William the Conqueror took England at the Battle of Hastings in 1066. I believe each army consisted of about 1500 men.
Some, no one knows how many, Saxons did not support Harold because he had given his word to William that William was the rightful heir to England.
Here comes the part we have trouble with. The reason Harold gave his word was that many years before he had been a captive of William and he would have been killed if he hadn’t given his word.
So he gave his word under duress.
So it wasn’t obligatory, right?
Well, the people back in Harold’s day weren’t modern enough to understand that. When you gave your word it was binding, no matter what. Your word was precious, and death was no excuse. If you had to die not to give your word, then you died.
It’s like giving information under torture, once they’ve got it, they’ve got it. Back then, those barbarians figured that once you started excusing people for giving their word, the time would come when “your word” meant nothing.
If you’ve ever studied contract law, you will realize they were right.
#1 by joe rorke on 11/19/2005 - 5:28 pm
This story seems to smack of your “temporal provincialism” concept (although I’ve only heard it once). I need to look at it much more carefully. As soon as I saw the word “obligatory” I started thinking legally. But the obligation could have been moral. Personally, if I give you my word it is a matter of honour. It means something to me. I am not concerned about “modern” society. I kind of like that oldfashioned attitude described in your story. It sure beats the hell out of “modern,” “I fooled you, I fooled you, I got pig iron, I got pig iron, I got aaahhhlll pig iron.” The Rock Island Line was a mighty good line.
#2 by Elizabeth on 11/19/2005 - 6:04 pm
Not only did Harold give his word, he swore his oath on a relic of
the True Cross, so say many of the accounts of the oath-taking.
The only modern equivalent I can think of, and it’s pretty weak
in comparison, is a sworn witness testifying in a court case
— and later admitting that he lied under oath. That kind
of thing _can_ result in some sort of prison term.
#3 by CL on 11/19/2005 - 9:52 pm
“In 1066 at the Battle of Hasting, William of France gave Harold a pasting.”
Bob said:
“It’s like giving information under torture, once they’ve got it, they’ve got it. Back then, those barbarians figured that once you started excusing people for giving their word, the time would come when “your word” meant nothing.”
I’m sure the Dersh’s crowd subscribes to the first quoted idea. But this also smacks of victors writing history. The concept of “a man’s word” itself loses meaning if it’s garnered by torture. Torturers themselves are to blame for discounting the value of a man’s word, not the poor guys on the rack. To take the line that the torture-ee is to blame is to give torturers a license to steal (via torture, etc). Talk about insult to injury! That’s barbarism.
It’s romantic to put the blame on Harold. But doing so leads to Soviet-style show trials complete with “confessions.”
And how reliable is information (not a “concession” ala Harold) gained under torture, anyway? I wouldn’t think very.
(Mind you, I have no idea what really happened between Harold and William. That’s not relevant to this discussion.)
I agree that the cell phone companies support William’s position. 😀