Reply
Thu 3 May, 2007 02:34 pm
Well, the Normans had the opportunity, motive and means to create their own myth, didn't they? And boy did Poitiers et al milk it?
Now we- still as English speakers- have free speech, so let's get the facts straight...
1. The succession-
In 1064, why would King Edward, who had already offered his crown vaguely and expediently to kings Swein of Denmark & Magnus of Norway in the late 1040's to stay off invasion, (and who presumably hated Earl Godwin for his alledged part in the brutal murder of Edward's brother, Arthur in 1036) then still wish that Norman duke to succeed(acc. to the supposed but unlikely 1051 'promise' to William), when he had also just had another of Edward's relatives murdered in 1064(his nephew, walter, Count of Mantes)?
Bearing in mind of course that in early 1066 the dying king had given the crown to Harold(with witnesses including Robert FitzWimarc), in the most important manner known to him- the verbal crown bestowal.
2. Coast-huggers?
The Franco-Norman-Breton-Euro-mercenary army having landed on the 29th Sept and learning for certain(from Robert FitzWimarc- a |breton courtier who had witnessed Edward's bestowal of England to Harold) that King Harold was 250m to the north(Stamford Bridge beating the vikings), leaving the roads to Winchester & London open, they hugged the south coast inexplicably for three weeks!
3. Come on, we haven't got all day...
Even though they were rested, re-supplied and ready, with their elite cavalry and much-vaunted archers, they struggled all day to beat an exhausted, depleted and unprepared army, with the best infantry in Europe(housecarls), at the battle at Santlache(OE 'Sandy Lake') in October 1066... and very nearly lost!
4. Truth is the first casualty...
They lied about virtually everything in their desperate attempt to justify their violent usurpation(1051 throne promise- unlikely; 1064 "oath"- enforced with death threats against captive Harold abroad- invalid; Santlache- too closely fought & too long to be an easy victory), and their abysmal failure to align William I to King Edward by airbrushing Harold out of history, when the latter had been offered the crown by that same Edward, and elected by the WITAN!
5. Their coinage quality was woeful and rarely reminted, badly-struck and lacking much silver. Harold, in just 9mths, had produced a wealth of high-quality coinage, with many just laws.
6. They were so impressed by the highly-complex English systems of administration and of taxation- the most sophisticated and experienced in Europe then- that they kept it running for several decades afterwards, basing their govt upon it.
7. Fit for purpose...?
These supposedly great soldiers were severely troubled by several large-scale rebellions(Exeter; Chester; Ely etc- not just the countless Norman-French-Breton ones either!)
ie. Successful guerilla-leader Hereward's huge and organised long-term revolt with earls Waltheof, Edwin and Morcar, around Peterborough & the Ely fens for over a year, so much so that PuffingBilly himself felt bound to cover his shame by attending...and they still got trounced in many concerted & fierce ambushes until only some Ely monks led them in by treachery!
8. They were being murdered so often by the un'conquered' English men & women, that they were forced to introduce the Murdrum Fine...
9. A flag from the sycophantic Italian puppet...?
Having supposedly attained a papal banner from the pro-Norman pope(hardly wanting to upset his thuggish Norman 'masters' in Italy?) to reclaim this country for the Pope and reform the A/S church(even though PuffingBilly defied the popery later himself!), they then raped and milked the country dry out of avarice, then allowed those same English clerics in power until 1070!
10. What's in a word...?
Their third-rate and often hysterical copying in 'style' and lifting of the Greco-Roman classics (Dudo; Poitiers- and his slanted hagiographies) was transparent and over-slanted. Fact and balance were casualties first...cover-ups and omissions(Harold's true kingship) came later. For example;-
1. Acc. to Poitiers, the English army were-
"the fiercest of men...always by nature ready to take up the sword"
they had "easily defeated the King of the Norwegians" and
they had "resisted bravely" at Hastings and the Norman/Bretons were "terrified by their ferocity"
But soon afterwards they were "never famed for their feats of arms"!!!!!
2. In one sentence Earl Harold had "honour, wealth and power",
Then, ever after he was dishonest, "greedy" and a "usurper" (Usurping whom? Being lawfully elected King by the ruling powers- and the KING HIMSELF- doesn't make it illegal)... no longer "such a man as poems liken him to Hector or Turnus"?
Did Poitiers no longer feel the need to have to boost William's image to 'match up' to Harold's strength and martial prowess by stating insecurely "William, his equal and in no way inferior in standing"
But remember- "We do not revile you, Harold"...lol.
3. William had "50,000 men-at-arms" amassing in Normandy before September 1066!
So did over 37,000 desert the French/Breton/ Norman/ Sicilian/ Flemish army before landing in England then?
11. "The Normans were more outward looking"-
B*****ks(an old A/S word) to this myth, they looked abroad out of sheer greed because they wanted to preserve dual-lands in Normandy and England!
- The Vikings had looked further- Russia, Byzantium, Greenland, America!
- The English had been looking "abroad" ever since the first viking invasions in the 8thC!
- There were many English embassies to the pope, ie. in 1061 when Ealdred was given the Archbishopric. He crowned Harold as King, not Stigand, despite their friendship- Harold knew of the pope's dim view of that wily old cleric.
- Earl Harold had ventured across a dangerous Europe in 1057, meeting the pope himself, and successfully persuading the doomed Atheling, Edward (son of Edmund 'Ironside', d.1016), to return from exile in Hungary to his estranged England to become king.
Edward died soon after arriving. If it was murder and not illness, the fact that Harold had literally gone to such lengths to bring him safely home, only for him to die "suddenly", ruled out the earl. More like another contender had this done(William- again to a rival, as he had many times before), with bitter delusions about a 'promise' in 1051 when everyone knows he was too busy at that time defending Normandy, to be in England???
12. In contrast to the Normandy of the 10th century, England had a more efficient, experienced, centralized & better-funded system(through national taxation - the geld) of government than any other country in W Europe. It also had a richer and deeper-rooted culture than that of the Normans, whose drive was merely a catalyst for changes already in hand.
The changes taking place in this highly-evolved England, with a strong kingship especially, never had a chance to prove themselves- just as various other historical situations cut short also never had the opportunity to flourish...Perhaps the misconception that the Franco-Normans brought superior civilization etc to Saxon England is another example of Franco-Norman propaganda.
So what was so special, original and great about the Normans- a thuggish, ordinary band of grasping, usurping viking adventurers?
N.o.t m.u.c.h.
You don't much like the Normans, do you, Ironaxe? Come on, don't beat around the bush. You can just say so.
As for your arguments, the importance of the Norman conquest of England really isn't about whether the Normans were great warriors or mercenary wimps who got lucky at Hastings on that October day 941 years ago because Harold Godwinson's forces were already exhausted from having repulsed a viking raid at Stamford Bridge earlier. The only worthwhile point is that the Norman conquest made England a part of Europe once more, both culturally and politically. The island had become, well, insular since the days of Roman dominance. The invasion of the Germanic barbarians, who displaced the native Celtic chieftains, had insured that this would be so.
I hold no brief for the Normans. But neither do I hold one for the Angles, saxons, Jutes et al. who, in 1066, were running the country into the ground. They were helpless against the true Norsemen from Denmark and Norway who ravaged the coasts of Albion and set themselves up as petty kinglets here, there and everywhere. Edward the Confessor was one of the weakest kings in a long line of weak kings. Among his predecessors Ethelred was a household joke and only Alfred had made any sort of concerted attempt to oppose the viking raids. Edward might have made a splendid abbot in some out-of-the-way monastery; he was a feeble excuse for a king. Why do you doubt that he promised the crown to William in 1051? From all I've read on the subject, it seems he promised the crown to three or four different people. His nephew Harold was just one of them. William had as much claim on the throne of England as did Harold.
What's more, Harold's claiming the crown was an act of betrayal of his promise to William in 1064. You suggest that Harold made the promise to back William's claim to the throne of England under duress, while a de facto prisoner of the Duke of Normandy. That's certainly one legitimate way of interpreting the event. But an equally valid interpretation might be that Harold made the promise out of gratitude to Duke William who had, after all, saved him from the dungeons of the Count Guy de Beaurain. Harold was on his way to visit William when his ships were blown off course and Count Guy took the English nobleman prisoner. Only the intercession of Guy's liege-lord, the Duke of Normandy, saved Harold's bacon. Remember, at this point Harold Godwinson had not yet been named by Edward the Confessor as his successor. So he made a promise to support Duke William in the latter's bid for the throne of England. There may have been some coercion involved, but the evidence is far from clear.
Nothing special about the Normans? I agree with you on that. But the historical importance of their conquest can hardly be minimized. That Poiters' account is largely a politically motivated piece of propaganda goes without saying. It does not, however, minimize the Norman achievement. England and the English would be an entirely different place and people today were it not for that fateful October day in 1066.
Merry Andrew wrote:You don't much like the Normans, do you, Ironaxe? Come on, don't beat around the bush. You can just say so.
But neither do I hold one for the Angles, saxons, Jutes et al. who, in 1066, were running the country into the ground. They were helpless against the true Norsemen from Denmark and Norway who ravaged the coasts of Albion and set themselves up as petty kinglets here, there and everywhere.
NO they weren't, Andrew- England had a highly complex admin system of taxation & govt, and was one of- if not
the wealthiest nation in Europe.
Quote:
Why do you doubt that he promised the crown to William in 1051? From all I've read on the subject, it seems he promised the crown to three or four different people. His nephew Harold was just one of them. William had as much claim on the throne of England as did Harold.
I doubt it because, I agree, the weak Edward prevaricated over the succession on numerous occasions(below in my OP), and many current historians and past say as much as those who don't. It's not an alien opinion.
Quote:
What's more, Harold's claiming the crown was an act of betrayal of his promise to William in 1064.
No it wasn't- he made an invalidated "oath" -under duress, outside of England(thus irrelevant) , then was nominated by the Witan and THE KING. (Even Norman Robert Fitzwimarc was present when Edward offered the crown to Harold and later didn't deny this in any Norman source)
Quote:
You suggest that Harold made the promise to back William's claim to the throne of England under duress, while a de facto prisoner of the Duke of Normandy. That's certainly one legitimate way of interpreting the event. But an equally valid interpretation might be that Harold made the promise out of gratitude to Duke William who had, after all, saved him from the dungeons of the Count Guy de Beaurain. Harold was on his way to visit William when his ships were blown off course and Count Guy took the English nobleman prisoner. Only the intercession of Guy's liege-lord, the Duke of Normandy, saved Harold's bacon. Remember, at this point Harold Godwinson had not yet been named by Edward the Confessor as his successor. So he made a promise to support Duke William in the latter's bid for the throne of England. There may have been some coercion involved, but the evidence is far from clear.
Harold, a loyal and provenly capable politician, ambassador and warrior on Edward's behalf for over a decade, was (probably) trying to free his brother Wulfnoth and nephew Hakon from William, then had to swear an illegal 'promise' and succumb to veiled (or not) threats against himself, his retinue, his brother and nephew if he did not uphold an imagined or vague and rashly-made(as also to Swein & Magnus) 'promise' from edward, most likely exaggerated in 1052 by the bitter and ousted Norman Robert of Jumieges...No Norman source can even agree where/when it supposedly took place!
Are you laying flowers down on the tomb in Waltham Abbey regularily, ironaxe? :wink:
"Provenly?"
I don't think that's a word in English. Which is ironic, given that this member seems to be an obsessive lover of the Anglo-Saxons.
Merry Andrew is correct, the significance of Norman conquest was the extent to which it brought the British Isles once again into the orbit of the European world. Heaping obloquy on the Normans won't change that. This is a very silly thread.
As everyone knows, the Vandals were the greatest of the European tribes.
(I hope I have not diminished the importance of the other tribes. I would be politically incorrect to do so.)
Vandal=al Andalus=Andalusian . . .
Does this mean you're Spanish, Wandel?
One of my great-grandmothers was Spanish, setanta.
Didn't the Vandals originate in Eastern Europe? (my father's grandparents came from Silesia)
I bit more north, I think.
I was just joshin' ya, Wandel. The Vandals (as Walter's map shows) spread all over the western portion of the Roman Empire as imperial authority in the west collapsed. (This should not be construed as "the fall of the Roman Empire"--the Empire survived for more than a thousand years after Alaric and the Goths sacked Rome in 410 CE.)
They (the Vandals) spread across North Africa, and imposed their rule on the local populations, stealing the fruit of their labors without providing either the communications systems (roads and harbors) or the stability of military protection which the Empire had afforded. When the Muslim Holy Warriors burst out of Arabia in the 7th Century, the North African littoral was ripe for rebellion against their hated masters, and the Berbers and "Moors" quickly converted to Islam and turned on the Arian Christian masters. Because the Vandals had also established petty kingdoms in Spain, to which the survivors from North Africa gradually retreated, the Muslims eventually noticed them, and gave to the southern portion of the Iberian peninsula the name "al Andalus," corrupting the name Vandal.
So . . . i was just kiddin' around Wandel . . .
I knew you were kidding, setanta.
(I just wanted you to provide some historical details. Thanks! I am proud of my Vandal ancestry.)
There was a cute little skit on Saturday Night Live in the early days, with the Romans running in a band of teen-aged Vandals who had "TP-ed" their camp.
Of course it's a silly thread, Set. How could it be otherwise? Both Walter and I are on it.
Setanta wrote:There was a cute little skit on Saturday Night Live in the early days, with the Romans running in a band of teen-aged Vandals who had "TP-ed" their camp.
I loved that skit. That's where I got my "political correctness" joke. At the beginning of the skit they scrolled a short introduction about how the Vandals were the most feared tribe and then added a disclaimer that they didn't want to belittle the Goths, Visigoths, Franks, etc. (political correctness about Europe in the dark ages)
For those who are interested, Professor J. B. Bury was, until his death, considered by most to be the English language expert on the "barbarian invasions" of Europe. He was a scholar of high repute, and in 1903 became the Regius Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University. He stated that: "History is a science, nothing more, and nothing less." This pissed off scientists and men of letters. Bury was an agnostic, and stuck to his guns, despite criticism. He was (although a professor of modern history) most famous for his works on ancient history, and in particular, as the editor of a seven volume version of Gibbon's
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and he is said to have learned to read nine languages so as to be able to check sources such as those in Turkish or Slavic languages.
He did a series of lectures on the "barbarian invasions" of the Roman Empire, which have been collected in a book which is available as
Invasion of Europe by the Barbarians, which i have found to be the best short work on the subject.
Setanta wrote:"Provenly?"
I don't think that's a word in English. Which is ironic, given that this member seems to be an obsessive lover of the Anglo-Saxons.
Merry Andrew is correct, the significance of Norman conquest was the extent to which it brought the British Isles once again into the orbit of the European world. Heaping obloquy on the Normans won't change that. This is a very silly thread.
No it isn't, but you seem very ignorant and stupid, showing off to your cyber friends here. I posted points that still stand, not easily dismissed by someone with your baseless arrogance...
From Princeton University's online definition:
arrogance--overbearing pride evidenced by a superior manner toward inferiors.
There is nothing here about which i am either proud, or ashamed. However, if you wish to stipulate that you are inferior to me, although i have no opinion on the subject, i'll be happy to go along with you.
By the way, if you want a serious response to your silly thread, suppose you tell us who said the Normans were special. The title of your thread is "The Normans--Nothing special about them." So? Who here has said there was? You're tilting at windmills. Can you tell us with whom it is you are arguing that Normans are nothing special?
Setanta wrote:From Princeton University's online definition:
arrogance--overbearing pride evidenced by a superior manner toward inferiors.
There is nothing here about which i am either proud, or ashamed. However, if you wish to stipulate that you are inferior to me, although i have no opinion on the subject, i'll be happy to go along with you.
Amuse yourself with your boring and not-as-witty-as-you-believe remarks, and answer the points, or post your own thread, smug idiot...
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace