The Normans on BBC2

Denerick

Good documentary on right now on BBC2 if anyone is interested. I missed the previous installments but it looks very interesting.

ejmaztec

Denerick wrote: »

Good documentary on right now on BBC2 if anyone is interested. I missed the previous installments but it looks very interesting.

Was that part of the series fronted by some academic called Barker, the first episode concerning the Domesday Book?

I saw the first one, and there was a distinct similarity between how the Normans treated the Anglo-Saxons, and how the Normans' descendants treated the Irish further on down the line. The old Anglo-Saxon land-owners, over a short period of time, became tenants on their own land, paying rent to the particular Norman who had been "given" the land by William The Conqueror, for services rendered in defeating Harold's army.

I wonder what the history between Ireland and England would have been like, had the Normans stayed in Normandy?

fontanalis

ejmaztec wrote: »

Was that part of the series fronted by some academic called Barker, the first episode concerning the Domesday Book?

I saw the first one, and there was a distinct similarity between how the Normans treated the Anglo-Saxons, and how the Normans' descendants treated the Irish further on down the line. The old Anglo-Saxon land-owners, over a short period of time, became tenants on their own land, paying rent to the particular Norman who had been "given" the land by William The Conqueror, for services rendered in defeating Harold's army.

I wonder what the history between Ireland and England would have been like, had the Normans stayed in Normandy?

Din't both groups claim descent from a king called Woden? If so would this "common descent" explain it?

Denerick

ejmaztec wrote: »

I wonder what the history between Ireland and England would have been like, had the Normans stayed in Normandy?

The Anglo Saxons were insular and rebellious. The Normans were international and ambitious. What would the history of the world had been like had the Normans not left Normandy? What about the conquest of Sicily, the reclamation of Southern Italy, the challenge to Byzantium, the Norman Princes on the first crusade? What a remarkable race of people.

Einhard

Denerick wrote: »

The Anglo Saxons were insular and rebellious. The Normans were international and ambitious. What would the history of the world had been like had the Normans not left Normandy? What about the conquest of Sicily, the reclamation of Southern Italy, the challenge to Byzantium, the Norman Princes on the first crusade? What a remarkable race of people.

The fact that they were so few and yet achieved so much is particularly remarkable. A few hundred Norman knights managed to seize control of southern Italy and eventually Sicily, the first landing in Ireland was similarly small scale, and even the conquest of England was accomplished with a force of less than 10 000 fighting men. I can't think of any other people having such a disproportionate impact on the world around them. Even though Irish history makes me despair, I can't help but admire the Normans.

donaghs

Seeing how the rest of France was so decentralised, and split into smaller provinces and states, how come the Normans never expanded further into France? They never lacked ambition in Britain/Ireland or Southern Italy.

Denerick

donaghs wrote: »

Seeing how the rest of France was so decentralised, and split into smaller provinces and states, how come the Normans never expanded further into France? They never lacked ambition in Britain/Ireland or Southern Italy.

Apparantly they regularly challenged the other dukes and rulers of France, and they did eventually expand into Aquitaine and other large areas, such as Anjou. Its just that by the time they did so they weren't thought of as Normans anymore, they were considered Plantagenets, or English! (Even though most of the Plantagenet Kings couldn't speak any English)

Einhard

donaghs wrote: »

Seeing how the rest of France was so decentralised, and split into smaller provinces and states, how come the Normans never expanded further into France? They never lacked ambition in Britain/Ireland or Southern Italy.

I think it was also due to the fact that France was so split into competing powers. There was no one force that the Normans could challenge for control of the country. The other regions also had a vested interest in not allowing any other to gain too much power. Also France did have a king, and although his power was quite limited within individual duchies etc, he could act as a figurehead around who others could coalesce. France was basically a mix between the highly centralised Anglo-Saxon state and the completey fragments kingdoms of Ireland, which made its complete subjugation a daunting prospect for any would be conqueror. There were richer and far more easily obtainable pickings for the Normans to target.

MarchDub

I haven't seen the series but this notion of the Normans being the aggressors and the Anglo-Saxons being more passive - civilised - has been a part of English historiography for the past 30 years or so. I first heard it mooted when I was an undergrad at an English Univ and it has since been popularised by media outlets including other TV series. In fact the television historian Michael Wood wrote about it more than 10 years ago in his book In Search of England.

I've always looked on it as an Apologia for Empire. It's post imperial thinking. We wouldn't have done it except for those French Normans sort of thing.

MarchDub

Denerick wrote: »

The Anglo Saxons were insular and rebellious. The Normans were international and ambitious. What would the history of the world had been like had the Normans not left Normandy? What about the conquest of Sicily, the reclamation of Southern Italy, the challenge to Byzantium, the Norman Princes on the first crusade? What a remarkable race of people.

It wasn't Normandy that they originally left. The Normans were originally descended from Viking settlers. The word Normandy is a corruption of a French word for Northmen i.e from Scandinavia. Considering the widespread settlement of Vikings it is hard to image the entire history of Europe without them.

MarchDub

Einhard wrote: »

The fact that they were so few and yet achieved so much is particularly remarkable. A few hundred Norman knights managed to seize control of southern Italy and eventually Sicily, the first landing in Ireland was similarly small scale, and even the conquest of England was accomplished with a force of less than 10 000 fighting men. I can't think of any other people having such a disproportionate impact on the world around them. Even though Irish history makes me despair, I can't help but admire the Normans.

With all respect I have to disagree with you totally. The sheer brutality of any 'conquest' is beyond me to cheer on. I find it sad that people of my generation back in the 60s and 70s believed that with better education, more enlightenment, more knowledge of the reality of the bloodiness of war being revealed by a modern media that all war would end and the notion that war is heroics would be put in the trash. Well, how did that go?

The Norman English had a major impact on Ireland because of their superior war technology - the cross bow. The Irish only had crude spears to defend themselves with. Most colonial wars - territorial conquests - came down to superior weaponry over a lesser armed society. Personally I find nothing to admire in that.

Cavehill Red

Denerick wrote: »

The Anglo Saxons were insular and rebellious. The Normans were international and ambitious. What would the history of the world had been like had the Normans not left Normandy? What about the conquest of Sicily, the reclamation of Southern Italy, the challenge to Byzantium, the Norman Princes on the first crusade? What a remarkable race of people.

Just another bag full of imperialist warmongerers, destined to be subsumed and ultimately forgotten when superceded by the next wave of imperialist warmongerers.
There is nothing remarkable about the Normans. They were merely an especially unsuccessful version of an archetype which has seen many more successful variants, the Romans chief among them.

Cavehill Red

Einhard wrote: »

The fact that they were so few and yet achieved so much is particularly remarkable. A few hundred Norman knights managed to seize control of southern Italy and eventually Sicily, the first landing in Ireland was similarly small scale, and even the conquest of England was accomplished with a force of less than 10 000 fighting men. I can't think of any other people having such a disproportionate impact on the world around them. Even though Irish history makes me despair, I can't help but admire the Normans.

Try thinking of Cortes in the Americas, then.

Einhard

MarchDub wrote: »

With all respect I have to disagree with you totally. The sheer brutality of any 'conquest' is beyond me to cheer on. I find it sad that people of my generation back in the 60s and 70s believed that with better education, more enlightenment, more knowledge of the reality of the bloodiness of war being revealed by a modern media that all war would end and the notion that war is heroics would be put in the trash. Well, how did that go?

With all respect you should read posts before commenting on them. I neither cheered the Normans nor believe war to eb some glorious game, but I do admire them for what they achieved. By his own account Julius Caesar's campaigns in Gaul led to the death of over 1 million Gauls, yet one can be aghast at the brutality and destruction and still have respect for Caesar's generalship and tactical brilliance. The same goes for practically every leader in history. What Charlemagne achieved in uniting his realm and expaning into Italy and Saxony was remarkable, yet even his contemporaries were shocked by his methods. Very few people would laud the German Wehrmacht, but again the tactics employed in the early years of the war were stunning, and cannot but be respected and admired. Not the means to which they were put, but the tactics themselves. The point iI'm making is that one can respect and admire the genius of individuals and peoples even if that brilliance is used to pursue ends that are abhorrant.

Einhard

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Just another bag full of imperialist warmongerers, destined to be subsumed and ultimately forgotten when superceded by the next wave of imperialist warmongerers.

Yeah nothing like a full season on the BBC, and countless books, articles and papers to demonstrate how forgotten something is. It's always funny when personal bias gets in the way of common sense.

There is nothing remarkable about the Normans. They were merely an especially unsuccessful version of an archetype which has seen many more successful variants, the Romans chief among them.

Ok this is just nonsense. You appear to have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The Normans were remarkably successful. They branched out from a small and insignificant little duchy in north eastern Europe, and ended up controlling states in the Levant, Sicily and the British isles, whilst having a major influence on the rest of Europe. Their methods and goals may be abhorrant to us now, but that cannot take away from the extent of their achievements.

MarchDub

Einhard wrote: »

With all respect you should read posts before commenting on them. I neither cheered the Normans nor believe war to eb some glorious game, but I do admire them for what they achieved. By his own account Julius Caesar's campaigns in Gaul led to the death of over 1 million Gauls, yet one can be aghast at the brutality and destruction and still have respect for Caesar's generalship and tactical brilliance. The same goes for practically every leader in history. What Charlemagne achieved in uniting his realm and expaning into Italy and Saxony was remarkable, yet even his contemporaries were shocked by his methods. Very few people would laud the German Wehrmacht, but again the tactics employed in the early years of the war were stunning, and cannot but be respected and admired. Not the means to which they were put, but the tactics themselves. The point iI'm making is that one can respect and admire the genius of individuals and peoples even if that brilliance is used to pursue ends that are abhorrant.

Please don't get testy because I disagree with you. I did read the posts and repeat what I said. There is nothing to admire in the tactics of bloody war in my opinion. You may choose to disagree but please don't accuse me of ignorance in not reading the posts. I got what you said - and I disagree. "Stunning" tactics lead to the death of millions of innocent people - cannon fodder for the generals and oh let's not forget the banks who are financing it all. It's not a chess game.

Cavehill Red

Einhard wrote: »

Yeah nothing like a full season on the BBC, and countless books, articles and papers to demonstrate how forgotten something is. It's always funny when personal bias gets in the way of common sense.

How many other empires did the BBC do documentary series on before the Normans?
Face facts. They're nobodies. Forgotten within a century of their peak.

Einhard wrote: »

Ok this is just nonsense. You appear to have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The Normans were remarkably successful. They branched out from a small and insignificant little duchy in north eastern Europe, and ended up controlling states in the Levant, Sicily and the British isles, whilst having a major influence on the rest of Europe. Their methods and goals may be abhorrant to us now, but that cannot take away from the extent of their achievements.

Which were what, exactly?
What lasting difference did they make? None. They were a classic flash in the pan, gone before they had achieved anything of note.

Einhard

MarchDub wrote: »

Please don't get testy because I disagree with you. I did read the posts and repeat what I said. There is nothing to admire in the tactics of bloody war in my opinion. You may choose to disagree but please don't accuse me of ignorance in not reading the posts. I got what you said - and I disagree. "Stunning" tactics lead to the death of millions of innocent people - cannon fodder for the generals and oh let's not forget the banks who are financing it all. It's not a chess game.

Easy there tiger. I accept that you read my post if that makes you feel better, and I wasn't getting testy, but you insinuated that I somehow "cheer on" conquest. I don't. And nobody celebrates war. But there can be a genius in the prosecuting of a war which can be admired. Hannibal at Lake Transimane or at Cannae for example. His tactics on both those occasions were sublime. Respect for and astonishment at the brilliance of leaders, either political or military, and abhorrance at the ends that their genius served are far from beung mutually exclusive.

Einhard

Cavehill Red wrote: »

How many other empires did the BBC do documentary series on before the Normans?
Face facts. They're nobodies. Forgotten within a century of their peak.

Ok you're being fatuous now. A millenium later and we'res till talking about and debating them, and yet they were somehow forgetten within a hundred years? Unless of course you believe that their peak was in the 1950s and we'll have forgetten about them in another half century, which I suppose does have the rather dubious merit of being equally absurd as the former proposition.

Which were what, exactly?
What lasting difference did they make? None. They were a classic flash in the pan, gone before they had achieved anything of note.

I don't believe that anyone posting in a history forum could be this ignorant, so I'll assume that you're just being facetious here.

Cavehill Red

Einhard wrote: »

Ok you're being fatuous now. A millenium later and we'res till talking about and debating them, and yet they were somehow forgetten within a hundred years? Unless of course you believe that their peak was in the 1950s and we'll have forgetten about them in another half century, which I suppose does have the rather dubious merit of being equally absurd as the former proposition.

We're still discussing Zoroastrians too, but it doesn't mean they're remotely relevant.
My point stands. Only after exhausting all relevant historical movements did the BBC even bother with this one which actually intervened in their own nation.
Says plenty about how irrelevant the Normans are.

Einhard wrote: »

I don't believe that anyone posting in a history forum could be this ignorant, so I'll assume that you're just being facetious here.

You fail to provide an answer. Why am I not surprised?

MarchDub

Einhard wrote: »

Easy there tiger. I accept that you read my post if that makes you feel better, and I wasn't getting testy, but you insinuated that I somehow "cheer on" conquest. I don't. And nobody celebrates war. But there can be a genius in the prosecuting of a war which can be admired. Hannibal at Lake Transimane or at Cannae for example. His tactics on both those occasions were sublime. Respect for and astonishment at the brilliance of leaders, either political or military, and abhorrance at the ends that their genius served are far from beung mutually exclusive.

Well that's where we disagree - they are for me. I don't respect killing innocent people no matter how brilliantly it is done. I also don't lump "political and military" into a single category. The thread is about the Normans i.e. bloody conquest over less military peoples. I'm not sure where you are going but I am discussing your admiration for the Normans. To quote you directly "I can't help but admire the Normans" was my specific target in your post. I personally don't admire these tactics and don't call superior odds 'brilliant'. Just brutal.

Denerick

MarchDub wrote: »

Well that's where we disagree - they are for me. I don't respect killing innocent people no matter how brilliantly it is done. I also don't lump "political and military" into a single category. The thread is about the Normans i.e. bloody conquest over less military peoples. I'm not sure where you are going but I am discussing your admiration for the Normans. To quote you directly "I can't help but admire the Normans" was my specific target in your post. I personally don't admire these tactics and don't call superior odds 'brilliant'. Just brutal.

How and in what way were the Normans more military minded than the Anglo saxons? They won because of their utilisation of cavalry, and because the Norsemen severely weakened Harold very shortly before Hastings.

I knew that the Normans were descended from the Northmen, thanks very much.

One can admire the audacity of a people and of generals without admiring the act. Julius Caesar was a political genius and military demigod, but he led directly to the fall of the Roman Republic. Doesn't mean I can't admire him as an extraordinary human being.

PatsytheNazi

Denerick wrote: »

One can admire the audacity of a people and of generals without admiring the act. Julius Caesar was a political genius and military demigod, but he led directly to the fall of the Roman Republic. Doesn't mean I can't admire him as an extraordinary human being.

Which is like saying you can admire Stalin and the KGB without admiring the act. Indeed some nut case could admire him as an extraordinary human being also :rolleyes:

The Normans were little better than a medieval version of the Mafia, but on a larger scale ( maybe that's where today's Mafia are desended from ? ) Ok others like the Romans did their share of conquering and pillaging etc, but the Romans built city's, roads, introduced plumming etc. The Roman senate with it's faults could be described as the foundation for parliamentary discussion. Compare that to the Normans, they only built castles to subjagate the natives, built churhces to patronise the Pope so they could go on more adventures of slaughter and pillage.

Denerick

"Neither apathy nor antipathy can ever find the truth in history" Eoin Mac Neill.

You've taken care of the 'not having apathy' part, but the antipathy could do with a little work. It must be awful to be so consumed by politically correct jingoism.

Einhard

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Which is like saying you can admire Stalin and the KGB without admiring the act. Indeed some nut case could admire him as an extraordinary human being also :rolleyes:

The Normans were little better than a medieval version of the Mafia, but on a larger scale ( maybe that's where today's Mafia are desended from ? ) Ok others like the Romans did their share of conquering and pillaging etc, but the Romans built city's, roads, introduced plumming etc. The Roman senate with it's faults could be described as the foundation for parliamentary discussion. Compare that to the Normans, they only built castles to subjagate the natives, built churhces to patronise the Pope so they could go on more adventures of slaughter and pillage.

The Romans built the roads primarily so they could move their armies about more efficently. The Appian Way was build specifically to allow Roman legions access to Samnite territory during the Samnite War. The aquaducts they built, and the plumbing they installed came on the back of brutal military campaigns deisgned to ensure absolute subjection. Just ask the Carthaginians or the Corinthians, or the Gauls, who lost over a million people in their war with Rome.

Neither myself nor Denerick are applauding every facet of the Normans character, but rather have genuine respect for that what achieved. You on the other hand seem to be of the opinion that, as long as a few creature comforts are installed, any amount of genuine brutality can be excused...

Incidentally, the system of parliamentary democracy and individual rights that is familiar to us today was actually developed in Magna carta under King John, a Norman by descent. Furthermore, the Norman Kingdom of Sicily under the Normans was by far the most cosmopolitan region in Europe in the Middle Ages, with Muslims from the Levant and North Africa mixing and living with European and Greek Christians. Its levels of cultural diversity wouldn't be achieved again until well into the 19th, and even 20th centuries.

Denerick

Einhard wrote: »

Incidentally, the system of parliamentary democracy and individual rights that is familiar to us today was actually developed in Magna carta under King John, a Norman by descent. Furthermore, the Norman Kingdom of Sicily under the Normans was by far the most cosmopolitan region in Europe in the Middle Ages, with Muslims from the Levant and North Africa mixing and living with European and Greek Christians. Its levels of cultural diversity wouldn't be achieved again until well into the 19th, and even 20th centuries.

Well said. If PatsytheNazi is arguing that 'imperial' domination is justified by great achievements, then he should be enamoured by the centralisation the Norman monarchies imbibed; the added sense of security in a lawless countryside that hurt the average peasant most in anglo saxon england; Magna Carta, which guaranteed certain inalienable liberties such as a right to trial by your peers etc. etc.

There is no point in making dismissive handwaves about entire things in history. They happen, and consequences flow from that. It is important to maintain a certain degree of realism and not judge historical periods by 21st century moral standards.

Dionysus

Anybody got a link to watch this programme on the (fairly substantial) BBC website?

Einhard

Dionysus wrote: »

Anybody got a link to watch this programme on the (fairly substantial) BBC website?

BBC programmes can't be watched online outside the UK. Baxtards.

PatsytheNazi

Einhard wrote: »

The Romans built the roads primarily so they could move their armies about more efficently. The Appian Way was build specifically to allow Roman legions access to Samnite territory during the Samnite War. The aquaducts they built, and the plumbing they installed came on the back of brutal military campaigns deisgned to ensure absolute subjection. Just ask the Carthaginians or the Corinthians, or the Gauls, who lost over a million people in their war with Rome.

At what point did I even suggest that Roman rule was some sort of benign charity ? As stated in my post - " the Romans did their share of conquering and pillaging " :rolleyes:

Neither myself nor Denerick are applauding every facet of the Normans character, but rather have genuine respect for that what achieved. You on the other hand seem to be of the opinion that, as long as a few creature comforts are installed, any amount of genuine brutality can be excused...

My reply was to Denerick, I never accused you of applauding every facet of the Normans character :rolleyes:

Incidentally, the system of parliamentary democracy and individual rights that is familiar to us today was actually developed in Magna carta under King John, a Norman by descent.

Don't want top get off a tangent here but the whole bullsh!t about Magna Carta is just typical British BS and conceit, the usual ' How Britain did everything first and civilised the world ' blah, blah, blah :rolleyes:. The Emporer Justinian, collected and tailored Roman law into one system in AD 529 and is known as the Justinian Code. These laws formed the basis of all laws in the westerm world - including Magna Carta.

Furthermore, the Norman Kingdom of Sicily under the Normans was by far the most cosmopolitan region in Europe in the Middle Ages, with Muslims from the Levant and North Africa mixing and living with European and Greek Christians. Its levels of cultural diversity wouldn't be achieved again until well into the 19th, and even 20th centuries.

I'm sure the Muslim women and children slaughtered by the 1,000's in Jerusalem and Acre didn't enjoy the Norman version of cosmopolitanism and cultural diversity.

Denerick

Don't want top get off a tangent here but the whole bullsh!t about Magna Carta is just typical British BS and conceit, the usual ' How Britain did everything first and civilised the world ' blah, blah, blah

Thanks for reminding me why I should stay away from the history forum!

MarchDub

Well on the issue of human rights or way of life it is important also to consider that the Normans were responsible for the spread and establishment of Feudalism - which they had perfected in their region. The manorial system of vassals and lords was their primary culture and lifestyle - certainly not individual human rights. It took until the French Revolutionary period for this to be overturned. It was the system of Feudalism which came in primary for attack by the authors of this later period.

In fact, when the first Anglo Norman parliament was convened in Dublin in 1297 it was to address two issues - the non co-operation of the native Irish 'vassals' in the payment of taxes to their now declared Norman overlords, and the 'lawlessness' of the native Irish in attacking the boundaries of Norman held land in attempting to re-establish their own rights to their ancient lands. It need hardly be pointed out that the native Irish had no representation at this Parliament nor at any for centuries to come.

fontanalis

How many troops/soldiers would have been involved in the initial Norman invasion of Ireland? What factors would have made the take over successful?
Any answers are appreciated as I'm quite ignorant of much of it.

PatsytheNazi

Denerick wrote: »

Well said. If PatsytheNazi is arguing that 'imperial' domination is justified by great achievements, then he should be enamoured by the centralisation the Norman monarchies imbibed; the added sense of security in a lawless countryside that hurt the average peasant most in anglo saxon england; Magna Carta, which guaranteed certain inalienable liberties such as a right to trial by your peers etc. etc.

There is no point in making dismissive handwaves about entire things in history. They happen, and consequences flow from that. It is important to maintain a certain degree of realism and not judge historical periods by 21st century moral standards.

PatsytheNazi never argued that 'imperial' domination is justified by great achievements, I posted that the Romans did their share of conquering and pillaging etc What I did imply was that the Romans influence through engineering, ( most of the Normans castles and churches were poor copies of what the Romans had built a 1,000 years bfore ) science, laws and parliament where a far greater and better influence than the Normans, even if they were primarily developed for imperial conquest.

Denerick wrote: »

Thanks for reminding me why I should stay away from the history forum!

It's just a bit of internet jossling, I might not always agree with you but doubtless you'll sometimes feel the same about what I post.

PatsytheNazi

fontanalis wrote: »

How many troops/soldiers would have been involved in the initial Norman invasion of Ireland? What factors would have made the take over successful?
Any answers are appreciated as I'm quite ignorant of much of it.

Good question. It's a very cloudy area of Irish history but it seems the Normans only initalily landed with a few hundred men. The programme cites some battle that happened in Wicklow I think, where allegedly a few hundred Normans defeated 5,000 Irish men by driving cattle into them and a Norman mistress cutting the heads off 60 prisioners. How truthful both things are is hard to say. The programme states that reinforcements continually arrived ( I would say Dermot McMurrough had some of his former men joining them ) and they took Waterford city with a 1,000 knights and 2,000 soldiers or something. I'll see if I can get the details.

But their was no doubting the Normans fighting abilities. Their warrior culture made them extremely formidable but indiscriminate. They could be described as a sort of medieval Waffen SS.

losthorizon

Probably the best museum in Ireland for Norman related information would be the Waterford Treasures building. It would easily keep you occupied for half a day if you are truely interested.

Tabnabs

fontanalis wrote: »

Din't both groups claim descent from a king called Woden? If so would this "common descent" explain it?

In a word, no.

Snorri Sturluson's "euhemerism"

In the Prose Edda, composed around 1220, the Christian Icelandic bard and historian Snorri Sturluson proposes that the Norse gods were originally historical war leaders and kings whose funereal sites have developed cults. Odin, the father of the gods, is introduced as a historical character living in present-day Turkey, tracing his ancestry back to Priam, the king of Troy during the Trojan War. As Odin travels north to settle in the Nordic countries, he establishes the royal families ruling in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway at the time. Thus, while Snorri's euhemerism follows the early Christian tradition, the effect is not simply to discredit the divinity of the gods of a religion on the wane, but (on the model of Virgil's Aeneid), to legitimize the current rulers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euhemerus#Snorri_Sturluson.27s_.22euhemerism.22

Tabnabs

Denerick wrote: »

The Anglo Saxons were insular and rebellious. The Normans were international and ambitious. What would the history of the world had been like had the Normans not left Normandy? What about the conquest of Sicily, the reclamation of Southern Italy, the challenge to Byzantium, the Norman Princes on the first crusade? What a remarkable race of people.

Where do you start with this? The AS were every bit as "international and ambitious" as their Norman cousins. And by cousins, I mean literally that. Hrolf the Ganger aka Rollo (c. 846 – c. 932) was most probably from Jutland, the same homelands as the AS.

But most of all I'd love to know what race the Normans were that made them so unique and remarkable?

MarchDub

fontanalis wrote: »

How many troops/soldiers would have been involved in the initial Norman invasion of Ireland? What factors would have made the take over successful?
Any answers are appreciated as I'm quite ignorant of much of it.

The most significant superiority was in weapon technology - and this is the aspect of the invasion most cited - the Normans had the deadly cross-bows. The Irish had no knowledge of archery. The native Irish had spears and the Irish hand held knife only to defend themselves and their lands with.

Ireland had no experience of the type of continental warfare that the Normans were adapt at. The Irish wore no armour in battle and had no experience of fighting in divisions as the Normans did. It all made for a very uneven match and easy incursions and land grabs by the Anglo-Norman invaders.

fontanalis

MarchDub wrote: »

The most significant superiority was in weapon technology - and this is the aspect of the invasion most cited - the Normans had the deadly cross-bows. The Irish had no knowledge of archery. The native Irish had spears and the Irish hand held knife only to defend themselves and their lands with.

Ireland had no experience of the type of continental warfare that the Normans were adapt at. The Irish wore no armour in battle and had no experience of fighting in divisions as the Normans did. It all made for a very uneven match and easy incursions and land grabs by the Anglo-Norman invaders.

Thanks both of you.
Now McMurrough asked for their assistance in some internal dispute, did he provid much back up?
Also is it safe to say Ireland was a pretty fragmented place at the time, and this fragmentation made it easier for the Normans/English to establish a strong foothold.

Denerick

Dyflin wrote: »

Where do you start with this?

At the beginning?

The AS were every bit as "international and ambitious" as their Norman cousins. And by cousins, I mean literally that. Hrolf the Ganger aka Rollo (c. 846 – c. 932) was most probably from Jutland, the same homelands as the AS.

That is not the same and you know it. The Normans brought Britain into contemporary European politics, where hithertoo it had been an isolated north western island, both rebellious and insular.

This is not even my opinion. If there is anything resembling a historical consensus about Norman England, then it is that 1066 acted as the catalyst of meaningful English influence in European affairs.

But most of all I'd love to know what race the Normans were that made them so unique and remarkable?

A race of people = a group of people from a certain part of the world that had a disproportionate effect on international history.

No-one is arguing that the Provencals or nearly any other group were similarily influential or remarkable.

In short, allow me to admire history. The straightjacket of historical correctness is very stifling and frankly very dull.

Dionysus

Denerick wrote: »

Thanks for reminding me why I should stay away from the history forum!

In fairness, there is an almighty amount of modern nationalistic bullshít attached to the Magna Carta as there is to the Glorious Revolution and other supposed "constitutional" landmarks in British history. We all should be skeptical. Likewise with a large majority of the other sacred cows of the "my country right or wrong" crowd.

Denerick

Dionysus wrote: »

In fairness, there is an almighty amount of modern nationalistic bullshít attached to the Magna Carta as there is to the Glorious Revolution and other supposed "constitutional" landmarks in British history. We all should be skeptical. Likewise with a large majority of the other sacred cows of the "my country right or wrong" crowd.

Brits talk very little about Magna Carta. In fact its greatest resonance lies in America, where it is revered as the first landmark in their judicial system. Such as the monument at Runnymede, paid for by US lawyers.

Its also pointless denying the Whig constitutional inheritance of 1688.

I'm all for skepticism, but nationalist burrow beating is incredibly grating.

MarchDub

Dionysus wrote: »

In fairness, there is an almighty amount of modern nationalistic bullshít attached to the Magna Carta as there is to the Glorious Revolution and other supposed "constitutional" landmarks in British history. We all should be skeptical. Likewise with a large majority of the other sacred cows of the "my country right or wrong" crowd.

Agree. The Whig version of British history is slowly but surely being put under much closer scrutiny - and found to be wanting- within the past 20 or 30 years in English historiography. And about time.

Fratton Fred

Dionysus wrote: »

In fairness, there is an almighty amount of modern nationalistic bullshít attached to the Magna Carta as there is to the Glorious Revolution and other supposed "constitutional" landmarks in British history. We all should be skeptical. Likewise with a large majority of the other sacred cows of the "my country right or wrong" crowd.

please explain then, to a simple minded "My country right or wrong" type of person how this nationalistic bull**** manifests itself and what, exactly, is wrong with recognising the Magna Carta and Glorious Revolution. They are both very important episodes in British constitutional history.

Denerick

Fratton Fred wrote: »

please explain then, to a simple minded "My country right or wrong" type of person how this nationalistic bull**** manifests itself and what, exactly, is wrong with recognising the Magna Carta and Glorious Revolution. They are both very important episodes in British constitutional history.

He thinks he is being 'post nationalist' by being anti English; but of course what he is doing is typical nationalism, degrading the achievements and successes of other civilisations.

Tabnabs

Denerick wrote: »

That is not the same and you know it. The Normans brought Britain into contemporary European politics, where hithertoo it had been an isolated north western island, both rebellious and insular.

This is not even my opinion. If there is anything resembling a historical consensus about Norman England, then it is that 1066 acted as the catalyst of meaningful English influence in European affairs.

I think you are overstating the significance of the English Norman's and underestimating the wider Norman significance in Europe and the Middle East. I also think that England stopped being and isolated north western island around AD 43.

Denerick wrote: »

A race of people = a group of people from a certain part of the world that had a disproportionate effect on international history.

To be fair, a race of people means something very different indeed. AS, Viking and Norman were all of the same race.

Denerick wrote: »

No-one is arguing that the Provencals or nearly any other group were similarily influential or remarkable.

In short, allow me to admire history. The straightjacket of historical correctness is very stifling and frankly very dull.

History is written by the victors and especially so the version we are familiar with after 800+ years of Anglo Norman influence. I prefer to look objectively at it and find the uncritical admiration very dull indeed.

From a contemporary account of Norman England

The English now gained confidence in resisting the Normans, whom they saw as oppressors of their friends and allies, and dared to launch an attack on the royal castle in York.

King William came on them by surprise from the south with an overwhelming army and routed them, killing those who could not escape - which was many hundreds of men - and he ravaged the city.

In his anger he commanded that all crops and herds, chattels and food of every kind should be brought together and burned to ashes with consuming fire, so that the whole region north of Humber might be stripped of all means of sustenance. In consequence so serious a scarcity was felt in England, and so terrible a famine fell upon the humble and defenceless populace, that more than 100,000 Christian folk of both sexes, young and old alike, perished of hunger.

Nowhere else had William shown such cruelty. Shamefully he succumbed to this vice, for he made no effort to restrain his fury and punished the innocent with the guilty.

My narrative has frequently had occasion to praise William, but for this act which condemned the innocent and guilty alike to die by slow starvation I cannot commend him. For when I think of helpless children, young men in the prime of life, and hoary greybeards perishing alike of hunger I am so moved to pity that I would rather lament the griefs and suffering of the wretched people than make a vain attempt to flatter the perpetrator of such infamy.

Orderic Vitalis Chronicler and Historian

Fratton Fred

You have to feel sorry for the people of York. Sacking York seemed to be a popular past time in Medievil England.

brianthebard

Denerick wrote: »

He thinks he is being 'post nationalist' by being anti English; but of course what he is doing is typical nationalism, degrading the achievements and successes of other civilisations.

Nobody thinks that it is post nationalist to be anti-british, not even the person you are describing. I'd suggest you drop this topic of conversation however, since it is off topic and not conducive to a peaceful forum, which is the preferred constitution of this corner of boards.