1066 And All That

Today is the 950th anniversary of the Battle of Hastings. The Norman conquest of England is a significant historical moment as it radically changed England's political and social lines of development. Put simply England became more French, less Scandinavian. King Harold, the loser of the battle, has often been described with some sympathy by modern English writers. He and his Anglo-Saxons are described as patriotic Englishmen fighting against the foreign invader. Even the battle is described as the brave English fighting honorably (on foot, fighting face-to-face, with axes, swords, and spears), whilst the continental Normans were very devious and unsporting (riding horses, shooting bows, and using tricks like fake retreats - the latter would be comparable to taking a dive in soccer). Those rotten, foreign Normans. Of course, it's nonsense. Really 950 years ago there were no English, barely an England, and the Normans simply had more sophisticated tactics and techniques than the Anglo-Saxons. The Normans were also masters of Propaganda. They used a dispute between Harold and the Pope over the Archbishopric of Canterbury to get Papal support and fight under a Papal banner, giving the invasion almost the status of a crusade. The Normans also created an entire tale about Harold once swearing an oath to God, over Holy Relics, that he would support the Norman Duke William as king rather than himself. They presented Harold therefore as a perjurer and an oath breaker because he allegedly "seized" the throne himself. Very bad. Very unChristian. Therefore, God ensured Harald's downfall. It was for the Normans a very convenient story to rationalize their conquest. Because the Norman victors wrote the chronicles, and had the famous Bayeux Tapestry made, this story of Harold's perfidy stuck around for a long time. That is until modern nationalist propaganda reversed the story into a different myth serving a new purpose. Propaganda continues to create powerful stories today. Despite the vast array of sources we have access to, convenient fictions are still successfully constructed and willfully believed. This is problematic in itself. How can we make rational voting decisions if we can't separate truth from lies? However, the worst part is some lies - nationalist ones, religious ones - strike core tribal emotions which invoke fear, hate, and violence. If the story you believe paints a politician as exceptionally venal and corrupt, or as treasonous, or a threat to your faith, or perhaps even a murderer, then the fear and hate that story has intentionally provoked in you could turn you violent. Thus, fictions created for political gain can spiral unintentionally into riots, insurrections, even civil wars. Be careful what you believe. Just because it's in the Bayeux Tapestry doesn't mean it's true.