not have to cart it around. It is already there on the camp grounds.

And that gosh darned is camping from my perspective. It involves sleeping outside, as defined by nothing between me and the horror of nature but a flimsy little tent. If a bear could just walk on top of me and squish me in the middle of the night because the confines of my sleep are a thin tarp-like material, that's camping.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Dec 22, 2014)

We don't have bears or snakes


----------



## Michael Colton (Dec 22, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> We don't have bears or snakes



Well, a squirrel then. Squirrels eat acorns, they could certainly chew through a tent and lunge at my eyeballs while I'm asleep.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Dec 22, 2014)

Squirrels in Ireland are not like in USA. They totally avoid people. They will run away even if they think you might look at them. Probably the only wildlife that doesn't avoid people completely are seagulls, rooks, robins, pigeons and hedgehogs. The seagulls may steal your food, but won't peck you. The Hedgehogs are the only one that doesn't run or flyaway.

I'll admit that a rook, carrion crow/hoodie crow or magpie might peck out eyes of young or injured animal. But they certainly avoid people. The robin is just optimistic that you'll disturb an insect or give it raw rolled oats. The biggest risk is wandering horses and the neighbour's dog. Unless you deliberately camp in a field of cattle. I DID ask the farmer's permission, he did tell me which field, but he must have added the cows while I was asleep. They thought the tent was very interesting. But decided after a while that it wasn't either a predator, farmer or food so left it alone. I did wake up floating though as during the night the wind changed and all the rain blew in and filled up the built in waterproof groundsheet. I had a Lilo style airbed.  Lots of nice places to visit have no campsite. Cashel approximately 1977. On Motorbike.


----------



## Michael Colton (Dec 22, 2014)

As soon as one fear is dispatched with another takes its place in my mind. I just am not designed to camp or be in the wilderness (yes, a cow pasture is 'wilderness' to me). A very brief excursion into a forest with little to no undergrowth is about all I can muster. Or parks. I quite like parks in the winter time. Or lakes in the winter time. Or just the winter time in areas where everything is covered with snow - many animals hide away, bugs die or go elsewhere, there is no sweat or outdoorsy smells, and the white of the snow makes it easy to see creatures coming that I would wish to run away from. I could walk around in this all night long, for example.


----------



## River Boy (Dec 22, 2014)

Vertigo said:


> Well of course anything is hindsight when we look back on history. How can it not be?



Also worth debating, in relation to 1066, is whether this was the last battle of a time when there was genuine pride in a leader of men, or king, being also a warrior. Had Harold been of the later type that sat behind the field of battle sorting strategy then retreating when matters looked bad then I can't see how William would have achieved a conquest of England. Perhaps Harold's kind was just doomed to fail but I know I prefer the quality of kings before 1066 than after for many centuries.

Having made that point it has to be said there were different kinds before then too - Edward the Confessor more of a saintly type for example, but Harold was definitely of the warrior type and defeating the Viking army, considering their reputation back then and that England's very formation descended from the empire of Canute, must have felt to him like England had come of age of a warrior nation. One of the most amazing twists of history in that it was all rendered insignificant but days later and England was transformed into a class-driven structure many believe still plagues us even today.

Also agree that Harold would have seen the Normans as defeatable, having just overcome the great Harold Hardrada, probably the most celebrated warrior of his day.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Dec 22, 2014)

River Boy said:


> Also worth debating, in relation to 1066, is whether this was the last battle of a time when there was genuine pride in a leader of men, or king, being also a warrior. Had Harold been of the later type that sat behind the field of battle sorting strategy then retreating when matters looked bad then I can't see how William would have achieved a conquest of England. Perhaps Harold's kind was just doomed to fail but I know I prefer the quality of kings before 1066 than after for many centuries.



The warrior king, aping an 'Alexander' and demonstrating to his country men that he fought beside them took a lot longer to die out, even just in Britain.

James IV of Scotland died in the thick of battle while leading from the front with one wing of his army on Flodden field in 1513 - and was hacked down very much like Harold. (Had he too been sitting at the rear and observing what was happening, he too may have been able to stop such a terrible defeat.*)

I'm sure there may be even more recent examples on the continent or in other areas of the globe. Certainly in England there is surely the various battles of the wars of the roses where Kings really did get into the thick of the action (especially the Yorkish side - Edward IV and Richard III - both very much warriors.)

-------------------------------------

*Well depends on what nationality you are, but as am Scottish, it is therefore terrible!


----------



## Michael F (Dec 22, 2014)

Court jester (mute of course). We have a massive database from movies/tv/theatre to draw upon. Could we utilise that?


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 22, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> We don't have bears or snakes




Not even garter snakes?


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Dec 22, 2014)

No snakes or lizards. Even the Common Newt, which looks like a small lizard is rare and harmless.
No poisonous insects.


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 22, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> No snakes or lizards. Even the Common Newt, which looks like a small lizard is rare and harmless.
> No poisonous insects.




The legend of St Patrick.  The absence of them had to do with the last ice-age didn't it ? 


With all the problems introduced non native species in im surprised no snakes or lizards have found their way there.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Dec 22, 2014)

We have Wallibies!
(Why I don't know!)
There are real documents from time of Patrick. Almost everything in popular conception is made up. Yes, long before Ice age.


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 22, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> We have Wallibies!
> (Why I don't know!)
> There are real documents from time of Patrick. Almost everything in popular conception is made up. Yes, long before Ice age.



The Wallabies are easy to explain.   During the last ice age ocean levels went down resulting in a land bridge that linked both Ireland and Australia. That's how they got there .


----------



## River Boy (Dec 23, 2014)

Venusian Broon said:


> The warrior king, aping an 'Alexander' and demonstrating to his country men that he fought beside them took a lot longer to die out, even just in Britain.
> 
> James IV of Scotland died in the thick of battle while leading from the front with one wing of his army on Flodden field in 1513 - and was hacked down very much like Harold. (Had he too been sitting at the rear and observing what was happening, he too may have been able to stop such a terrible defeat.*)
> 
> I'm sure there may be even more recent examples on the continent or in other areas of the globe. Certainly in England there is surely the various battles of the wars of the roses where Kings really did get into the thick of the action (especially the Yorkish side - Edward IV and Richard III - both very much warriors.)



Completely agree, heard a lot recently about Richard III's battle prowess especially. Perhaps I should have been more succinct and applied to the Anglo Saxon culture and what was expected of leaders, as they seem to have been more inclined to follow someone for their reputation rather than status of royal blood. Probably why Harold came to the throne after all - it's not like Edward the Confessor and Godwin got on well.

Have never found out why Aelfgar of Mercia (Leofric's son) went off the rails, as surely he would have been in line to succeed the childless Edward, with Leofric having always shown loyalty to the Confessor when Godwin had been close to starting civil wars on several occasions.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Dec 23, 2014)

River Boy said:


> Also worth debating, in relation to 1066, is whether this was the last battle of a time when there was genuine pride in a leader of men, or king, being also a warrior.



This could be a good discussion thread in its own right. 

Especially when Henry V comes to mind.


----------



## BAYLOR (Saturday at 2:18 AM)

The people that era lived hard  and in may cases died even harder.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Saturday at 11:27 AM)

Brian G Turner said:


> This could be a good discussion thread in its own right.
> 
> Especially when Henry V comes to mind.



And Richard III. For all of the other things that he may (or may not) have done, he was unquestionably a warrior king, leading his troops into battle. Even the Tudors who vilified him admitted that he was a courageous man.


----------



## BAYLOR (Sunday at 10:41 PM)

And not decent burger joint to had anywhere.


----------



## BAYLOR (Sunday at 10:42 PM)

paranoid marvin said:


> And Richard III. For all of the other things that he may (or may not) have done, he was unquestionably a warrior king, leading his troops into battle. Even the Tudors who vilified him admitted that he was a courageous man.




 Willam Shakespeare did alot of  damage to Richard's reputation.


----------



## THX1138 (Tuesday at 12:37 AM)

BAYLOR said:


> And not decent burger joint to had anywhere.


Or a decent cup of tea either!


----------



## AllanR (Tuesday at 1:30 AM)

I'd scare everyone by standing on the streetcorner and prophesize a solar eclipse ('cause I just happened to know it would happen that afternoon), and then threaten to keep the sun unless they elevated me to king!


----------



## sknox (Wednesday at 6:41 PM)

It's interesting that, given the subject line, everyone has simply assumed England was meant. The conversation would be a little different--in details, at least--if we were speaking of 11thc Sicily or Hungary or Pomerania (aside: 1066 reverberates rather differently in Denmark, and differently yet again along the Elbe River; it was a busy year).

Also, it's not only interesting but rather surprising that no one has brought up _A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court_, which humorously addresses much of this, even to the point of predicting an eclipse to demonstrate powers.


----------



## AllanR (Wednesday at 6:46 PM)

sknox said:


> assumed England


op said assume London


sknox said:


> _A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court_


I guess I was to subtle with  


AllanR said:


> prophesize a solar eclipse ('cause I just happened to know it would happen that afternoon), and then threaten to keep the sun


----------



## sknox (Wednesday at 7:20 PM)

Aw foo. I missed that bit about London. 

And yeah, too subtle. At least for me, evidently!!!


----------



## AllanR (Wednesday at 7:25 PM)

I asked the chat gpt where the best place to live in 1000AD

"It is difficult to say where the "best" place to live in 1000 AD was, as it would depend on an individual's personal preferences and needs. However, some of the most advanced and prosperous civilizations at the time were in China, the Islamic Golden Age (in the Middle East), and Medieval Europe, in cities like Cordoba, Venice and Kiev. They had more developed technology and culture compared to other regions and often had more opportunities for trade and education."


----------



## sknox (Wednesday at 8:59 PM)

Now that's interesting. Being of an older generation, I would have researched in Google. I'm aware of CGPT, but wouldn't have thought to use it to answer this sort of question.


----------



## Alex The G and T (Yesterday at 3:44 AM)

I was always suspicious about that Connecticut blowhard getting conked on the head and mysteriously carrying a half-a-thousand year astronomical almanac on the tip of his tongue.


----------



## Dave (Yesterday at 8:52 AM)

Just discovered this thread ans skimmed through it. Apologies if I missed something.

Illness - Yes, we are descended from the survivors of plagues and have some genetic immunity. We are also innoculated against many diseases, but not everyone has all the innoculations they will require. Also, you can get very sick from a Cold virus. Septicemia and infected wounds would be a problem because you don't have antibiotics.

If you could survive the first few days without being robbed of your spaceman clothing (I'd sell it quickly and go incognito) then you may have a chance. I think that knowledge is key to making money. For example, you could grow Penicillin and make antibiotics. However, I'd be concerned about being thought of as practising witchcraft, and all very well if the patient improves, but what if he dies? Anyhow, someone with better medical knowledge than myself could probably make a living as a physician.

I think that trying to become a monk or nun is a good idea, but not sure at my age how possible that would be. I can't read Latin and I can't sing. This would be a better idea for a young boy or woman.

It is a pity we are in London. As the clerical Universiities of Oxford and Cambridge are a long way away. Also, I could use my own knowledge of Geology and Science to make money by mining, but that's harder in London. If I was in the North East there are still coal seams at the surface where you could dig it up with a spade, or pull it out of a steep river bank. I'd corner a land-owner and show him how much hotter coal burns in a fire than wood, and ask if I could dig it up and sell it and cut him in on a percentage. Later we could build a bell pit or drift mine, and railroads down to the Tyne to export it. If I had any children to carry on the business, they'd soon be running the whole country.

Elsewhere, I might know where to dig to find Iron, Copper, Tin and Gold. I do know where to find semi-pressious jewels like Blue-John. However, we are in London, and I can't afford even the food to get to any of those places. At least, I know some of the Springs around London, so fresh mineral water wouldn't be a problem. Maybe I could make a living from selling water from one of those.

I could also dig chalk from the North Downs and improve some acid heathland soils for the land-owners. My biological knowledge means that I know about fertilisers. I think crop yields could increase sensationally in even just one year, but convincing people of that before they have to do the hard physical work on the land would be difficult. I could show small scale experiments, but my status is so low to begin with and it would take a whole season. How do I prove that I'm not just a crazy old man? Even crop rotation would improve yields, but that involves changing systems that have been around for a long time, and which keep peasants fed every year from their strips of land.

So, I think the main problem is surviving the first few days, and establishing myself in the first year. I need something like the coal or spring water to make enough money to seed a bigger endeavour. I think I could become a brewer or a baker, but I'm too poor to buy those businesses and if I do have any money saved then I can't protect myself from theft. If I get sick, then I won't eat and I'll die. I'd need more luck than skill and knowledge.


----------



## reiver33 (Yesterday at 11:30 AM)

I’m too old to make a living through manual labour and lack any practical skills. Best I could is grab a monk and have him record my predictions for the ‘future’, given my general historical knowledge. Then probably sicken and die...


----------



## Dave (Yesterday at 12:07 PM)

I'm not sure about the idea of selling predictions for the future. I know very little about that Century. I think I might fair okay nearer to the modern day. I know William won the Battle of Hastings in 1066, but if I arrive in 1015 say, how much use to me is that? If I could predict some political event correctly then would they think I had inside knowledge, a foreign spy, or again, witchcraft? The Crab Nebula supernova in 1054 was visble during th day for a year. If I could predict that before it happened someone might notice, but it's likely they'd forget what I had said within a few weeks. It would take at least that time for the word of mouth to spread elsewhere by travellers. I'm also not sure how to turn it into a financial gain. I could sell horoscopes, and my little knowledge of weather, tides and astronomy might help there, but that's mainly about reading people and telling them what it is they want to hear, and I don't have those skills.

Even if you did have the skills of a metal smith, carpenter or cordwainer, within towns these professions were protected. Guilds began in the 11th Century. You probably had to prove that you had worked an apprenticeship, which was recorded. You would certainly need to pay them something first to join. I think the idea of being shipwrecked from some distant shore might work, you could set up shop without the town walls, and if your work was good enough, people would come to you. You still need seed money to buy tools and equipment unless you could find some rich benefactor.


----------

