Post by Catsmate on Sept 19, 2014 12:14:46 GMT
On the second of August 1100 William II, aka William Rufus or William the Red, third son of William the Conqueror died while hunting somewhere in the New Forest (probably near Brockenhurst) from an arrow fired into his lung. Thus the second Norman king of England died.
Even the most conservative historians describe the circumstances of William's death as murky; according to (probably) reliable contemporary sources he was shot by one of his hunting party (often named as Walter Tirel). The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, for example, rather blandly records that William was "shot by an arrow by one of his own men"
However conspiracy theories abound that the "accident" wasn't so accidental...
William wasn't a popular man. The Normans under his father had won at Hastings in 1066 but Britain was still restive under his son, who was crowned on the ninth of September 1087.
William was born in 1056 (or thereabouts) and basically nothing is known about his childhood, other than he was educated by Lanfranc and was prone to mischief often directed as his eldest brother Robert. At his death in 1087 William I (the Conqueror) bequeathed lands between his sons
This was unpopular with the nobles, many held land on both sides of the Channel and feared annoying one or other of the rival brothers, with possible loss of lands. This lead to the Rebellion of 1088, where mostly barons in Normandy (led by Bishop Odo) attempted to unite both land under Robert. The attempt failed and William II invaded Normandy in 1091. However the brothers eventually reached an understanding and Normandy was mortgaged to William II in 1097 when Robert went Crusading.
Under William II England achieved reasonably stable government, secure borders (he crushed Scottish invasion attempts and envasseled the Scottish kings) and efficient administration. However relations with the feudal lords were often poor, his taxations were resented, relations with Scotland and Wales were terrible (invasions are often resented) and his relationship with teh church was also bad. William had the power of investiture (appointment of church offices) but often left bishoprics empty to collect their revenues himself. He also argued frequently with Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093.
Personality.
Little reliable is known about William's temperament, and sources are often contradictory. He has been accused of lacking dignity and the usual social graces, of lacking religious piety and indeed being "addicted to every kind of vice, particularly lust and especially sodomy".
Physically he was described as "well set; his complexion florid, his hair yellow; of open countenance; different coloured eyes, varying with certain glittering specks; of astonishing strength, though not very tall, and his belly rather projecting".
Death.
William went hunting in the New Forrest on the 2nd of August 1100, accompanied by a party of nobles including his younger brother Henry. The exact place and circumstances of his death are not known. Even the name of the person who fired the arrow is uncertain, Tirel is named by later chronicles which are known to contain errors.
The most complete contemporary account of the incident was written by a monk, William of Malmesbury. He states that William had had an ominous dream the night before his death, which led him to feel uneasy, but he set out into the forest for a days hunting with a few companions.
The party spread out as they chased their prey, Walter Tirel was the only one who stayed with the king when the party scattered in the chase. William shot an arrow at a stag, which wounded it and shielded his eyes with his hand against the rays of the low sun to spot where it ran. Just at this point another stag appeared on the scene and Tirel fired at it. He missed and his arrow pierced William's chest. The King is said to have broken off the shaft which was protruding from his chest, but collapsed and fell on the remainder of the arrow, which drove it in further.
Tirel is reported to have rushed to his aid, but found him unconscious and beyond help.
Aftermath.
William's body was left where it fell as the nobles who'd accompanied him scattered. His brother Henry departed hastily to seize the Royal Treasury at Winchester, accompanied by Gilbert and Richard de Clare and possibly others.
William's body was found by a local charcoal burner named Purkis, and her and other local peasants carried the corpse to Winchester by cart; William was buried in the cathedral there.
Whether the shot was accidental or not, Tirel (also styled Sir Walter Tyrell and Walter Thurold) panicked and fled to his estates in France, where he was Lord of Piox de Picardie. He never returned to England and didn't speak of the incident.
Involving the time travellers.
Well it's an interesting bit of historical trivia, just the sort of thing Doctor 5 or 6 would drag his companions to see.
Basically I see four types of scenarios:
1. Arrive accidentally
The party ind themselves in 1100 by accident, hilarity ensues. Maybe they inadvertently prevent the killing shot, leaving William alive. Cue Reapers...
So the party now have to fix time, is anyone handy with a bow?
2. Arrive deliberately to investigate
Maybe a companion wants to discover exactly what happened. Or for a different campaign the party's bosses send them there to study the incident. Was there a plot to assassinate William? Or did ambitious nobles take advantage of an accident?
3. Encounter researchers.
This is one of those historical details that historians have argued over for centuries. If time travel is possible someone (from Gandalf to the ArcHive) will want to go back and document the events properly. Perhaps the PCs arrive and notice they're being shadowed by some suspiciously attentive birds or find bugging devices in the hunter's gear.
Maybe it's the early days of time travel and things aren't as well organised and efficient as they should be.
4. Meddling with history.
A small party alone in the forrest has possibilities for someone with less academic intentions. Prevent William's death, replace him with a duplicate, hypnotise him (or Henry) and take control. It's an interesting period with Norman power at a peak due and that of the Pope and Holy Roman Emperor eclipsed.
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle puts forward contemporary views of William II:
Of course this was written by clergy with whom William was in almost constant conflict.
- William, by the way, did not have red hair. The nickname came from his choleric and red-faced appearance.
Even the most conservative historians describe the circumstances of William's death as murky; according to (probably) reliable contemporary sources he was shot by one of his hunting party (often named as Walter Tirel). The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, for example, rather blandly records that William was "shot by an arrow by one of his own men"
However conspiracy theories abound that the "accident" wasn't so accidental...
- But then there are such theories about the death of pretty much every person of note.
William wasn't a popular man. The Normans under his father had won at Hastings in 1066 but Britain was still restive under his son, who was crowned on the ninth of September 1087.
William was born in 1056 (or thereabouts) and basically nothing is known about his childhood, other than he was educated by Lanfranc and was prone to mischief often directed as his eldest brother Robert. At his death in 1087 William I (the Conqueror) bequeathed lands between his sons
- his original inheritance, the Duchy of Normandy, went to his eldest son Robert Curthose
- William, his third son and favourite, received England (Robert attempted his own rebellion against William I)
This was unpopular with the nobles, many held land on both sides of the Channel and feared annoying one or other of the rival brothers, with possible loss of lands. This lead to the Rebellion of 1088, where mostly barons in Normandy (led by Bishop Odo) attempted to unite both land under Robert. The attempt failed and William II invaded Normandy in 1091. However the brothers eventually reached an understanding and Normandy was mortgaged to William II in 1097 when Robert went Crusading.
- This required the raising of 10,000 marks (a mark was two thirds of a pound or 160 pence), around a quarter of William's annual revenue necessitating a highly unpopular round of taxation in England
Under William II England achieved reasonably stable government, secure borders (he crushed Scottish invasion attempts and envasseled the Scottish kings) and efficient administration. However relations with the feudal lords were often poor, his taxations were resented, relations with Scotland and Wales were terrible (invasions are often resented) and his relationship with teh church was also bad. William had the power of investiture (appointment of church offices) but often left bishoprics empty to collect their revenues himself. He also argued frequently with Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093.
- In 1097 Anselm left for Rome in 1097 to seek the advice of the pope; William promptly seized his estates.
Personality.
Little reliable is known about William's temperament, and sources are often contradictory. He has been accused of lacking dignity and the usual social graces, of lacking religious piety and indeed being "addicted to every kind of vice, particularly lust and especially sodomy".
- William may well have been homosexual, certainly he left no legitimate or known illegitimate children
Physically he was described as "well set; his complexion florid, his hair yellow; of open countenance; different coloured eyes, varying with certain glittering specks; of astonishing strength, though not very tall, and his belly rather projecting".
Death.
William went hunting in the New Forrest on the 2nd of August 1100, accompanied by a party of nobles including his younger brother Henry. The exact place and circumstances of his death are not known. Even the name of the person who fired the arrow is uncertain, Tirel is named by later chronicles which are known to contain errors.
The most complete contemporary account of the incident was written by a monk, William of Malmesbury. He states that William had had an ominous dream the night before his death, which led him to feel uneasy, but he set out into the forest for a days hunting with a few companions.
The party spread out as they chased their prey, Walter Tirel was the only one who stayed with the king when the party scattered in the chase. William shot an arrow at a stag, which wounded it and shielded his eyes with his hand against the rays of the low sun to spot where it ran. Just at this point another stag appeared on the scene and Tirel fired at it. He missed and his arrow pierced William's chest. The King is said to have broken off the shaft which was protruding from his chest, but collapsed and fell on the remainder of the arrow, which drove it in further.
Tirel is reported to have rushed to his aid, but found him unconscious and beyond help.
Aftermath.
William's body was left where it fell as the nobles who'd accompanied him scattered. His brother Henry departed hastily to seize the Royal Treasury at Winchester, accompanied by Gilbert and Richard de Clare and possibly others.
- Interesting Richard de Clare's daughter, Adelize, was married to Walter Tirel...
William's body was found by a local charcoal burner named Purkis, and her and other local peasants carried the corpse to Winchester by cart; William was buried in the cathedral there.
- He was actually buried under the cathedral tower, and when the shoddily built tower collapsed the following year it was widely attributed to the judgement of God upon William Rufus.
Whether the shot was accidental or not, Tirel (also styled Sir Walter Tyrell and Walter Thurold) panicked and fled to his estates in France, where he was Lord of Piox de Picardie. He never returned to England and didn't speak of the incident.
- Except, according to Abbot Suger who claimed that William had sworn to him "that on the day in question he was not in the part of the forest where the king was hunting, nor ever saw him in the forest at all". Hmm...
Involving the time travellers.
Well it's an interesting bit of historical trivia, just the sort of thing Doctor 5 or 6 would drag his companions to see.
Basically I see four types of scenarios:
1. Arrive accidentally
The party ind themselves in 1100 by accident, hilarity ensues. Maybe they inadvertently prevent the killing shot, leaving William alive. Cue Reapers...
So the party now have to fix time, is anyone handy with a bow?
2. Arrive deliberately to investigate
Maybe a companion wants to discover exactly what happened. Or for a different campaign the party's bosses send them there to study the incident. Was there a plot to assassinate William? Or did ambitious nobles take advantage of an accident?
3. Encounter researchers.
This is one of those historical details that historians have argued over for centuries. If time travel is possible someone (from Gandalf to the ArcHive) will want to go back and document the events properly. Perhaps the PCs arrive and notice they're being shadowed by some suspiciously attentive birds or find bugging devices in the hunter's gear.
- Cue misunderstandings and suspicious about the intentions of each side. Expect multiple factions within teh academics and a stereotypical lack of practical skills.
- Especially if the PC's have screwed things up already; preventing William's death for example.
Maybe it's the early days of time travel and things aren't as well organised and efficient as they should be.
- Connie Willis has written an excellent series of books involving time travelling historians from the late twenty-first century University of Oxford (Fire Watch, Doomsday Book, To Say Nothing of the Dog, and Blackout/All Clear). Well worth a read.
- And where did Oxford acquire a time machine? Did a certain Professor leave a few bits of his TARDIS behind him?
4. Meddling with history.
A small party alone in the forrest has possibilities for someone with less academic intentions. Prevent William's death, replace him with a duplicate, hypnotise him (or Henry) and take control. It's an interesting period with Norman power at a peak due and that of the Pope and Holy Roman Emperor eclipsed.
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle puts forward contemporary views of William II:
'He was very harsh and fierce in his rule over his realm and towards his followers and to all his neighbours and very terrifying. Influenced by the advice of evil councillors, which was always gratifying to him, and by his own covetousness, he was continually exasperating this nation with depredations and unjust taxes. In his days therefore, righteousness declined and every evil of every kind towards God and man put up its head. Everything that was hateful to God and to righteous men was the daily practice in this land during his reign. Therefore he was hated by almost all his people and abhorrent to God. This his end testified, for he died in the midst of his sins without repentance or atonement for his evil deeds.'