spanishspy
Fleet admiral
Posts: 10,366 
Likes: 1,587
|
Post by spanishspy on Jan 17, 2018 21:49:53 GMT
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jan 17, 2018 21:59:22 GMT
Well it was moved over there in the 1st place as it was Saxon slaves who wove it.  Plus with modern technology it should be practical, if possibly not easy. Since the battle was 1066 and this was a few years afterwards probably about 950 years in age. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 18, 2018 4:39:03 GMT
[ Since the battle was 1066 and this was a few years afterwards probably about 950 years in age. But 1,000 years old sound better than 950 years old. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jan 18, 2018 17:06:23 GMT
[ Since the battle was 1066 and this was a few years afterwards probably about 950 years in age. But 1,000 years old sound better than 950 years old. Not if your pedantic.  |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 18, 2018 17:09:36 GMT
But 1,000 years old sound better than 950 years old. Not if your pedantic. But according to the wiki article it seems that the exact age of the Bayeux Tapestry is open to discussion. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jan 18, 2018 17:41:12 GMT
Not if your pedantic. But according to the wiki article it seems that the exact age of the Bayeux Tapestry is open to discussion. Quite possible but until 2066 it can't possibly be 1000 years old. Unless someone questions the actual date of the battle. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 18, 2018 18:15:18 GMT
But according to the wiki article it seems that the exact age of the Bayeux Tapestry is open to discussion. Quite possible but until 2066 it can't possibly be 1000 years old. Unless someone questions the actual date of the battle. Do we know at least that the battle happened as depicted as the tapestry shows. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jan 18, 2018 18:51:00 GMT
Quite possible but until 2066 it can't possibly be 1000 years old. Unless someone questions the actual date of the battle. Do we know at least that the battle happened as depicted as the tapestry shows. Well although done in England it was at Norman direction so probably some inaccuracies. I think its normally considered as a propaganda piece for the new regime. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 18, 2018 21:05:03 GMT
Do we know at least that the battle happened as depicted as the tapestry shows. Well although done in England it was at Norman direction so probably some inaccuracies. I think its normally considered as a propaganda piece for the new regime. Its a miracle that the Tapestry was destroyed by other new regimes that followed them. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jan 18, 2018 22:51:47 GMT
Well although done in England it was at Norman direction so probably some inaccuracies. I think its normally considered as a propaganda piece for the new regime. Its a miracle that the Tapestry was destroyed by other new regimes that followed them. Well don't forget England was basically ruled by the Normans then the Plantagenets until the end of the wars of the Roses in 1485. While from roughly the 1300s England started re-emerging as an 'English' state even then the dynasty sought its origins in the Norman conquest. Plus by that time other than for a short period under Henry V Normandy, which was where it was housed, was outside 'English' control. As such the 'English' monrchy lacked either the desire or access or both to destroy a symbol of the Norman conquest. Even now English monarchs are numbered since William and 1066, excluding earlier Anglo-Saxon kings. As such the Duke of Windsor during his short reign was recorded as Edward VIII rather than Edward X. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 19, 2018 9:43:17 GMT
Its a miracle that the Tapestry was destroyed by other new regimes that followed them. Well don't forget England was basically ruled by the Normans then the Plantagenets until the end of the wars of the Roses in 1485. While from roughly the 1300s England started re-emerging as an 'English' state even then the dynasty sought its origins in the Norman conquest. Plus by that time other than for a short period under Henry V Normandy, which was where it was housed, was outside 'English' control. As such the 'English' monrchy lacked either the desire or access or both to destroy a symbol of the Norman conquest. Even now English monarchs are numbered since William and 1066, excluding earlier Anglo-Saxon kings. As such the Duke of Windsor during his short reign was recorded as Edward VIII rather than Edward X. |
|
Plus with modern technology it should be practical, if possibly not easy.
