A couple of "Filth"-style history articles.

Bugs ****ing Bunny · September 21, 2003, 14:45

In case anyone's interested. I've stopped posting them here for some reason.

Blood, Guts and Spunk- The life of Harald Hardrada

In Britain, Harald Hardrada ("The Ruthless") is a mere cameo role in history- known only for his unsuccessful attempt to invade England in 1066. This is a crying shame, because the man was solid gold legend material; his life story is the sort of rip-roaring combination of violence and farce to cause priapism in any Hollywood producer. Why his life story hasn't been filmed remains a mystery to me, but I'm happy to do what I can to redress the balance.

Harald III Sigurdsson (to give him his full title) was always a bit of a throwback. While other Scandinavian kings had spent the past century really getting these statesmanship and nobility things down to a fine art, Harald was far more in tune with the Viking raiders of 300 years earlier. He even managed to make Ivar the Boneless look like a bit of a big girl's blouse. A blonde giant, supposedly around seven feet tall, his prowess in battle was legendary, matched only by the prowess of the contents of his chain-mail jockstrap.

His older half-brother was Olaf II Haraldsson, king of Norway, and from adolescence onwards Harald was fighting for his brother. He had already showed promise as a warrior when in 1030, at the age of just 15 he took part in the disastrous Battle of Stiklestad, where the Norse forces were defeated by the Danish forces of Cnut. Olaf II was killed in the battle, and Cnut's agents weren't about to leave any convenient heirs go free. Young Harald, not for the last time in his colourful life, fled the country.

Heading south-east he ended up in the service of the Grand Prince Yaroslav, who took on the young warrior as promising elite bodyguard. This combination of courtly favours and brutalviolence in a job suited Harald just fine, but unfortunately he quickly developed a failing to keep "Harald Jr" in his pants at the right moment. Within a couple of years he was enthusiastically rogering Yaroslav's daughter Elizabeth, and when the enraged Prince caught them at it he was once again required to make a run for the borders, hitching his pants up on the way.

He stopped running when he reached Constantinople, and enlisted into the Varangian bodyguard of the Byzantine Emperor, Michael IV. Once again, his ability to turn opponents into wobbly piles of offal was noted with approval by his employer, and he fought with notable heroics in Sicily and Bulgaria. With meteoric speed he was promoted to leader of the Imperial Bodyguard, though once again his dangly bits had a significant part to play.

At that time, the real power in Byzantium was wielded by the Empress Zoe (who featured in "Historical Filth- Big-breasted Psychobints from hell"). Zoe was a ruthless and highly-sexed old crow, prone to giving her latest young playthings important positions, before brutally discarding them- Michael IV was one of three lovers she made Emperor. With young Harald only too obvious around the palace, it was only a matter of time before the strapping Norse stud met Zoe's eye and greying loins. The 37-year age gap between them was no problem, and Harald's spear was not his only shaft pressed into imperial service.

It didn't pay to get complacent with one as unpredictable and callous as old Zoe, however. Harald was watching (and may even have played a role in) the overthrowing and blinding of Michael V Calaphates, and he was under no illusions as far as the Empress was concerned. As soon as he fell into disfavour, he made his usual exit from the state at high speed. Having spent a few years porking a coffin-dodger, he found himself craving fresher meat so he took a detour back through Russian land and spirited off his old flame Elizabeth from Yaroslav's court. Marrying her en route, the serial escapee exited Kiev at top speed.

Harald returned to Norway in 1045, and this time his fortunes were looking up. He was now 30 years old, and his nephew Magnus I Olafsson was on the throne- the two of them agreed to share power. Within two years, Magnus was killed in battle, leaving Harald as sole king of Norway.

He spent the next 19 years in power, but it wasn't a good time for Norway. Harald couldn't resist taking a pop at the Danes, and launched into a long and bloody attempt to topple the Danish king Sweyn II. Strictly speaking, Harald should have won this, but he was far too busy doing traditional Viking raids to put together coherent military strategies. This war ended in a stalemate in 1062, but Harald wasn't finished yet. He had already had major fallings out with every major religious leader going (he wasn't the pious type) including the Pope. Now he was after another conquest to see him into history. So far he had extended Norse territory in the Orkneys, but he was tempted by a much bigger prize.

Through an old treaty between Edmund Ironside and Harthacanute, Harald Hardrada had a claim on the English crown, and when the embittered Tostig (brother of the English king Harold II) came forward with an invasion plot, Harald was well up for it. He put together a massive fleet and invaded.

In the famous precursor to the Battle of Hastings, Harold Hardrada's forces met Harold II's at Stamfordbridge. Typically, the huge old warrior was in the thick of things, but early in the battle his luck ran out and he was cut down. His sole gain on English soil proved to be the seven feet of earth they laid him in. The weakened Saxon forces rushed south to their defeat, and the story of one of history's greatest chancers came to an end.

Bugs ****ing Bunny · September 21, 2003, 14:47

A Filth guide to Clan war

The casual brutality in Scottish history beggars belief, and it's remarkable how much of it has become institutionalised, fetishised and even romanticised. People all over the world investigating their distant Scottish ancestors can access websites detailing their tartans and letting them know which rival clans they're entitled to butcher. There's no equivalent in England- partly due to the fact that there was no real clan structure, but mostly due to the fact that there was far more unity and centralisation of power under the crown.

In Scotland, the situation was very different. What is now considered to be the Scottish Royal Family only really controlled the kingdom of Alba, the lowlands areas. In the Highlands of the north, the Vikings were in control until 1156 when Somerled established himself as King of the Isles. Somerled's line controlled the Highlands until 1266, and for 300 years after when they were relegated to mere "Lords of the Isles" they were still effectively autonomous and damned rebellious with it. Scotland was one nation in name only.

In the Highlands, clans made sense. Powerful families stuck together, and took lesser vassal clans into their service. Problems arose when disputes over land or cattle kicked off- in such a harsh environment survival was sometimes only possible by rustling cattle or occupying farmland- and in a clan society the resulting feuds could simmer for centuries. The most well-known is the MacDonald v Campbell feud, and I still see bickering between people with these names. As you're about to see, that was just the tip of the iceberg. Allow me to present my personal favourite top 5 bloody clan slaughters....

5- Clan Gunn v Clan Keith 1340- 1480.

One of the less celebrated clan wars, but it proved to be one of the longest-running. It's lacking in fame probably because neither of the clans involved were among the bling-bling Highland glitterati. The bloodshed kicked off in 1340 when Dugald Keith spotted Helen Gunn, "The Beauty of Braemore", and tried a spot of traditional Highland sexual harrassment. After being told to bugger off in no uncertain terms, Dugald returned on the eve of Helen's wedding to Alexander Gunn and attacked the wedding party- there were deaths on both sides. Helen Gunn was abducted, imprisoned and raped in Keith castle, where she committed suicide by jumping from the battlements.

140 years of guerilla warfare, raids and rustling followed. Finally the two clans agreed to settle the feud in a ritualised trial of combat at the standing stones of Mannistanes Hill. Here the Keith champion Caidh Mor ("The Big Keith") felled 5 Gunn warriors with his Claymore, before one of the wounded Gunns on the ground hamstrung him with a dirk. The Keiths conceded defeat to the Gunns and the feud was settled.

4- Clan McGregor v Clan Colquhoun 1525- 1603

This feud has been subject to serious revisionism, and as usual it manages to demonise the apparently unconnected Campbell clan, the favourite scapegoats of the clan wars. The "official" history is that the dastardly lickspittle Campbells manipulated a fued between the Colquhouns and the daring McGregors in 1602, in order to get the McGregors outlawed, leaving their lands free for seizure.
This is a load of old cobblers. The McGregors (particularly Rob Roy) are among the most celebrated of clans, and certainly one of the oldest- tracing their line back to Kenneth MacAlpin, the first king of Scotland. However they were also notorious for their hair-trigger tempers, outrageous acts of theft and rustling. The expression "blackmail" is a McGregor invention- they charged neighbouring clans "black meal" payments to ensure that their cattle wouldn't mysteriously vanish. These people were not the wronged heroes of later myths.
Trouble had been brewing since at least 1525 due to repeated McGregor raids on Colquhoun cattle, but it really kicked off in 1602. On a cold winter's night, two McGregors asked for shelter at a Colquhoun settlement but were turned away. They stole a sheep to eat, and the next morning they were seized and executed. The McGregors promptly went apeshit.

(At this point I must introduce a vital point of clan etiquette. The real problem was not the executions- which were entirely within the bounds of the law- but the fact that they were refused hospitality. Hospitality is a major sticking point in Highland relations, as you'll see in later sections.)

On the 7th December 1602 the McGregors launched a major raid on the Colquhouns, killing two men and stealing 300 head of cattle plus at least twice that number of sheep and horses. The Colquhouns (under the advice of the Campbells) appealed to King James (now king of England and Scotland) who outlawed the McGregors entirely- every man woman and child could be killed with impunity. However when the clans first clashed in battle, the Colquhouns were routed, losing 80 men and hundreds more cattle.

What followed was not so much clan war as an extraordinary guerilla war headed by Rob Roy McGregor, who lead the King's troops, the Campbells and the Colquohouns a merry dance for years, stealing hundreds of cattle. The feud with the Colquohouns fizzled out, only to be replaced by....

3- Clan MacGregor v Clan Campbell (1369- 1745)

Make no mistake- these two clans really hated each other. While the MacGregors were very much part of the Highland establishment, the Campbells habitually sided with the Scottish kings. Coupled with the fact that they were neighbours (to say nothing of the cattle-stealing habits of the MacGregors) this placed them at each other's throats for centuries.
The hostilities really commenced in 1369 when King David II granted Glenorchy (the ancient seat of the MacGregors), as part of his revenge against supporters of John, Lord of the Isles. Over the next 150 years the MacGregors were frequently goaded to violence by Campbell provocation, while the Campbells used the law in retaliation, stripping away McGregor lands.
In 1603, after the McGregors were outlawed, the Earl of Argyll (head of the Campbells) offered safe passge into exile for the MacGregors of Glenstrae, but turned them over to their execution- another breach of Highland hospitality.
From then on the MacGregors took every opportunity to oppose the Campbells. In the late 17th century, Rob Roy MacGregor robbed them blind, and the clans fought each other at each Jacobite uprising. It ended, as all Highland autonomy did, at Cullodden in 1745. As ever, it was the Campbells who got the victory while the MacGregors won the popularity contest.

2- Clan Campbell v Clan MacDonald (1344- 1745)

The most famous of the clan feuds tends to be represented as a straight clash of the imperialist running dog Campbells in the thrall of the Evil English Empire persecuting the noble MacDonald Highlanders. Predictably, the true story is a lot murkier. Ultimately it boils down to a straight power struggle between two ruthlessly ambitious clans, with religious bigotry thrown in for good measure.

The MacDonalds were the royalty of the Highlands. They were the descendants of the great Somerled, and were the Kings/Lords of the Isles, controlling huge tracts of the Highlands and Western Isles with many vassal clans. Although the Campbells were certainly an old clan (dating back to the 13th century) they were not of particularly glamorous descent. However they had one strong point in their favour- an unerring ability to back the winning side. For over 300 years they built their territory in the former MacDonald ground of Argyll through supporting the Scottish royal family in disputes against the Lords of the Isles and other Highland troublemakers. Typically they used the law against their opponents, but there was no doubting their ruthless streak- several small clans were annihilated by the Campbells and even powerful clans like the MacGregors were beaten back by them.

Despite taking place between two such headstrong clans, the Campbell/MacDonald feud was low on battles and slaughter- it was a a centuries-long simmering grudge match with the MacDonalds gradually being penned in. The situation grew worse in the religious intolerance of the 17th century, as the Protestant Campbells used their good standing with King William of England to bolster their power. The MacDonald, being Catholic supporters of the deposed King James II and his Jacobite descendants, were always going to be in danger. The **** finally hit the fan in 1692.

MacIain (head of the MacDonalds of Glencoe) had finally taken the oath of allegiance to William II under duress, but had done so a week after the deadline. This gave the English forces (and their Campbell allies) a valid excuse to persecute them. In January 1692, a force of 120 Argyll soldiers under Campbell leadership were stationed with the Glencoe MacDonalds for two weeks- a peaceful fortnight with no hint of trouble. However on 12th February, the soldiers were ordered to kill all MacDonalds under the age of seventy- and a massacre followed.

This was the infamous Glencoe massacre. Oddly enough it was nothing special by Highland standards- 38 men, women and children were murdered, whilst others died in the snow. It's infamy was again due to the fact that it was a breach of hospitality- it ws considered acceptable to butcher hundreds of unarmed adults and children as long as you weren't sneaky about it. It backfired badly too- the disgusted Highland clans promptly started rallying around the Jacobite cause.

The MacDonald/Campbell feud was formalised in the Jacobite uprisings, and (like many other feuds) ended with the crushing of the Highlands in the aftermath of Cullodden.

1- Clan MacDonald v Clan MacLeod (1375- 1602)

Though it's less celebrated than other feuds, this was the bloodiest and most horrific by far. Unlike the Campbell feuds, this one took place far away from the Lowlands and so attracted less attention (much as today's slaughter in the Congo slipped off the radar).

As has already been covered, the MacDonalds ruled the Western Isles. The MacLeods had a royal decent too, however- they trace their descent from the Norse Kings of Man. As a result, they were by no means cowed by the MacDonalds and had a bit of an axe to grind from the start. The MacLeod clan's stronghold was the Isle of Skye, with other settlements on other Western Isles (particularly in the Outer Hebrides). Being an unbelievable bunch of headcases (even by Highland standards) the MacLeods really deserve a "Historical Filth" of their own- one day it'll be done

In 1375 the MacDonalds invaded Skye, and a major battle took place at Sligachan where the MacLeods were defeated. The MacDonalds seized large estates on Skye, and for the next 100 years the MacLeods were a vassal clan. This suited the MacDonalds well as the MacLeods were noted for their battle skills, and in the great battle of Harlaw in 1411, the army of Donald MacDonald was partially commanded by "Fierce Iain" MacLeod, possibly the most berzerk clan chief ever seen (He died a few years later when he became so enraged during a wrestling bout that all his old battle scars opened up simultaneously, causing him to bleed to death).

It went badly wrong for the MacDonalds in 1480 when their clan was torn apart by an internal power struggle. This was settled at the Battle of Bloody Bay on the wild Ardnamurchan peninsula when the MacLeods backed the deposed Lord of the Isles against his own bastard son, Black Angus MacDonald. The MacLeods were beaten, losing their Laird William in the process. For the next ten years this placed the MacLeods at war with the dominant MacDonald faction.

Black Angus MacDonald was murdered by an Irish harper in 1490, and the faction the MacLeods had backed returned to power. However by this point the MacLeods were no longer willing to become good servants of the MacDonalds again, and started backing oppenents of their former masters in a number of feuds. It probably didn't help that the MacLeod Laird Alasdair had been left hunchbacked by a blow from a MacDonald battleaxe in a raid on Skye following Bloody Bay. During open rebellion in 1493, Alasdair captured the MacDonald's Skye stronghold of Duntulm, and from then on the conflict became increasingly bloody.

Unlike most feuds, this one was open war. The MacLeods were warriors, not bandits like the MacGregors, and the feud contained several major battles such as at Glendale in 1530. In 1577 the conflict took an even darker turn. A raiding party of MacLeods raped some MacDonald women on the Isle of Eigg but were captured before they could escape. They were castrated and sent back to Skye. The enraged MacLeods stormed Eigg the next year, herded every single MacDonald man, woman and child into a cave and lit fires at the entrance. 395 MacDonalds died- the worst massacre in the history of the Clan Wars.

Two years later the MacDonalds of Uist stormed Skye. A large raiding party attacked the town of Trumpan, herded the resident MacLeods into the church and burned it. It proved a Pyrrhic victory because the alarm was raised at the MacLeod stronghold of Dunvegan, and while the MacDonald boats were still stranded by the tide they were attacked. In the ensuing "Battle of the spoiled ****" the MacDonalds were wiped out, though it did provide one moment of black comedy when a particularly irate MacLeod continued to fight and kill MacDonalds on his stumps after having both his legs hacked off.

The last act of the feud took place after a failed attempt at diplomacy. Margaret MacLeod, sister of the MacLeod Laird, was betrothed to Donald Gorm Mor MacDonald, but no wedding took place. Instead she was sent back to the MacLeods with only one eye, riding a one-eyed horse with a one-eyed groom and a one-eyed dog. This calculated insult provoked the "War of the One Eyed Woman" of 1602. In the last battle between the clans, the MacLeods were routed and the clans settled the feud.

Stefu · September 21, 2003, 14:55

And here I was wondering whether Laz had run out of his writing funky juice already. However, that doesn't excuse the use of such a rampantly grating Britticism as "big girl's blouse". No wonder the Empire fell, what with the officials using phrases like "big girl's blouse" and possibly hoppity-skippiting around as well.

The first one was golden, but the second one was hampered by me knowing or caring a diddle about Scottish history.

Boris Godunov · September 21, 2003, 15:06

Are you compiling a book, Laz?

cinch · September 21, 2003, 15:15

Good stuff.

Quote:

(He died a few years later when he became so enraged during a wrestling bout that all his old battle scars opened up simultaneously, causing him to bleed to death).

Can this really happen?

Bugs ****ing Bunny · September 21, 2003, 15:29

It can. High blood pressure can cause scars to open. On a scale as described above it's pretty damned rare, however.

Bugs ****ing Bunny · September 21, 2003, 15:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Are you compiling a book, Laz?

Not of these. I'm working on a historical fiction set in 10th century England.

Boris Godunov · September 21, 2003, 15:33

You should compile a book of the filth. I think it would do well and generate a lot of public interest in the seedier side of history.

Buck Birdseed · September 21, 2003, 15:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp

Not of these. I'm working on a historical fiction set in 10th century England.

Maybe you should compile a few and send around to publishers just in case?

Guynemer · September 21, 2003, 19:58

Brilliant as ever.

Sikander · September 21, 2003, 21:01

Fun fun fun!

chequita guevara · September 21, 2003, 21:48

YAY!

Skanky Burns · September 21, 2003, 22:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Guynemer
Brilliant as ever.

monolith94 · September 22, 2003, 00:48

It's very definitely publishable quality.

Ben Kenobi · September 22, 2003, 01:11

Much more interesting than the usual history readings.

Publish the filth, no one will remember these periods the same way. You make these characters intriguing, not mere names and places.

Bas · September 22, 2003, 05:30

A great read.

FrustratedPoet · September 22, 2003, 05:54

Superb as always Laz.

(if there was a published compilation of these I'd certainly buy a copy)

laurentius · September 22, 2003, 06:38

Even The Original Higland Beserk finds these stories amuzing

Verres · September 22, 2003, 06:42

They're actually pretty good

It'd be a waste if you didnt publish them...i mean, look at most of the s*** which passes for non-fiction these days - we need you!

Oerdin · September 22, 2003, 12:00

Laz: You aught to put up a web site with a complete list of your Historical Filth writtings.

st_swithin · September 22, 2003, 12:29

Too bad Hollywood hasn't got a few copies of this stuff. Maybe they wouldn't be so quick to make crap like Gladiator or Titanic if they had some really thought-provoking material to work from.

Oh wait, I said Hollywood, didn't I? I guess that's not the point. Bring on Conan!!