Runboard.com
You're welcome.
Community logo






runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6 ... 17  18  19 

 
thewilliam theredforum2002 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 03-2004
Posts: 484
Karma: -5 (+2/-7)
Reply | Quote
Re: William the Red


Florence or John of Worcester is the first one and refers to the assassination attempt on the Red circa 1095 and his suppression of the Counter-Revolution.
In 1094,when the Red was raising money for the campaign to wrest Normandy from the Counter-Revolutionary Robert Courtheuse he was rebuffed by Archbishop Anselm with an offer of 500 marks.Correctly, the Red demanded what the Archbishop could really afford : more.Anselm responded by refusing and withdrawing his original offer.
The Red was understandably angry with a man who was after all Lanfranc's 'successor' and knowledgeable about the divisions which had wrecked the Red's attempts to reunify the Normandy-Angleland entity to its 1087 revolutionist status.

Franc B,First Secretary (personal capacity)
May/11/2005, 8:43 pm Link to this post Send Email to thewilliam theredforum2002   Send PM to thewilliam theredforum2002
 
mousteriana Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 03-2005
Posts: 936
Karma: 6 (+6/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: William the Red


Franc:

Well, considering that King William divided England and Normandy between William "the Red" and Robert, respectively, it seems to me that this "division" came about through the first King William himself. So much for "revolution".
Anne G
May/12/2005, 3:32 am Link to this post Send Email to mousteriana   Send PM to mousteriana
 
thewilliam theredforum2002 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 03-2004
Posts: 484
Karma: -5 (+2/-7)
Reply | Quote
Re: William the Red


Not at all Anne. The Conqueror was a consummate revolutionist to the end. His deathbed speech was the result of the relationship of forces imposed on him by his victory at Mantes(today known as Mantes-La-Jolie) in 1087. That victory opened the road to Paris with Philippe’s army in retreat. Such favourable elements had not prevailed since the Viking , Rollo laid siege to the city in 911 when Charles 111 ruled The Kingdom of The Franks. Norman History had advanced since then and putting a Norman (Frank-Viking) on the Frankish throne and the consequent revolutionization of that Kingdom was a strong prospect.
The Conqueror’s fatal wounding in Mantes rendered it impossible due to the fact that it opened up the divisions in the Norman leadership which his leadership had managed to contain and channel for his revolutionist plans.
The majority of the leadership at the time of his deathbed speech were for holding Normandy and not exporting the Revolution to the rest of The Frankish Kingdom. They wanted Courtheuse to rule Normandy and Odo de Bayeux released from prison.
The Conqueror knew he was dying and that the Fortress of The Norman Revolution (Normandy) must be maintained as a united force.This was a minimalist necessity.If he had resisted their bullying tactics to the end, civil war would have broken out in Normandy, Philippe would have intervened on Courtheuse’s side.Normandy’s independence would have been crushed and Angleland lost, probably ultimately to Scandinavia.
He implemented a tactical retreat and conceded to their bullying knowing that it would give the Red the precious time and crucially the patience to reorganise and ultimately maintain the raison d’etre of The Norman Revolution: its export.
Events proved him completely correct.

Franc B, First Secretary (on behalf of TWTRF2002)
May/14/2005, 10:39 am Link to this post Send Email to thewilliam theredforum2002   Send PM to thewilliam theredforum2002
 
mousteriana Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 03-2005
Posts: 936
Karma: 6 (+6/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: William the Red


Franc:

Not at all Anne. The Conqueror was a consummate revolutionist to the end. His deathbed speech was the result of the relationship of forces imposed on him by his victory at Mantes(today known as Mantes-La-Jolie) in 1087. That victory opened the road to Paris with Philippe’s army in retreat. Such favourable elements had not prevailed since the Viking , Rollo laid siege to the city in 911 when Charles 111 ruled The Kingdom of The Franks. Norman History had advanced since then and putting a Norman (Frank-Viking) on the Frankish throne and the consequent revolutionization of that Kingdom was a strong prospect.
The Conqueror’s fatal wounding in Mantes rendered it impossible due to the fact that it opened up the divisions in the Norman leadership which his leadership had managed to contain and channel for his revolutionist plans.
The majority of the leadership at the time of his deathbed speech were for holding Normandy and not exporting the Revolution to the rest of The Frankish Kingdom. They wanted Courtheuse to rule Normandy and Odo de Bayeux released from prison.
The Conqueror knew he was dying and that the Fortress of The Norman Revolution (Normandy) must be maintained as a united force.This was a minimalist necessity.If he had resisted their bullying tactics to the end, civil war would have broken out in Normandy, Philippe would have intervened on Courtheuse’s side.Normandy’s independence would have been crushed and Angleland lost, probably ultimately to Scandinavia.
He implemented a tactical retreat and conceded to their bullying knowing that it would give the Red the precious time and crucially the patience to reorganise and ultimately maintain the raison d’etre of The Norman Revolution: its export.
Events proved him completely correct.

Well, quite frankly, I don't exactly understand where you and the others are "coming from", since your "take" on the history of Normandy doesn't square with any historians of the subject that I have managed to read. If anything, the "Normans", pretty much from Rollo/Rolf, or whatever you want to call him, very quickly began to "lose" their "Scandinavianness" and became "Gallicized". Not entirely, but enough so that NOrmandy was essentially a "Frankinsh"(whatever that meant at that time)entity under a series of rather weak "Frankish" kings.

As for the "revolutionary" aspect of William's activities(and his son "the Red", I guess that's a matter of opinion. In order to come up with this "take" on things, one has to igonre a great deal of evidence that England was "semi-feudal" even
[beforeWilliam Sr.took over in 1066. As for his "deathbed confession", what on earth prompts you to believe that he actually said those things? The only source is Orderic Vitalis, appearently. And he was writing his history in the early 12th century. He was born in the year 1075. So he would have been only 12 years old when William finally died, and was training to be a monk at St. Evroul. . . .so he could hardly have been a witness to these events. He probably got some information from William of Poitiers, but it's unlikely that WOP was there personally, either.
Anne G
May/14/2005, 5:35 pm Link to this post Send Email to mousteriana   Send PM to mousteriana
 
thewilliam theredforum2002 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 03-2004
Posts: 484
Karma: -5 (+2/-7)
Reply | Quote
posticon Re: William the Red


All,
Isn't it about time that Robert de Belleme was given his just place alongside the Red's closest leadership team? His life 1052-1130 spans the Conqueror's revolutionist years as well as the Red's and his support against Curthose's counter-revolutionary schemes in Normandy was crucial in those years leading to 1096 and the Red's acquisition of Normandy and with it the return of the Fortress of the Revolution 1058-1087,the essential springboard to the export of the Revolution to other parts of The Kingdom Of The Franks.

John G,Hugo (both in personal capacity)
Jul/21/2005, 9:18 pm Link to this post Send Email to thewilliam theredforum2002   Send PM to thewilliam theredforum2002
 
thewilliam theredforum2002 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 03-2004
Posts: 484
Karma: -5 (+2/-7)
Reply | Quote
posticon Re: William the Red


Today, 2nd August, marks the 905th anniversary of the assassination of William the Red by an agent of the Counter-Revolution led by the Frankish king Philippe 1 and his collaborator Henri Beauclerc, the Red’s brother. The assassination took place in the New Forest, around the early afternoon, at a place now strongly thought to be in present-day Beaulieu. When the assassin’s arrow struck down the Red, The Norman Revolution, 1058-1100, died with him and the course of European Medieval History changed in a profoundly negative direction.
For all those, today, who stand with the Red and his historical significance, whether inside our Forum, on this eminent Chatboard , or elsewhere, a moment of reflection is appropriate.

Rob , Chairperson (on behalf of TWTRF2002)

Aug/2/2005, 8:42 pm Link to this post Send Email to thewilliam theredforum2002   Send PM to thewilliam theredforum2002
 
thewilliam theredforum2002 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 03-2004
Posts: 484
Karma: -5 (+2/-7)
Reply | Quote
posticon Re: William the Red


All,
Does anybody have any information on this apparent case of a mistaken building?
The Counter-Revolution during 1095 against the Red led by Robert de Mowbray,Odo de Champagne and Gilbert de Tonbridge was crucially located in Northumbria and necessitated the Red leading his Revolutionary Army through a number of hostile locations to suppress it.One of these locations was at Tynemouth and was a castle. According to my view of the actual site it has all the hallmarks of a priory.The evidence for the castle is cited in John de Worcester's Chronicles but apparently this is open to question.My view stands up to scrutiny but there is no Chronicle which seems to support it.Or is there?

Bill H (personal capacity)
Dec/21/2005, 4:01 pm Link to this post Send Email to thewilliam theredforum2002   Send PM to thewilliam theredforum2002
 
thewilliam theredforum2002 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 03-2004
Posts: 484
Karma: -5 (+2/-7)
Reply | Quote
Re: William the Red


Bill
John of Worcester is normally very good on building locations and I would be wary about questioning his understanding on such things. My bet would be a castle.
S.Walsh (personal capacity)
Feb/4/2006, 3:16 pm Link to this post Send Email to thewilliam theredforum2002   Send PM to thewilliam theredforum2002
 
thewilliam theredforum2002 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 03-2004
Posts: 484
Karma: -5 (+2/-7)
Reply | Quote
Re: William the Red


Steve, I have gone through all of John of Worcester's stuff 2-3 years ago and the site in question still does not provide data that links up regularly.The Red's movements in Northumbria during the timeframe are haphazard and there is certainly evidence that priories were in the path of the hostilities.I cannot see why it is not plausible that Tynemouth 'slipped through his net'.Or perhaps its only because he seems to have that reputation of being "precise" on priories/non-priories.Anyway the question is still on the table.

Bill H (personal capacity)
Feb/10/2006, 7:47 pm Link to this post Send Email to thewilliam theredforum2002   Send PM to thewilliam theredforum2002
 
thewilliam theredforum2002 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 03-2004
Posts: 484
Karma: -5 (+2/-7)
Reply | Quote
Re: William the Red


Could it have been a military installation constructed within priory grounds? that wasn't an uncommon tactic.

Martin Tilston,First Secretary (personal capacity)
Feb/15/2006, 8:30 pm Link to this post Send Email to thewilliam theredforum2002   Send PM to thewilliam theredforum2002
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6 ... 17  18  19 





You are not logged in (login)