The Normans on BBC2

Denerick · 18-08-2010 9:03pm #1

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

ejmaztec · 19-08-2010 1:20pm

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 · 19-08-2010 2:44pm

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 · 19-08-2010 8:13pm

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 · 20-08-2010 6:26am

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 · 20-08-2010 9:17am

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 · 20-08-2010 9:35am

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 · 20-08-2010 6:34pm

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 · 21-08-2010 12:01am

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 · 21-08-2010 12:09am

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 · 21-08-2010 1:00am

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 · 21-08-2010 1:03am

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 · 21-08-2010 1:04am

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 · 21-08-2010 2:03am

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 · 21-08-2010 2:08am

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 · 21-08-2010 2:15am

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 · 21-08-2010 2:23am

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 · 21-08-2010 2:30am

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 · 21-08-2010 2:34am

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 · 21-08-2010 2:44am

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 · 21-08-2010 2:51am

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 · 21-08-2010 12:11pm

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 · 22-08-2010 12:21pm

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 · 22-08-2010 12:26pm

"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 · 22-08-2010 2:52pm

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 · 22-08-2010 3:54pm

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 · 22-08-2010 11:25pm

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

Einhard · 23-08-2010 12:17am

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 · 23-08-2010 1:50pm

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 · 23-08-2010 1:52pm

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 · 23-08-2010 2:16pm

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.

The Normans on BBC2

Comments