Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

We all know about the hardass dude at Stamford Bridge (no I don't mean Chelsea's Chopper Harris)
http://www.badassoftheweek.com/stamfordbridge.html

but I don't believe it ever happened.

1. If I was Harald Hardrada I would have just burnt the bridge.

2. If the bridge wasn't destroyed and I was Harold Godwinson. I have just shot the fether with arrows till he looked like Mrs Tiggywinkle.

Just goes to show that Hollywood embelishments to the narrative are nothing new.

Any other examples?

You do know that website embellishes history for entertainment right?

What are you talking about?

Well I based my History Dergree on his research and got a first

The incident is noted elsewhere.

Do you mean Phoenix or me , please Frazzled?
If the latter, sorry can't help!

The point was that the story depicts an incredible feat of heroism, that is totally redundant if you apply a small amount of logic to the situation.
But that doesn't make for a ripping yarn.

I was wondering if there are any other examples in the annals of grand deads that could similarly have been sidestepped, but denied us the heroic tale.

That link you gave like burning_phoneix said is completely ott.

In truth the figure of 40 english killed by this guy was reported by the vikings themselves, so is probably exaggurated. Plus I actually think sending someone under the bridge and spearing him through his manhood was a fairly clever idea on the part of Harold, good on him.

And if you don't think the best way to outdo some ego maniac killer berserk viking who hass just slain 40 englishman is by spearing him in the balls, please hand in your Anglo Saxon membership card immediately.

Just don't know what event you're referring to.

Frazzled wrote:Just don't know what event you're referring to.

At the battle of Stamford bridge in 1066 the Anglo Saxons were on their way to battle the invading Vikings. They were delayed for some reason and as story has it, it was because one lone Viking was holding a bridge south of the Vikings by himself, killing every englishman who crossed it. After slaying 40, one Anglo-Saxon went under the bridge and stuck a spear up through the wood into the Vikings groin.

In most depictions of this the Viking is usually gloating to the Anglos at the time he gets speared, which only makes it more funny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stamford_Bridge

TL/DR : About 3 weeks before the battle of Hastings, Harold fought and beat some Norwegian invaders. Part of the legend of this tale relates that a single viking axeman held the bridge over the river singlehanded, giving his fellows time to regroup and form their shieldwall.

whatwhat wrote:

In truth the figure of 40 english killed by this guy was reported by the vikings themselves, so is probably exaggurated. Plus I actually think sending someone under the bridge and spearing him through his manhood was a fairly clever idea on the part of Harold, good on him.

And if you don't think the best way to outdo some ego maniac killer berserk viking who hass just slain 40 englishman is by spearing him in the balls, please hand in your Anglo Saxon membership card immediately.

This.

Of course this is the stuff of leg ends not factual history
Of course badass is ott
I could have chosen another linky

It was supossed to be for laughs (failed miserably)

It peeing down here again
I only wanted a bit of levity to brighten the day

ps still shoulda burnt the bridge and my A-S card is safely kept in my wallet
just shoot him and not lose 40 saxon warriors

Sounds like a repeat of the old Roman story where a single soldier defended a bridge against an entire oncoming barbarian army while his buddies set the bridge on fire. When it was nearly burned down he jumped off and swam to the Roman side of the river.

He inspired me as a child, and when I maded huge A1 sized boardgames as a kid at school (D&D wasnt available then) I had this guy defending a bridge you had to cross as a ghost in a spooky race.

whatwhat wrote:
In truth the figure of 40 english killed by this guy was reported by the vikings themselves, so is probably exaggurated. Plus I actually think sending someone under the bridge and spearing him through his manhood was a fairly clever idea on the part of Harold, good on him.

I can beleive 40. Bridges at the time were usually very narrow, England didnt have many horses, also bridges were intended as a defensive position for this reason. When you asllow for fear, the fact that he ould not be entirely alone and the writhing bodoes in front of him on innard slicked ground yet 40 kills is very believable.

avantgarde wrote:Sounds like a repeat of the old Roman story where a single soldier defended a bridge against an entire oncoming barbarian army while his buddies set the bridge on fire. When it was nearly burned down he jumped off and swam to the Roman side of the river.

Horatius.

I heard about this on the history channel, when they did the "Barbarians" miniseries special a few years back.

Thus it must be true, people in magical picture boxes cannot lie.

Was it the Horatii that defended the bridge or Horatius?
Heard that story when I was 7 and it was one of those things as a kid that just mesmerised.