Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Normans on BBC2

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    fontanalis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #33
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #34
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #35
    losthorizon
    Registered Users Posts: 4,565 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #36
    Tabnabs
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,695 Mod ✭✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Tabnabs
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,695 Mod ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #38
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #39
    fontanalis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #40
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #41
    Dionysus
    Registered Users Posts: 3,420 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #43
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #44
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #45
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #46
    Tabnabs
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,695 Mod ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #47
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


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


  • Options
    #48
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭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.


Advertisement