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 ... 19  20  21 

 
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 Conqueror


All
Our view would be that the central question was on 7th and 8th September 1087,Were the Red and Warenne backing the Conqueror in his struggle with the elements in the leadership favouring compromise? The Red was present at the time and certainly responded when called to do so by the Conqueror when he handed him his sword sceptre and crown.Warenne may not have been present but his actions after the Conqueror's death were pro-the Red.The idea that the Conqueror was in a minority of one in his defense of the Revolution seems to us ill-conceived.Unfortunately neither of the transcripts either by the Monk of Caen or Orderic mentions where these two key figures stood on the crucial questions of Bayeux or Curthose.
Hugo,Bill H (both in personal capacity)
Sep/13/2005, 9:57 pm Link to this post Send Email to thewilliam theredforum2002   Send PM to thewilliam theredforum2002
 
WorkMonkey Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2005
Posts: 9
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: William the Conqueror


man you guys are weird...you're not a cult are you? You seem to worship a king at a demi-god status, I thought we got rid of all this silly nonsense with old Charlie Boy.
Can't you just have normal rational debates without all this pre-scripted over-dramatical and unneccessary bias? It's just weird and really not healthy.

Sure the early Germanics plundered Briton when they first landed, just as any roving army did/does but they also had to sustain themselves, if they'd invaded full force and wiped out the local population they simply wouldnt have been able to replace the numbers needed to work the land quick enough, thus no crops would grow, thus they would all starve to death the next winter. I'm not sure where all this anti-germanic/scandanavian resentment comes from, the Normans were Scandanavian by decent and of course the Normans bought so much to our country, and contributed their own piece to this elaborate patchwork of cultures we call modern England, im not denying that, the whole downplaying of other cultures is just silly and abit childish and it can be took across the whole spectrum of history.

"Stupid stone age people, all they did was hit rocks with other rocks to make sharp rocks and throw the rocks at animals, why didnt they just invent the gun instead?"

"rar rar rar, all the ancient britons did was run around naked in blue paint, play on their chariots and give the Romans something to practice their gladius arm on."

"All those stupid romans did was build unneccesarily expensive things and ponce about in their togas, they didnt even wipe their own arses before passing it through a whole line of beurocratic protocal"

"All those Saxons did was live in stick huts, build rubbish churches,and be beaten in war all the time.

"All those Danes/Vikings did was come in and make a mess of things then try and settle but no one really liked them so they buggered off back home, but were abit bitter so they had one last go and got wiped out"

"All those Normans did was subjegate the country with castles, and make a huge list of everything in the country (as if everyone didnt know already how many cows they owned"

etc.
Sep/15/2005, 4:17 pm Link to this post Send Email to WorkMonkey   Send PM to WorkMonkey
 
mousteriana Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

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


WorkMonkey:

I don't thik this forum is a "cult", exactly, but you have to remember that this is the Internet, and if you're trulyinterested, you can find a lot of nutty ideas out there in cyberspace. Racists, religious "freaks", New Agers of various stripes, you name it. This forum is actually one of the less "nutty". Athough IMHO, their views are, from a historical perspactive, absolute hogwash.
Anne G
Sep/15/2005, 8:47 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
Re: William the Conqueror


WorkMonkey: Our Forum believes in The Norman Revolution 1058-1100 and its place in History.We also believe in the Celtic Revolution which overthrew the Roman Empire in 410 and the Anglo-Saxon Revolution of 451 which overthrew the Celts.The Norman Revolution is,for us,by far the most progressive,since it was from within The Kingdom Of The Franks, the most advanced political force in Medieval Europe at the time,and in bringing Angleland,de facto, into that Kingdom and politically unifying that island with Europe raised it to a decisively higher historical level of political significance.When the Conqueror and the Red then exported The Norman Revolution to other sectors of The Kingdom Of The Franks,they confirmed the unique status and power of the Revolution they and their leadership team had organised.
We also believe in an international investigation into the death of William the Red since his death is still not recognised, beyond a shadow of doubt, as an assassination which was the product of an elaborate conspiracy involving inveterate enemies of The Norman Revolution 1058-1100.
John G (personal capacity)
Sep/15/2005, 10:11 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 Conqueror


John G and all:

You may "believe" in a Celtic Revolution(whatever the heck that was), or Normant Revolution, or anything else you please, but your beliefs will not make it so. I have seen no, I repeat noreputable hisstorian of the period, who describes what happened this way. And why are you nowstarting with the year 1058? I can't recall anything special happening then, but OTOH, I'd have to refresh my memory here. The plain fact is, and you will find plenty of historians of the period who are awaare of this, that England was one of the most prosperoous and well-run kingdoms in Europe(if not the best-run), There were, for instance, at least 30 money mints, which kept more money in circulation than elsewhere. The government was reasonably stable and it worked reasonably well for the majority of people who were living at the time. By this I mean that,for a generation before the Norman invasion, there were no major incursions by anybody, into England. You can argue what you like about the Godwin family, but they were largely responsible for keeping England on a reasonably even keel; Edward "the Confessor" seems to have been less interested in governing than building Westminster Abbey. There were many reasons for this, but it would appear that Edward needed their "assistance". After 1066, Willaim I, and then William II simply took over the instintutions that were already in place, and ran them with their "own" people for the most part. The kind of changes you folks consider "revolutionary" didn't really happen under either of these two men, but probably began to make themselves felt(or at least most people in England had adjusted by that time) under Henry I. And if you bother to read any halfway-decent historical material, I think you would understand this. But judging by your collective posts, I don't think you have.

Oh, and where on earth did you get "Angle-land" from????? I know some pretentious types like to capitalize "HIstory", but I've never seen "Angle-land", except on this forum. Such pretensions only make the writers of such things look incredibly silly.
Anne G
Sep/16/2005, 5:15 am Link to this post Send Email to mousteriana   Send PM to mousteriana
 
WorkMonkey Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2005
Posts: 9
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: William the Conqueror


...clearly a cult.

why do you always say "we" when you're the only one who seems to post here.

And I'm sure the government will press for an "investigation" of the death of someone 1000 years ago, for one you cant proove it was a assination, there are various accounts of people being killed in hunting accidents, all there is is the circumstantial, and the historic texts, which are at best, sparse in credible detail.
Sep/16/2005, 9:02 am Link to this post Send Email to WorkMonkey   Send PM to WorkMonkey
 
mousteriana Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

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


WorkMOnkey:

To be totally fair to this group, I think it's only reasonable to point out that the circumstances under which William "Rufus" died were, to put it mildly, odd. And Henry had everything to gain by "offing" his brother. Now I'm not saying Henry did this, but rather that it's *plausible". Which is quite different from claiming some sort of 11th and 12th century "revolutions" and "counterrevolutions". This last is just plain silly, since no one then had even the concept of "revolution".
Anne G
Sep/16/2005, 5:39 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
Re: William the Conqueror


Hugo and Bill

I think you ask the wrong question.

The alignment of conflicting forces around the Conqueror’s deathbed had arrived at Saint Gervais as a result of suffering a cruel reversal at Mantes with their leader’s wounding and having endured a long march f back through ravaged Vexin countryside which they had earlier rode through as victors on a mission to strike a deathblow at Philippe 1 by way of Mantes and ultimately Paris. They were extremely demoralised and the Conqueror’s slow,excruciating death as a result of the stomach wound only served to reinforce a sense that not only political advance had been snatched from them but that God had abandoned their cause.

The centrality of Courtheuse is something necessary to grasp if the events at Saint Gervais are to fully understood. It is a case of having to take a few steps back in order to go forward here. After the suppression of the Counter-Revolution of 1075 in Angleland, the leading conspirator,Ralph De Gael, fled to Dol in Brittany where he was helped by Philippe 1 and a coalition of anti-Count Hoeul of Brittany forces to defeat the Conqueror in 1076. That defeat inspired Courtheuse to lead another Counter-Revolutionary push at Gerberoi in 1079 where he clashed personally with the Conqueror on the battlefield unhorsing and wounding him. At St Gervais in 1087, Courtheuse is not at Philippe’s Court out of pique but is making a statement: The Norman Revolution must surrender to The Frankish King. He does this because Philippe has snatched ‘victory’ from the jaws of defeat. After victory at Mantes the completion of the Conqueror’s revolutionary advance to Paris was in sight. His wounding sends it in headlong reverse because the Conqueror was the driving force of The Norman Revolution at the time. Mantes was a half-victory in strategic terms and as Saint-Just said much later about The French Revolution “ Those who make a revolution by half dig their own grave”.

Which brings me to what the correct question is: What was the Conqueror’s political testament at St Gervais? I consider it to be comprised of three crucial points in essence:

1. If Odo is released from prison there will be extreme mayhem in Normandy-Angleland.
2. If Robert Courtheuse inherits Normandy as Duke its future is in deep trouble.
3. Angleland must be left to God.

It is these points that those in that room absorbed and which on 1 and 2 they forced the Conqueror who was in unbelievable pain to retreat on. Point 3 also contains a subtly in that apart from the obvious piety it is also indirectly linked to him ordering the Red to Angleland and if he is successful there, then it would be God’s Will.

What happened after the Conqueror’s death proved him right on all points in his testament.

That is why I consider it of principal importance in evaluating what really happened at St Gervais which was a tactical retreat by the Conqueror in order to maintain his aim of exporting The Norman Revolution after his death via his testament. It was a feigned retreat at Senlac in 1066 which won him that battle and it also posthumously won him his last ‘battle’ at St Gervais. This rather than the squabbles of totally demoralised revolutionist leaders endured beyond that terrible day and ultimately contributed decisively to the Red’s successes in 1096 and 1099-1100 and underlines the ideological dynamic of The Norman Revolution 1058-1100 from its beginning.

Drogo (personal capacity)

Sep/17/2005, 11:32 am 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 Conqueror


Drogo
For you to point out that the Conqueror's testament was a prime factor in the post-St Gervais succession struggle and that it became a rod for one or each faction to beat each other with is like forcing a open door.Our thesis was to maintain that those who surrounded him in that room were moving inexorably towards a full-blown Counter-Revolutionist position always assuming they were not there already.
We strongly contest that this was merely a case of 'demoralisation'. In fact it is exactly because of Dol and of even greater importance Gerberoi where the Red fought with the Conqueror against Courtheuse that when the 'number two' in Normandy and heir to the dukedom is clearly telling the Conqueror's revolutionist leadership team that their leader is charting a course for disaster.We think you underestimate the significance of Gerberoi, it was a decisive turning point in the Revolution and forshadowed the reversals of 1082 and 1083 with Odo and Matilda and inspired the huge Counter-Revolutionist gathering in Scandinavia of 1085-86. The Conqueror's leadership team were flesh and blood not supermen and if such dissent was manifesting itself so cogently egged on behing the scenes by The Frankish King then for them the tide had turned and it was time to 'consolidate not export' The Norman Revolution.
It was exactly because The Frankish King knew that stimulating dissent and division in Normandy was pivotal to his success that the Conqueror warned costantly against Norman divisions if Normandy-Angleland was to remain intact.You do not seem to weigh 1085-86 with due care.Why did the Conqueror raise the biggest international,revolutionary army ever assembled in Angleland,if his base in his leadership team was on the right track? His existing capability leadershipwise would surely have been adequate if 'all was well'. These divisions preceded Mantes and when that victory was not followed through to a final 'settling of accounts' with The Frankish King the old doubts which had never gone away since Gerberoi returned with a vengeance.This is why we insist on arriving at an understanding of what the exact position of the Red and Warenne was at this critical juncture. The testament factor is important but only as reminder of what divisions had existed since 1079.It is effect not cause.Certainly the Red followed the Conqueror's deathbed order to get to Angleland but was he clear on what kind of divisions would face him in the aftermath? Even more significantly in the case of Warenne: why was he not at St Gervais? Was he preparing to rebut the Counter-Revolutionist surge which he knew as a veteran campaigner since 1054 was inevitable? Had he passed on his views to the Red at an earlier phase in the struggle??
We consider it impermissable to reduce the huge struggles which burst forth after September 1087 to a function of the verification of the Conqueror's 'testament, and so play ducks and drakes with historical assessment.

Bill H, Hugo (both in personal capacity)
Sep/24/2005, 2:25 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 Conqueror


The Red once famously remarked in August 1100 that he aimed to spend Xmas in Poitiers. Sadly, it was the day before his assassination by Tyrel de Poix , a servant of the forces of Counter-Revolution.
25.12.2005 marks the 939th anniversary of the crowning of the Conqueror in Angleland and the official beginning of The Norman Revolution in that island and the unification of the Revolution which had begun in the glorious victory at Varaville, Normandy in 1058.

Our Forum salutes the 939th anniversary in remembrance of the annihilation of a corrupt, decadent Anglo-Saxon-Dane ruling class which had long outlived its usefulness to History and the expropriation of their land and wealth to finance the unfolding export of The Norman Revolution. We celebrate the replacement of that rotten ruling class by a revolutionary ruling class committed to Revolutionism and Cluniacism.

The crowning symbolised the merger of Angleland with Normandy and the most progressive, civilization in Europe : The Kingdom Of The Franks. But, for our Forum, it symbolised something more. It symbolised the merger with the Frankish people who were in the vanguard of those progressive social forces who smashed the hated, Roman Empire in Europe and organised and made possible the Revolution that was to become Medieval Europe and in so doing satisfied the burning demands of History at that conjuncture.

 Our Forum also believes that 26.12.2005 needs to be remembered in the Conqueror’s context. It is our view that not for nothing did he choose the month of December to bury the remnants of a smashed and discredited regime and to make its revolutionary climax the 25th and 26th. Certainly, The Nativity Of Christ was of vital significance but equally St Stephen (Etienne) The Protomartyr was uppermost in his and to a significant extent his leadership team’s minds. In 1059 in order to celebrate and commemorate the victory of The Norman Revolution at Varaville the previous year, he ordered the building of two churches/abbeys in Caen, Normandy. His church was built for The Protomartyr. Matilda’s for The Holy Trinity.

The Protomartyr occupies a unique place in Christianity in general and Cluniacism in particular. He was the first of Christ’s disciples to be judicially murdered by the Roman Empire for his revolutionist beliefs. At the stoning was the man who was to become St Paul. He participated in it. It is said in battle someone has to be first into the breach. The Protomartyr was that person.

The Conqueror, too, never spared himself. And so this strong identification was the essence of his motivation for Revolutionism and Cluniacism. The Conqueror never lost sight of it even in his turbulent last hours at Saint-Gervais in 1087.And neither does our Forum.

Rob, Chairperson, Lydia Giles, Chairperson-Elect ( on behalf of TWTRF2002)
Dec/23/2005, 4:03 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 ... 19  20  21 





You are not logged in (login)