Runboard.com
Слава Україні!
Community logo


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

Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6 ... 8  9  10 

 
thewilliam theredforum2002 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 03-2004
Posts: 484
Karma: -5 (+2/-7)
Reply | Quote
Re: Adela de Blois


Martin,

Motivation for 1087? emoticon To be frank about Adela, you have to recognise that until 1087 there was no finer Norman Revolutionist.That fact which Lydia pointed to in a different context admittedly, about The Bourgeuil Roll is a central factor in that by identifying with The Trojan Wars she was declaring that her commitment to the Revolution was something that transcended 1058 or 1066 but was related to the most profound ideological tenets of Norman history which may even extend to the original departure from Norway in the 9th Century during Harald Fairhair's revolutionary unification of that country.That might be a little speculative in that some see The Trojan Wars as being so universal as to dwarf anything that happened in similar contexts in any one country in the following centuries, but I consider it valid.
When she refused to defend the Conqueror's justified and prophetic attacks on Odo de Bayeux and Courtheuse in those tragic last hours at Saint Gervais,she crossed over to the Counter-Revolution.
It must be 1087.1096 and 1100 were only milestones in that terrible journey.
Indubitably, she was an important loss to the Norman cause but the Revolution could not carry dissenting passengers who could finish by sabotaging that cause.
Bill H (personal capacity)
May/9/2006, 7:39 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: Adela de Blois


Because of its link to the Counter-Revolutionary First Crusade, I choose 1096.

T.F. Dacres (personal capacity)
May/11/2006, 1:23 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
Re: Adela de Blois


To votes so far:
Adela de Blois was certainly consistent with Revolutionism-Cluniacism during the rule of the Conqueror.The divisions within the Norman leadership at Saint Gervais (1087) were not her responsibility, given her links with Blois-Chartres.The Saint Gervais divisions were primarily the responsibility of those who should have known better(Robert de Mortain being chief among them).Remember even the Red was incapable of marshalling significant pro-Conqueror opinion at that time.1087 for that reason does not impress.In the case of 1096,certainly The First Crusade was an appalling setback for The Norman Revolution and Medieval Europe in general.But does it overthrow that Revolution? Emphatically no,that required a Europe-wide dynamic which centred on the strategic interests of The Frankish King,Philippe 1.That is why 1100 is the year that Adela de Blois, by her continueing alliance with Beauclerc after 2.8.1100, severed her remaining links with The Norman Revolution and why,incidently, she did not dare to reply to the views of Hugue de Cluny in his letter to Philippe 1 protesting the Red's death/assassination because so strong was her commitment to the convent at Marcigny-sur-Loire, which Hugue had set up based on The Holy Grotto Principles of Saint Benedict.A classic case of ideological principle being sacrificed on the altar of political accommodation.

Rob (personal capacity)
May/21/2006, 2:26 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: Adela de Blois


Those who are not for 1096 must remember the salient facts:
Count Etienne was not enthusiastic about joining the First Crusade it was Adele who continually argued with him to go until he could refuse no more.When he returned from Antioch a defeated Counter-Revolutionary emoticon there was uproar from Adela.This was not a little related to the fact that "success" for that "venture" was about to yield "victory" in 1099 and bain de sang in Jerusalem.There is more and this is decisive: between 1099 and 1101 she persuaded by the same tactics as before to restore his standing among her Counter-Revolutionary collaborators by returning to the Middle East and his death sometime in 1100-1101.
1099-1100 is the year when The Norman Revolution reaches its glorious apogee:the Red's acquisition of Aquitaine.
What greater reason can there be for her abandonment of The Norman Revolution than those treacherous events which began in 1096?Her rule of Blois-Chartres in Count Etienne's absence was pro-Philippe1.
Franc B (personal capacity)
May/26/2006, 6:10 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: Adela de Blois


Has anyone noticed how multiple choice questions have a devilishly cunning attribute of overlapping? I have to confess that I do not see the necessity of dividing the choice on the basis of one year. 1087-88,1096-1099,1100-1101 is directly reflective.That is not a semantic point it is recognising a process that did not confine itself to a specific timeline but evolved relentlessly.That is my justification for 1087.

You see I think there is misapprehension about Adele de Blois' political evolution in the revolutionization of Normandy-Angleland.

Her marriage was certainly part of the Conqueror's strategy vis-a-vis Philippe.Stephen de Blois was count of a province that bordered Philippe's main province but if you look at the date of the marriage in 1080 when Adele was 20 you realise it is of crucial importance because it precedes the Renegade Bayeux's counter-revolutionary moves in 1082,Matilda's death in 1083 (Is there much dispute she was pro-Courtheuse?)and the Counter-Revolution 1086-87.The fact that she was not at St.Gervais Priory on 8-9th September 1087 is not the central factor.Those preceding events define her absence.

But there is an even more compelling reason and that is the fact that there is incontrovertible proof that from around 1085 she entered a bloc with Anselm. emoticon emoticon As is obvious to those following the logic of that man's political evolution there could be only one course possible:anti-the Red alliance.

You do not keep friends like Anselm all your life and not reveal yourself as a Counter-Revolutionary.The Red heartily hated the man and rightly so.

'Briggs' (personal capacity)
May/29/2006, 1:55 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: Adela de Blois


All,
It is the Ivo De Chartres element that swings it for me to 1096.

Rik C (personal capacity)
May/31/2006, 5:56 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: Adela de Blois


(a)It is apparent to me that the central, historical question which needs to be confronted in determining the precise policy trajectory of Adele de Blois-Chartres is “To what extent if any did her policy undermine or overthrow the principal pillar of The Norman Revolution in Normandy-Angleland namely the annihilation of the Angle-Saxon-Dane ruling class and the expropriation of its land and wealth?” This is no mere statement of the obvious but a recognition that the other central achievements of the Revolution such as the start of ending Slavery in Angleland, Jewish permanent settlements, Cluniacism, Frankish Cavalry Warfare and other related policies stood of fell on the consummation of that principal pillar.
(b)I tell you all now you will not find a single statement by Adele which questions that pillar. On the contrary, The Bourgueil Roll mentioned in other postings,here and elsewhere by our Forum’s members fully supports the view that she totally supported that social advance.A considerable, intellectual somersault would be needed to think otherwise. It’s all very well to cite her marriage to Stephen de Blois-Chartres as the beginning of her political retreat but this is something that only took shape later. She understood it as part of the continuing struggle to export the Revolution because like the Conqueror she knew that if it did not happen, it would be defunct at some time.
(c)From her marriage (1080) to the Conqueror’s death (1087) was a phase of retreat of the Revolution with the exception of the two victories 1086-87 :Scandinavian Counter-Revolution debacle and Mantes .That explains her manoeuvres with the pernicious Hildebert-Anselm axis. This is well understood and requires no elucidation.
(d) The Counter-Revolution that was The First Crusade was certainly a cataclysmic reversal which tested The Norman Revolution mercilessly. But did it any way threaten the overthrow of its ‘central pillar’? No one can surely seriously propose it did. The events of 1100 leading to the Red’s assassination and the formal end of The Norman Revolution 1058-1100 provide a sharper focus in which her action of tacit support for Beauclerc and leaders/cohorts makes it clear that she is in the enemy camp.
(e)Yet the Counter-Revolution of 2/8/1100 and the following decades did not overthrow the ‘central pillar’ either because whatever his nefarious inclinations Beauclerc could not overthrow it because his social base in the Norman leadership would not,or more exactly could not, allow it for fear of the social repercussions inside Normandy-Angleland and their impact on the other parts of The Frankish Kingdom.
(f)Following the assassination of the Red, I should not have to remind anyone that Courtheuse held Normandy,objectively in the interests of Philippe 1, until 1106. The expression of this conflict became apparent as the clashes with The Kingdom Of The Franks intensified particularly after the demise of Philippe 1 in 1108. Naturally, these conflicts were nothing to do with exporting the Revolution in the manner of the Conqueror and the Red but more about Counter-Revolutionaries falling out over the tarnished spoils they had foisted upon themselves for their own twisted, corrupt purposes.
(g)The reason I have made these comments is that I do not want it construed that in deciding on 1100, I consider it definitive.

CT, Vice Chairperson (personal capacity)
Jun/3/2006, 11:41 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
Re: Adela de Blois


My vote goes to 1096.
Anselm was probably the most dangerous anti-the Red factor in the years preceding Courtheuse's retreat from Normandy in 1096 emoticon For goodness sake! compare Lanfranc a guerrier de Dieu in the truest and temporal sense in his dealings with the Conqueror and Anselm's constant disruption of the Red's export of the Revolution especially in 1094-96.The Red frequently told him he was an obstacle and as others have stated he hated the man and despite the wee, crocodile tears after 2/8/1100 by Anselm the feeling was mutual.
Adele never broke her alliance with that archbishop of cant whatever the 'meanderings, with Ivo de Chartres.What's that latin phrase? Quid multa?

Sammy (personal capacity)
Jun/15/2006, 7:49 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: Adela de Blois


I have to say there are convincing arguements for all three emoticon but there is also a clear lack of justification for writing Adela de Blois off before her time and the events explaining it. There are two strong arguements for this standpoint: before 1087 she was fully supportive of all the Conqueror's revolutionary cluniacist policies.If anyone can find anywhere evidence that she stood with Courtheuse after Gerberoi then I will change my choice.She despised Odo de Bayeux and there is every reason to think that when the Conqueror arrested him at Carisbroke she would have jumped for joy.That eliminates 1087.Adela de Blois was an extremely intelligent leader in Blois-Chartres and led that state in Stephen's absence from 1096.The counter-arguement to 1096 Counter-Revolution/Crusade is The Bourgeuil Roll and The Trojan Wars which if you look at its historical importance translated into the Norman experience since the time of Harald Finehair and Rollo.That eliminates 1096.It is only with the conspiracy and murder of the Red that her refusal to break with Henri Beuclerc says everything conclusively.It is 1100.
Colin Perrin (personal capacity)
Jun/18/2006, 5:27 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: Adela de Blois


Hugo I think this is a brilliant question emoticon emoticon
I have read a selection of votes.Has anybody else? it is surely not a one is right the other is wrong.Surely all the years mentioned are valid.
Yet still there is the fact that demands an answer.Adele betrayed the Revolution why? when she sold her ideology it could not have been easy.She had served the Conqueror and his Cause vigorously.Etienne de Blois was an ambiguous political figure to her.His sympathies were with The Frankish King.Adele married him with the Conqueror's strategy firmly in mind(that is the real meaning of Bourgeuil in my estimation)to export the NR.
It follows that for her to change sides events that placed the NR's strategy in bold context were necessary.Those were in 1085-87.Those events which shaped the years down to 1096 were what persuaded her.She backed the wrong horse of course.How can it be any other year than 1087? the Conqueror needed her support against his enemies at St Gervais and she was not there I would suggest sbe was at the Court of The Frankish King with Courtheuse.
It was ignoble.It was her political epitaph.She was a great loss to the NR.

Dennis Keel (personal capacity)
Jun/24/2006, 2:07 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 ... 8  9  10 





You are not logged in (login)