Runboard.com
Слава Україні!
Community logo


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

Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 ... 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 :: If there is a thread that unites all the "pearls of wisdom" strung up here by those who want to criticise the Conqueror and his leadership team and the Revolution they led it is that of having absorbed all the views of pro-Usurper apologists down the years.
Athelstan says Angleland was never part of Frankland or as it was genuinely known The Kingdom Of The Franks.The centre of power in the Normandy-Angleland social formation was Normandy in general and Rouen and Caen in particular not Angleland or London/York.Normandy was part of The Kingdom Of The Franks.
Only those Anglo-Saxon revisionists of the 20th/21st Century who are seeking with varying degrees of failure to airbrush that power-relationship out of the historical picture for partisan or "patriotic" motivations want it to be otherwise so their new spring-cleaned history of Angleland/England can be presented to a suitably gullible "public".
Yes Ann our Forum is biased thats why we are the William The Red Forum 2002 and not a trainspotters' association.We believe The Norman Revolution 1066-1100 is worth celebrating and defending. That is what we are for.
 One of the postings said the Angles and Saxons were in the Roman Legions as a matter of fact it was certain Celts who were in those Legions and when the Celts correctly forced the Roman Empire out. People like Ambrosius emerged to lead that excellent Revolution after 410.Of more concern is that Athestan states the genocide against The Celts by the Angles,Saxons,Jutes etc never happened.Read Gildas who tells of how Vortigern and his leadership were murdered at a gathering called by both sides on the agreement that no weapons should be carried by either side.The Celts kept that agreement the Angles Saxons Jutes did not and wiped them out and so the Anglo-Saxon Revolution started and with it genocide and expulsion for the Celts except for those who they could not defeat in modern day Wales and Cornwall.I am speechless when I read Athelstans assertion but I understand it completely because people are being hoodwinked by the Anglo-Saxon revisionists who are trying to wash out all the filthy stains in their predecessors fabric and make them look the acme of "civilised people" rather than what they were.
Dinsdale (personal capacity)
Jan/14/2006, 4:26 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


Dinsdale and all:

Well, Itry to be as evenhanded as it is possible to be. In my book, if you're going to call Harold a usurper, what on earth do you think William was?

And Athelstan was right: England didhave a (somewhat) separate development, historically speaking, from the rest of Europe. It was, and is, an island, after all. OTOH, it was never completely separated from the rest of Europe; there was always at least some trade and other interaction with the rest of the Continent. The rulers of Anglo-Saxon England were quite well aware of Charlemagne, for example. So from that angle, your claims don't make much sense.

Finally, while I came to this subject matter rather accidentally --- my main interest is actually human origins, and I'm writing Great Medieval Science Fiction Masterpieces partly based on that --- I cared to learn enough about late Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman times to read whatever I could find about the subject, and to get primary sources whenever I could. This is why I said you folks really need to do some basic reading here. Because it doesn't exactly look like you have done so. Also, to conclude, I have a background in anthropology, and I'm treating this whole period of time as if it were something of an ethnographic study, although as a writer, I try to create real characters reacting to real situations. That includes both historical and "invented" personalities. So I guess my perspective is somewhat different from yours. However, I'm less concerned that this "forum" is "biased", than that there is little real dialogue between your views and the views of others with different ideas or perspectives.
Anne G
Jan/15/2006, 3:23 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


Dinsdale I do not deny that there were times when the Celts and Anglo-Saxons slaughtered each other but this pales in comparison to Williams wholsale genocide.Genocide as I understand is the attempt to wipe one race/nation of people off the face of the earth.

The Celts never forced the Romans out.The Roman Empire crumbled due to internal divisions and multiple external threats.To say the Celts fought some war of liberation as you claim is nonsense.
Vortigern was only one of many Celtic leaders.Much of the settling by the Anglo-Saxons was not bloody and warlike.Recent research would tend to back that up'Do not forget that much of the pre1066 history we have been fed through the ages came from those who were in power.They were hardly likely to paint those pre 1066 in any positive light just as they claim much of those 1066 acheivements as their own.
I too came across this site whilst researching background for a novel.I could not believe the twisted views I found.
Jan/16/2006, 8:29 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


Athelstan:

Actually, the views of the majority of persons on this list reflects certain kinds of divisions among historians. But the historians in question lived mostly in the 19th century and had 19th century views on these events. In these historical views, either "true" government startedwith King William, in which case you can safely ignore anything that came before, or the "Anglo-Saxons" were this sturdy bunch who resisted "oppression" and foreign invasion and were actually superior tp tje invaders! At best these competing views are each only partially correct, and each side tends to ignore any arguments that contradict their particular views. This is one reason I've tried to take a fairly "neutral" stance. The people on this forum, however, don't appear to see things that way, and consequently their views are "biased" in a sense. But then, if one wants to remain ignorant, there is nothing stopping anybody from doing so.
Anne G
Jan/16/2006, 10:49 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,

DNA testing of populations across Britain pretty well confirms that there was no genocide committed by the Anglo-Saxons or Normans. In fact, the "Celtic" peoples are just as significant in southern England today as they are in the northern areas. There are places that seem to have relatively high populations associated with the Germanic invaders, but these are the exception to the rule. And even in those cases, the Celtic contribution is still very high, if not the majority.

Those who care to look into the matter, should start with a paper titled: A Y-Chromosome Census of the British Isles

Found here: http://www.familytreedna.com/ydnapapers.html


Tarry
Jan/17/2006, 3:16 pm Link to this post Send Email to Tarry   Send PM to Tarry
 
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


I'm puzzled as to who Athelstan 937 refers to when he mentions 'ordinary people' this is a populist term with a resultant catch-all, non-descript interpretation that is totally at odds with The Norman Revolution (1058-1100)which was direct and specific in that it affected all strata of the population and revolutionized them.If its meant to be the peasantry there can be no doubt they were thoroughly revolutionized by becoming part of The Kingdom Of The Franks and all the other impacts that our Forum has made evident on this and other related topics.But if i was forced to pick out only one thing that revolutionized all strata in Normandy-Angleland it would be that of Leadership.This was especially the case in Angleland where things were never the same again after 1066.The combative, principled leadership that the Conqueror and his leadership team demonstrated in Normandy particularly after 1058 showed to everyone what was possible if people drew the necessary lessons from how he and others like William Warenne had constructed a politically astute, fearless and committed leadership team instilled with revolutionist policies that had proved capable of overthrowing and eliminating a ruling class in Angleland that had forfeited its right to rule by oppressing its people to extreme levels of injustice.Those lessons of how to construct a revolutionist leadership were absorbed steadily until in 1381 the Peasants Revolt broke out against Richard 11.Although it was a naive flop in the end the tactics Tyler,Ball and others used showed that like the Conqueror, the Red and Warenne they knew when the enemy was never going to concede to their just demands and so struck decisive blows to enforce their demands.Unlike the Conqueror the Red and Warenne, they were fobbed off by treacherous compromise and lost. Yet in my opinion without The Norman Revolution's victory in 1066, 1381 would not have been possible because the english peasants would not have had the knowledge,experience and consequently the confidence based on historical leadership precedent at the highest level which 1066 had passed on to them and their ancestors down the centuries.
Tarry I'm puzzled by your apparent obsession with DNA. DNA is not and never will be equal to History.It's not the way the world works. The Celts in Britain were part of a revolutionary struggle conducted by their fellow Germanic tribes in Continental Europe to annihilate The Roman Empire in Europe.That struggle was an unqualified,brilliant success.It was started by Arminius the leader of the Cherusci a Germanic tribe who smashed Roman Legions under Varus in the Teutonberg Forest in the first decades of Emperor Augustus' rule.That is why there is a huge statue built to Arminius in Germany today.The Celts in Britain did suffer genocide,expulsion and enslavement after their defeat by the Anglo-Saxon-Jute tribes flooded in from Continental Europe.The proof is in archaeology as well as the histories written by Nennius and others.The lack of place names in the Celtic language the severe lack of Celtic artefacts discovered compared to the huge A-S quantities dug up.Another point you make is truley bizarre- accept history as it is? So there is a book or tome somewhere where everything is written down which proves everything else written is wrong presumably? The fact is History including what is discussed on this Chatboard is a cauldron of contention because new viewpoints are being established continually based on scientific analysis including as one component only, DNA.Also-The Norman Revolution 1058-1100 was not about anything so flippant as "greed",it was about politics which is a bigger subject demanding analytic rigour worthy of the subject.The struggle for scientific understanding demands nothing less.

Hugo (personal capacity)
Jan/17/2006, 8:53 pm Link to this post Send Email to thewilliam theredforum2002   Send PM to thewilliam theredforum2002
 
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


Hugo,

You certainly like to put a revolutionary spin on events. Take for example your Germanic struggle to "annihilate" Rome. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most of the unrest in the Roman Empire was due to more Germanics wanting into the Empire. Do I even need to go into the huge contribution Germanic and Celtic peoples made to the armies of Rome?

When you consider the economic opportunity that came their way in the form of Roman culture, it is clear that many Germanic peoples wanted to be Roman. Don't take my word for it. Read The Barbarian Speaks, by Peter Wells. Or is it you just read the ancient writers? Those guys certainly never wrote propaganda.

Of course, there were those who wanted things as they used to be. Arminius fits into that category. But by your concept, it is assumed one man's actions define an entire people. I don't believe history can be reduced to such simplification.

Besides, If the Germanic peoples wanted to destroy Rome, why did they work so hard to preserve its culture and institutions once the Empire began to crumble?

The reason so few Celtic place names exist in England has more to do with assimilation than any genocide. You can choose to ignore DNA if you want, but in the end you will only be doing yourself a disservice.


Tarry
Jan/17/2006, 10:40 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:

I think you're mainly right that neither the Germanic people nor the later Normans "committed genocide", except in a few relatively rare instances, such as the so-called Harrying of the North. But even King William was unable to, nor, I think, did he want to, wipe out the entire English population. Unlike some modern rulers or dictators or whatever you want to call them. However, that doesn't mean there might not have been conflict and bloodshed. But in the main, it was in the interests of both sides(whether Germanic or Norman) to assimilate in various ways, with the native populations, at least in the long run.
Anne G
Jan/18/2006, 2:32 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
posticon Re: William the Conqueror


Hugo be careful because I think I understand what Tarry is getting at and it chimes in with something I have always said which is never underestimate the Jurassic Park factor in pre-Senlac Angleland.

Bill H (personal capacity)
Jan/20/2006, 3:30 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 Conqueror


Madgab, Athlelstan937 and Mousteriana,
(a)You all directly or indirectly, implicitly or explicitly charge the Conqueror with genocide against the Angle-Saxon-Dane peoples. As Bill H cited, genocide can be applied broadly to all warfare if that is all that is looked for.
(b) Our Forum believes that historical analysis is required which sees the collision of opposed political policies as the main focus and from which other factors flow and interact.
(c) Neither the Conqueror, nor the Red for that matter, ordered genocide. The Counter-Revolutionary upsurges after Senlac1066 were guided by a clear, political line that wanted to return Angleland to neo-Scandinavian hegemony which was anathematic to the fusion of Angleland with The Kingdom Of The Franks, the most advanced social entity in Europe and the key component in the destruction of the Roman Empire in the Continent.
(d) Those Counter-Revolutionaries took up belief and arms against the belief and arms of The Norman Revolution and were defeated in battle and most spectacularly in 1069. The Conqueror (or the Red) never singled out Angles Saxons Jutes Danes etc for destruction based on their ethnicity(unlike Aethelread the Unraid in 1002). That is the definition of genocide which is the destruction of a ethnic group or race based on their ethnicity. Yet, on his deathbed, the Conqueror still apologised for the mortal cost of those victories in 1069.
 (e)Athelstan937 thinks their was no genocide against the Celts (according to his posting). The matter of the Celts is not off topic here. On the contrary, the Brittany connection with Normandy especially the pivotal role of their cavalry at Senlac and during Godwineson’s time there in 1064-65 make it of crucial importance Although our Forum does not endorse all the conclusions of Norman Davies in his book “The Isles” we present here this extract from it which we think gives the essential flavour of those times in Angleland.

(f) “ The ‘Men of the South West’ were descendants of the Dumnonii. They maintained their separate existence into the eighth century. The kingdom of Dumnonia was still functioning under its last known ruler in 708-9, when King Geraint was accused by his Saxon neighbours of observing the Celtic Easter. The critical moment occurred shortly afterwards when a joint attack of the South and West Saxons captured Isca(a fort CT,Franc B). After that, the kingdom fragmented. The district on the Severn estuary lost its local British dynasty and became Somerset. The part to the east of the Tamar retained its original name but in Germanic form, Defensascir , ie ‘Saxon Dumnonia’, and became Devon. Only the land to the west of the Tamar remained in British hands. To the Saxons, it was known as Kern-wealhas, ie Cornwall. To the natives, it was, and still is, Kerno.” (p207)

(g) As Davies explains earlier, the Angles Saxons etc regarded the original inhabitants of Britain, the Celts, as strangers hence the term Welsch(stranger) (which became Welsh ) .
It’s also worth being aware that stranger in those days meant “foreigner” from the Latin extraneus. And yet the Celts were like the newcomers Germanic. From the start these peoples did not get along. The term Welsch could even be taken as a racial epithet and that can lead to the worst results which along with expulsions and slavery became the lot of many, defeated Celts after 451. The evidence still exists today, the term “welsher” is contemptuous slang for someone who rats on a bet or deal. There is no historical evidence that racial epithets were used by Normans against Angles,Saxons etc.
(h) Then there is the matter of Offa’s Dyke. As you probably know, Offa was the Eighth Century king of Mercia a predominantly Angle stronghold who built that wall (which is what it really was since the ditch was only 6 feet (1.8 metres) deep while the wall(rampart) including the ditch was 25 feet (7.6metres) ) in order to keep the “Welsh”(Celt) peoples out and those fellow Celts who had been booted off their land by the newcomers in Angleland from ever returning. That wall was 120 miles long from Chepstow Gwent to Prestatyn in Clwyd where it connected with Wat’s Dyke a shorter stretch of wall linking to the sea.
(i) Offa and Wat’s Wall was the Eighth Century’s Berlin Wall,on a vaster scale, in Europe. Apart from the much earlier Roman, Hadrian’s Wall, there was no equivalent of its kind to our knowledge in Europe at the time. It was a wall of blood and terror built by slaves which were many more than the 1 in 10 under the Usurper and of whom captured Celts formed a sizeable portion. A strident message reiterating that the Celts were a defeated people at the hands of the Angle-Saxon-Jute Revolution 451. That Revolution took strong measures to establish itself down the centuries as did The Norman Revolution later in a shorter time-span.
(j)Our Forum defends both Revolutions as we do the Celt Revolution of 411.( Indeed, we are amazed that any people cut off on an island from their fellow Celts in Europe could survive less overthrow one of the most brutal and long-lasting Empires the world has ever seen) .We do not defend hypocrisy.
(k)The Conqueror on his deathbed apologised to Angles-Saxons-Danes for his necessary excesses. No Anglo-Saxon king on his deathbed or otherwise ever apologised to the Celts for his necessary excesses.

CT, Vice Chairperson, Franc B (both in personal capacity)
Jan/21/2006, 12:18 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  7  8 ... 19  20  21 





You are not logged in (login)