thewilliam theredforum2002
Registered user
Registered: 03-2004
Posts: 484
Karma: -5 (+2/-7)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
The Broken Tower Incident
Shortly after Hastings,the Conqueror accepted the surrender of Canterbury and was,like many of his troops previously(some of them fatally),a victim of dysentry.
He barely recovered at the landmark identified by William of Poitiers as the Broken Tower which is believed to be close to the town.
My question is: if the Conqueror had died would The Norman Revolution have died with him? And as a follow-up:who would have replaced him?
Having considered it in great depth I feel the second question is significantly less important than the first.
Rob (personal capacity)
|
|
Apr/15/2004, 5:03 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to thewilliam theredforum2002
Send PM to thewilliam theredforum2002
|
thewilliam theredforum2002
Registered user
Registered: 03-2004
Posts: 484
Karma: -5 (+2/-7)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: The Broken Tower Incident
No Conqueror,no revolution.I do not underestimate the importance of collective leadership.The comital system the Conqueror forged in Normandy was necessarily a combined operation involving his "inner circle" Robert,Odo,FitzOsbern et alia.
That was the backbone which made revolution in Normandy possible by facilitating the defeat of counter-revolution 1054-58.The Conqueror was,however,an extraordinary individual.He represented in its most refined form the assimilation of the entire progress of Normandy but by his consummate ability to manipulate and maneuver the competing interests inside and outside its borders,elevated it to a new level.In doing this he rendered himself unique,indispensable and irreplaceable.
It is necessary to identify the pivotal points.After Val-Es-Dunes (1047) he took the decisive step of preparing for what he must have seen as inevitable: an anti-Norman bloc between Henry the Frankish King and Geoffrey Martel of Anjou.This is the "Angleterre connection" and the promise by Edward the Confessor in 1051 that William would be his successor.
The genius of the Conqueror lay in his capacity to pursue the conventional road to achieve his objective (monarchical promise) and when that road was blocked or diverted as I am sure he must have anticipated,to achieve his objective by other unconventional means (Hastings).
When other Normans wavered at the prospect of exporting Normandy's revolution of 1058,the Conqueror was as steady as a rock in his resolve.He was steeped in what I would characterise as Cluniacism and the urgent necessity to ensure the survival of Normandy *coute que coute".
Remember when he was unhorsed at Hastings and it was at least 3 times.He had to identify himself to his forces to prevent morale collapsing.His death at Broken Tower would have ushered in an historical catastrophe of incalculable proportions and probably a new Danish Conquest of Angleterre.For how long the revolution in Normandy itself would have survived his passing makes me shudder.
Drogo,Chairperson (personal capacity)
|
|
Apr/16/2004, 7:02 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to thewilliam theredforum2002
Send PM to thewilliam theredforum2002
|
kebara
Registered user
Registered: 07-2003
Posts: 41
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: The Broken Tower Incident
All:
Perhaps you can answer this? Or maybe not. Wouldn't Odo have tried to take over? He certainly thought he was clever enough.
Anne G
|
|
Apr/17/2004, 5:08 am
|
Link to this post
Send Email to kebara
Send PM to kebara
|
thewilliam theredforum2002
Registered user
Registered: 03-2004
Posts: 484
Karma: -5 (+2/-7)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
 Re: The Broken Tower Incident
Rob Drogo Anne the point is the Conqueror had an automatic successor Robert Curthose. At 13 he might seem under-ripe until you consider his dad took over Normandy at 8  Of course he would have been putty in the hands of somebody like Odo who scared the living daylights out of him for years when he became adult.The thing you need to take on board is the decision of the Council of Bonneville was binding on all took part in the revolutionary onslaught.Even if the Conqueror had got cold feet he wouldn't have been allowed to back out,Grim Reaper not withstanding.The Norman leadership had decided that England was to be annexed to Normandy and by implication the Frankish Kingdom.It was to be a revolutionary transformation which even if the Norman fleet had sunk without trace outside St Valery would have been accomplished sooner or later by whoever was the Frankish King.I also cannot understand the feverish concern for the "revolution in Normandy" when its clear that the very survival of the duchy was on the chopping block.I dont think it would have survived.Phillipe the Frankish King since 1062 was thoroughly imbued by his dad Henri with a pathological hatred of tne Norman Revolution which he was determined to snuff out at the earliest opportunity and exert the full authority that his crown entitled him to in what he considered a province of his kingdom.The fact is whoever ran Normandy would have faced the necessity of annexing an island to its Continental home.Unless they are Island-Continents,islands are a pestilential nuisance in the grand scheme of things!And the Conqueror and Phillipe were leading forces in that scheme.The Normans understood this too in the Mediterranean when Apulia (part of Carolingian Europe) and Sicily(island) were consciously linked up by them.With the decline of Scandinavian power fully in evidence;islands which they had controlled would be exposed to new interests and necessities.One persons death was not going to stand in the way of those interests.Concerning Cluniacism this was not the personal property of the Conqueror however much it was his ideology which is often profoundly underestimated in much I have read about him.Cluniacism was the property of the entire Norman leadership and generated the phenomenon of the "warrior-priest" although I have heard it argued that its the other way around So to summarise it is clear to me that the Conqueror was crucial but ultimately dispensable although the Norman Revolution would have not survived the 1070s 
Bill H (personal capacity)
|
|
Apr/17/2004, 10:51 am
|
Link to this post
Send Email to thewilliam theredforum2002
Send PM to thewilliam theredforum2002
|
thewilliam theredforum2002
Registered user
Registered: 03-2004
Posts: 484
Karma: -5 (+2/-7)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: The Broken Tower Incident
All
It would have been an awful mess without the Conqueror.Odo of Bayeux would be the most obvious leader behind Courtheuse and we would concur that he would dominate as the power behind the throne albeit with prominent opposition.It is also apparent that the success of the Norman Revolution in England would not have survived long.Odo's actions in the 1080's which got him goaled by the Conqueror,who only authorised his release on his deathbed, and which saw him back Courtheuse after 1087, against the Red,indicate someone with an agenda inimical to the Conqueror's strategic vision.
We would favour William Warenne.His loyalty to the revolution in Normandy-England never wavered.He was a central leader in the victory at Mortemer in 1054,backed the Council of Lillebonne decision to annex England and distinguished himself at Hastings.His commitment to Cluniacism was never in question.He founded the first Cluniac house in England,at Lewes,between 1078 and 1080.
Finally,after the Conqueror's death,he backed the Red against Courtheuse thereby ensuring the advance of the revolution.
Franc B,Hugo (both in personal capacity)
|
|
Apr/18/2004, 8:45 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to thewilliam theredforum2002
Send PM to thewilliam theredforum2002
|
thewilliam theredforum2002
Registered user
Registered: 03-2004
Posts: 484
Karma: -5 (+2/-7)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
 Re: The Broken Tower Incident
Hmm hard to disagree with Warenne who died in defence of the Red at Pevensey.Not impossible.I choose William FitzOsbern.
His father Osbern the Seneschal, saved the young Conqueror's life and lost his own doing it.That bravery was passed on to his son whose influence was so strong that he motivated the export of the Norman Revolution to England at the Council of Lillebonne and helped to win the participants to the cause.I understand that some feel the Council of Bonneville-sur-Torques or the later assembly in Caen where ecclestiastical opinion was marshalled are more important but I have always held the view that Lillebonne was decisive.FitzOsbern was making the political-military case irrespective of religeous content.I am not wholly persuaded about "Cluniacism" but appreciate its ideological weight.His fierce support for the Conqueror after Hastings especially in the suppression of the pro-Dane counter-revolution in the North of England,reveals an inspired capacity for steadfastness of belief in the justice of the Norman cause.
There was something of the Red about him which had he lived to see the latter's rule I consider he would have recognised himself.
Lydia Giles,First Secretary(personal capacity)
|
|
Apr/19/2004, 6:57 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to thewilliam theredforum2002
Send PM to thewilliam theredforum2002
|
thewilliam theredforum2002
Registered user
Registered: 03-2004
Posts: 484
Karma: -5 (+2/-7)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: The Broken Tower Incident
My family is taking a week-end break in Canterbury and my youngest is a big Conqueror fan and he'd be as pleased as punch to visit this famous place.Does anybody have the map-coordinates for it? I've looked everywhere in medieval and modern sources without any success.If anyone can help on this a little chap will be very happy!
Bill H. (personal capacity)
|
|
Sep/9/2004, 9:18 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to thewilliam theredforum2002
Send PM to thewilliam theredforum2002
|
thewilliam theredforum2002
Registered user
Registered: 03-2004
Posts: 484
Karma: -5 (+2/-7)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: The Broken Tower Incident
Bill:: Checked William of Poitiers? if its anywhere its got to be there.
CT (personal capacity)
|
|
Sep/14/2004, 8:57 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to thewilliam theredforum2002
Send PM to thewilliam theredforum2002
|
thewilliam theredforum2002
Registered user
Registered: 03-2004
Posts: 484
Karma: -5 (+2/-7)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: The Broken Tower Incident
I hope you locate it Bill H.It never ceases to amaze me why nobody has got the exact data on where in Cheapside,Central London,the Conqueror destroyed the last counter-revolutionary anglo-saxon-dane resistance in the capital in late 1066.It would surely be a fine tourist attraction.
Lydia Giles,First Secretary (personal capacity)
|
|
Sep/16/2004, 9:37 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to thewilliam theredforum2002
Send PM to thewilliam theredforum2002
|
Xavier9
Registered user
Registered: 05-2008
Posts: 21
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: The Broken Tower Incident
A few years ago I made a failed attempt to locate this place in Canterbury.What also surprised me was how much the local people did not know about it including people at the Cathedral itself.It would seem a case of divine intervention saving William the Conqueror since when Henry V was struck with dysentry shortly after becoming king in France he did not survive.
|
|
Jun/28/2015, 10:29 am
|
Link to this post
Send Email to Xavier9
Send PM to Xavier9
|
