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  7 ... 19  20  21 

 
madgab5 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2005
Posts: 4
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: William the Conqueror


Are you also saluting the deaths of , what was it, 1/3rd of the native population whose only "sin" was in not wanting a foriegn king? And if Duke William was such a just man, why didn't he hand over the crown to the one it was actually "usurped" from, that being Edgar Aetheling?
Dec/31/2005, 2:18 pm Link to this post Send Email to madgab5   Send PM to madgab5
 
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


Madgab:


Are you also saluting the deaths of , what was it, 1/3rd of the native population whose only "sin" was in not wanting a foriegn king? And if Duke William was such a just man, why didn't he hand over the crown to the one it was actually "usurped" from, that being Edgar Aetheling?

Now those are *real* good questions. The problem is, I'm sure this forum will have a "preplanned" answer to them.
Anne G
Dec/31/2005, 10:50 pm Link to this post Send Email to mousteriana   Send PM to mousteriana
 
Athelstan937 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2005
Location: The Lands of the Hicce
Posts: 127
Karma: 2 (+2/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: William the Conqueror


Just like their heroes this forum does not and never have given a stuff about the lives of the ordinary people this supposed revolution was supposed to benefit.
The Bastard was so proud of his conquest that he was buried in France,probably because his grave would have been despoiled if his rotten carcass had been allowed to poison English soil.
There was nothing revolutionary about this invasion.This is Genocide masquerading as revolution!
If this were a revolution how come we speak English now? How come most of our customs predate this abomination of 1066?
Madgab has hit the nail on the head.
Jan/2/2006, 11:21 am Link to this post Send Email to Athelstan937   Send PM to Athelstan937
 
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


Aethelstan:

I don't know whether the members of this forum care about "ordinary" people or not. What is more important to me, in this context, at least, is they don't care much about the accuracy of their claims. As I've pointed out, I know of no historian of the period who would claim this was a "revolution", whatever else it was. Besides, there were far fewer "Frenchmen" than English, which meant that sooner or later, the "French"just got absorbed. The whole process took about 100 years, I think. Some things *did* change, but there was also much that was continuous; even William couldn't "do anything" about that!
Anne G
Jan/3/2006, 2:08 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 Conqueror


What seems to unite all your criticisms is an anti-Conqueror anti-Red perspective that is more suited to the 20th or 21st Century than the 11th.The ordinary people of those days in Angleland were a mixture of Angles,Saxons,Danes,Jutes,Frisians,Normans and even some Franks.They had no 'english' historical identity no more than the Franks in Continental Europe had a 'french' historical identity neither of those identities emerged until the mid to late 12th Century.
The Conqueror standing up for Edgar Aethling's right to accede in Angleland? why should he? his right was just as legitimate as Edgar.But that view of yours just shows the problem of all your postings, you know what you are against but not what you are for.The Usurper eliminated Edgar from the equation unlike his father he did not want to be a power behind the throne or sub regulus.The Conqueror was not about to pull the Anglo-Saxon-Dane fat out of the fire for them and rightly so.Edgar lived out his days despite raising rebellion against the Conqueror.How long would he have lasted if the Usurper had won at Senlac? About as long as Elizabeth Wydeville's princes in the Tower lasted under Richard 111 in my view.Genocide? all war can be reduced to genocide of one kind or another if you want to look at it a certain way.You choose to single out the Conqueror yet turn a blind eye to the genocide the Angles Saxons etc meted out to the Celts in the centuries following 451 which was far more numerically and for which they unlike the Conqueror on his deathbed never apologised for.The last genuine Anglo-Saxon king Aethelread the Unraid ordered the murder of all Danes in Angleland in 1002 in the Saint Brice's Day Massacre.No apology for that either.The Conqueror and the Red after him stood for unity of the kingdom of the Franks including Angleland in that progress,abolition of slavery which was rife in Angleland and only started to end during the Revolution 1066-1100, the racist exclusion of Jewish people from Angleland by Anglo-Saxon-Dane was ended by the Conqueror with the first permanent settlements after 1066 and which the Red also supported.And those are just the tip of the iceberg.
I recommend that you read our Forum's postings on what The Norman Revolution 1058-1100 stood for and then decide what you consider were the practical alternatives.

Bill H (personal capacity)
Jan/10/2006, 8:46 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


Bill H:

The English people of the 11th century were a "mixture" all right: they were mostly of "Angle" and "Saxon" origin in the south, with a rather large "Danis" component north and east of London. This, BTW, was the historical "Danelaw". And while it's true enough that "England" and "France" or "Normandy" weren't national entities in the way we understand the term today, it's also true that all these groups had "group identities". But these "group identities" weren't strong enough, for example, for the "Danes" to continue to identify as "Danes" 150 years or so after the first invasions. *Especially* after 1088 they tended to identify as "English", as opposed to "French"(you get hints of this in the ASC).

As to whether or not Edgar Aetheling would have been a "candidate" or a "rival" under Harold, it's hard to say, mainly because Harold wasn't around long enough for this to become a problem. But the Witan opted for an adult --- that is, Harold --- to sit on the throne after the death of Edward "the Confessor" I suppose the Witan approved of William more or less for the same reasons(plus he was the only "force" left and they couldn't do much about it anyway). Edgar Aetheling actually didn't do much of anything; his sister Margaret married Malcolm Canmore, the king of Scotland, and their daughter Edith married Henry I of England. So what can you conclude from all of that? Mainly that Edgar Aetheling wasn't very much of a threat to either William or Harold. As for the rest of it, I would strongly suggest you go back and do some basic history reading.
Anne G
Jan/11/2006, 4:06 am Link to this post Send Email to mousteriana   Send PM to mousteriana
 
Athelstan937 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2005
Location: The Lands of the Hicce
Posts: 127
Karma: 2 (+2/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: William the Conqueror


As Anne G states you need to go back and do some basic reading.As for their being no English identity does not the existance of a language and culture expressed in the writings of the time prove this.And if therewas no English identity why did the Bastard spend so much trying to remove all evidence of Englush culturewhich he failed to do incidentally.There is no way culturally or historically that England was part of anything called Frankland!
If William's claim was legitimate how come he had to massacre thousands who opposed him?
Where is the evidence that after 451 that the Anglo Saxons engagaed in massacres .Recent historical evidenc would suggest that settlement was far more peaceful than the Normans and their apologists would like to accept.
The Anglo Saxons came to England on the invitation of Vortigern who then betrayed them when he had helped him deal with the Picts and the Del Raida.It was only then when they were faced with expulsion from land they had been promised that they fought or be destroyed.Many of the Aglo-Saxons predecessors were troops in the Legions and had lived in Britain for many years.
My main critcism of your stance is this supposed revolution garbage.As with all revolutionaries before and after him William's aims werepersonal -greed, gluttony and domination .He cared nothing for anyone else save those who grovelled to him.
Jan/11/2006, 5:23 pm Link to this post Send Email to Athelstan937   Send PM to Athelstan937
 
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


Athelstan:

I'm not against "revolutionaries" per se. . .Not all of them are out for personal gain, etc. But that's another story. This "Norman revolution" doesn't really fit the modern definition of a "revolution", since really, no social structures were changed, although the personnel
certainly was. Much of what we now call "feudal" structure was present in England *before* 1066. And if anything, Normandy probably lacked such structure. It is possible that William kind of "imported" some of it from England! So this constitutes a "revolution"> I really doubt it.
Anne G
Jan/11/2006, 10:27 pm Link to this post Send Email to mousteriana   Send PM to mousteriana
 
Tarry Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 04-2005
Posts: 42
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: William the Conqueror


Folks,

Isn’t this whole discussion a bit ridiculous? One side wants to attach a grand ideal to what was essentially a greed enterprise. The other side seems to have a double standard when it comes to the history of invaders of England.

The real value of history comes when you accept it as it was and not as you prefer it to be.

Shane


Last edited by Tarry, Jan/12/2006, 4:40 pm
Jan/12/2006, 4:39 pm Link to this post Send Email to Tarry   Send PM to Tarry
 
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


Tarry:

Believe it or not, I try to be as "evenhanded" as possible about the whole series of events and their aftermath. It doesn't "show up" here, because the Forum is so appallingly "one sided" in their opinions. I don't think either side was full of saints. Far from it. But that's another story.
Anne G
Jan/13/2006, 2:38 am Link to this post Send Email to mousteriana   Send PM to mousteriana
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 ... 19  20  21 





You are not logged in (login)