Runboard.com
Слава Україні!
Community logo


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

Page:  1  2 

 
thewilliam theredforum2002 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 03-2004
Posts: 484
Karma: -5 (+2/-7)
Reply | Quote
posticon Origins of Normandy


***
The impetus for effecting The Norman Revolution,1058-1100, in Normandy-Angleland was the product of, indeed, one might permit oneself to say, the culmination of, an historical process that began within The Kingdom Of The Franks, which was, qualitatively, the most advanced civilization in Medieval Europe and whose people were the leading,heroic force (menant force héroïque) in the annihilation of The Roman Empire in the Continent from 411 onwards.
 
Normandy was a product of the combination, at the highest level
(au plus haut niveau), of Scandinavian Civilization(Norwegian exiles) with The Kingdom Of The Franks. Indubitably, that Kingdom historically advanced the exiles enormously with the inculcation, by precept and example
(par précepte et exemple), of the history of that great Kingdom and that scientific process formed the Revolutionary- Cluniacist power-house that became Normandy and as a consequence how exporting it was rendered possible.

There follows what one might designate the kilometre-stones on that wonderful journey to 1035. Those ebullient years provided the dynamic platform for 1035-1058 and the volcanic, subsequent history until 1100.
***
Lydia Giles, Chairperson (personal capacity)

We believe that the Normans who invaded Angleland in 1066 were influenced by not only their Viking history but by the history of the peoples their ancestors clashed with and learned from to take their land in what was Gaul. It is important to know what shaped their outlook.We begin with the Germanic tribes who occupied Northern Gaul at the end of the 5th Century AD: the Franks, the Alemanni and the Burgundians.The Alemanni and Franks were Pagans. The Burgundians and the Visigoths (who were further south) were Arians, an heretical type of Christianity. Clovis or Clodwig (his true name),The Frankish King, who ruled from 481-512, consolidated control of Northern Gaul and united Franks in his kingdom by war, establishing Paris as its capital.He converted the kingdom to Christianity and so defeating Pagans and Arians. After his death, the Kingdom was split between his four sons.Childebert 1 ruled the land later to become Normandy and it was called The Kingdom Of Paris. The split precipitated war between the four sons until 558, when Chlotar1 reunited the Kingdom.When he died in 561, Gaul was divided among his four sons. Charibert 1 got a rejigged Kingdom Of Paris, including the districts of the Seine and Le Manche (less well known as, eccentrically, ‘English Channel’)When Charibert died in 567, Chilperic, a brother, got the Seine and Le Manche districts and parts of Bayeux and Aquitaine. The ensuing years were replete with struggles and intrigues between Chilperic and his wife Fredegund and Sigebert 1 and his wife, Brunhild, the rulers of North Eastern Francia. Out of these long, drawn-out struggles within Gaul, new geographical, social formations sprang up. One of these entities was Neustria, another forerunner of Normandy.Neustria comprised part of The Kingdom Of Soissons and part of The Kingdom Of Paris, with its main centre in the Lower-Seine Valley.Soissons was its Capital. Following the demise of Chilperic 1, its capital was moved to Paris. In 631, following the savage execution of Brunhild, Chlotar 11, King Of Neustria, seized Burgundy and Austrasia.That Revolution united the Kingdom under a Gallo-Romano and Germanic aristocracy. New struggles for land broke out 639. Neustria was run by revolutionary aristocrats calling themselves “Mayors Of The Palace”. A certain Ebroin led Neustria but was opposed by the Burgundians. He was murdered in 683 and Neustria lost out to Austrasia in 687 and a new unifier: the formidable Pepin 11. The rulers from Clovis/Clodwig to Pepin 11 were called The Merovingians (who incidently were Napoleon Bounaparte’s favourite ,pre-French Revolution 1789,dynasty). Pepin 11 was followed by his illegitimate son, Charles Martel (Martel means “The Hammer” due to the force with which he decked his opponents in battle). Neustria revolted and allied with Eudes d’Aquitaine. Saxons and Arabs invaded Gaul. Martel crushed the Neustrians at Ambleve in 716, Vincy in 717 and Soissons in 719. Martel, never a king, had unified The Kingdom Of The Franks by revolutionary struggle. After him, came Pepin the Short, who failed to defeat the Saxons. His son was Charlemagne and replaced his father in 771 and took control of Gaul with no resistance from Neustria. He had tremendous difficulty in crushing the Saxons, especially those under Widukind. Charlemagne was followed by Louis the Pious. The Vikings began raiding the North Sea and Atlantic coastal areas. Louis tried to have Scandinavia christianised but the mission failed disastrously. After Louis, his 2 sons Louis 11 the German and Charles the Bald cynically carved up the Kingdom between them. Charles took Francia Occidentalis which included Neustria., in 861. The Vikings raided his territory along the Scheldt, Seine and Loire rivers. He bought them off with silver and gold. Charles was followed by Louis the Stammerer and Charles the Fat. Charles the Fat was deposed in 887 after he bought off the Vikings to terminate their depredations. Tellingly, the cultural mix in Francia Occidentalis was, massively and predominantly, Gallo-Roman and Germanic. The vassalage system set up by Charlemagne had at that time become more decentralized into principalities thus debilitating the authority and influence of The Frankish Kings. For example, someone could now serve as Vassal to several Lords. The rulers from Charles Martel to Charlemagne were known as The Carolingians. With their collapse, in the late 9th Century, Princes,Dukes and Counts organised themselves to confront invasions from the Magyars,Muslims and Vikings. By far the most destructive were the Vikings. Finally, in 896, they settled in the Lower-Seine Valley and expanded west to form, unofficially at the time, Normandy. Parallel to that development, the Counts of Paris, Flanders and Anger were building castles and asserting real independence from The Frankish Kingdom’s centre in Paris. The Vikings learned of these activities. In 911, the Viking leader Rollo (real name Hrolf Gangar) was officially ceded the land around Rouen and Evreux by The Frankish King, Charles 111 the Simple. It’s worth pointing out here that there was nothing “inevitable” about Viking supremacy over the Franks. Another Germanic tribe, the Burgundians, led by Richard the Justiciar, defeated them and the Magyars at about the same time. Richard, although a Duke, was regarded as a King by the people of Burgundy. From 911 and a considerable time after, it was aggressive merciless land-grabbing by the Counts who followed Rollo/Hrolf Gangar. They supported Hugues Capet when he became King Of The Franks in 987. Under Robert 1 the Devil, more and more castles were built and knights created all over Normandy. This led to revolutionary warfare which at times was internecine. The Conqueror from his teens onwards was confronted by this problem and how to solve it in a progressive way in order that a revolutionary leadership could be forged strong enough to Revolutionize Normandy from 1035, and later, Angleland and later still, to ensure its long-term survival, to spread that Revolution to the remainder of The Kingdom Of The Franks in the latter part of the 11th Century.


From the above facts, we conclude the following:


(a)The original Celtic tribes who originally occupied what became Normandy suffered a similar genocidal-influenced fate as their Celtic counterparts in Britain at the hands of similar but decisively different Germanic tribes.The Franks, after all, were a small minority of the migrating Germanic tribes which were dominated by Angles,Saxons and Jutes.
(b)The Conqueror is best compared with Charles Martel. Apart from the fact that both were illegitimate with the shame it cast on them amongst their peoples of that time, both unified their original lands in The Kingdom Of The Franks, without becoming King, defeating Germanic tribes in the process.
(c)The Conqueror and his predecessors knew of Martel and may well have sought to emulate him. This would explain why William and other Dukes in Flanders and Anger were not keen to recognise the authority of The Frankish King and sought to set-up their own Dukedoms with neo-regal powers, while retaining the formal recognition of the King.
(d)The Conqueror was not a Frenchman (no more than than the Usurper was an Englishman). That term only became historically correct in the 12th Century when referring to Franks from the non-Germanic, Romance-speaking parts of The Kingdom Of Greater West Frankland. He was a Norman or more correctly,Frank-Viking, which means he was of Viking origin absorbed by the Franks and probably steeped in Frankish, as well as Viking, history. This would serve him well in sizing up the results and prospects of revolutionizing Normandy and later Angleland which was controlled by Angles, Saxons, Jutes along with Danes.
CT, Vice Chairperson, Rob, Drogo, S. Walsh, Hugo, John G (all in personal capacity)
Mar/24/2006, 3:11 pm Link to this post Send Email to thewilliam theredforum2002   Send PM to thewilliam theredforum2002
 
Housecarl 1066 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 02-2006
Location: Northern-most Saxon border.
Posts: 620
Karma: 1 (+1/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Origins of Normandy


******
Great post, Norbert, me and my other selves think! However in my opinion we still use no punctuation or grammar and rabidly waffle on and on and on until we foam at the mouth! Willardthefatpoisoningb'stard- who visited buttock castle in 1346- and the usurping anorak-clad abNormans of the 1815 revolution are Che Guevara-type superheroes in the eyes of the Maoist WTF village simpletons- currently dancing on ice- as they managed to deceive the pro-abNorman/Sicilian pope (Nicholasthepuppet II, whose SISTER Gunnhild died in 1002 at the St. Valentine's day massacre!)and steal the wealth from England/English/Angels/Angling champions...using breaded bait and a 6BB float. Any cluniasts invading the lands of Vietnam might be led to believe that our pompous and immature 'style' of rabid indoctrination is actually believable and plausible...and it is, or something. In 1966 our feigning cavalry deposited mounds of what the usurpers of Watford Gap services(M1 capacity) would see as a breakage of a sacred oath(as in 410ad when Claudius IV left Pakistan for Austrian conquests, in 1216).

Hercule Tosseur(Pompous, inane teenage 'no mates' geek forum, hidden away somewhere in Cornwall with mummy, who pays for dial-up!)

Last edited by Housecarl 1066, Mar/24/2006, 8:35 pm


---
http://1066andallthat.forumfree.co.uk/
Mar/24/2006, 8:16 pm Link to this post Send Email to Housecarl 1066   Send PM to Housecarl 1066
 
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: Origins of Normandy


 TWRTF.So King Harold was not English! Explain!
Qualify this by further examining the concept of nationhood with particular reference to that of the English nation.A good point to start may be with The Reign of Alfred The Great and his work in unifying/establishing legal codes and church reforms as well as his work on the English language.
When you have done this reconsider the inane statement quoted below
'Normandy was a product of the combination, at the highest level
(au plus haut niveau), of Scandinavian Civilization(Norwegian exiles) with The Kingdom Of The Franks. Indubitably, that Kingdom historically advanced the exiles enormously with the inculcation, by precept and example
(par précepte et exemple), of the history of that great Kingdom and that scientific process formed the Revolutionary- Cluniacist power-house that became Normandy and as a consequence how exporting it was rendered possible.'
This to be done with particular note to the lack of reference to the Orcadian origins of the 'Normans'
Further explain the terminlogy 'scientific process'and its relevance to consolidation of power in Normandy and invasion of England by the Duke of Normandy
Then explain what you mean by 'Revolutionary-Cluniacist'
As an adjunct give evidence that the Celtic tribes in England were subject to genocide,this to include linguistic and archaeological references from reputable sources,not TWTRF'S toilet.
At all times remember to reply in language that people other than yourself/ves can understand.
The final mark you are given will be based on this plus your use of relevant sources both original and use of any commentary which will reflect your wider reading on the subject.
Athelstan,Advisor to The Witan,Warrior of the Hicce


Last edited by Athelstan937, Mar/25/2006, 9:49 am
Mar/25/2006, 9:09 am Link to this post Send Email to Athelstan937   Send PM to Athelstan937
 
thewilliam theredforum2002 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 03-2004
Posts: 484
Karma: -5 (+2/-7)
Reply | Quote
Re: Origins of Normandy


Great posting CT and co.
Athelstan,
 I gather from your 'mark' reference that you see this Chatboard as a 'classroom' with you as its 'teacher'.It isn't and you arn't. Our Forum's postings clearly set out our positions on the historical subject for chat which you choose to either ignore or disagree with and expect us to entertain you in that direction.Well,dream on.And if being disingenous about 'not understanding'is your thing then our Forum's response is likewise. Read our postings if you are genuinely interested and surprise us by presenting something new on this Chatboard that takes it and the debate forward instead of the venting of bile which is the only thing you've demonstrated so far.

Martin Tilston, First Secretary (personal capacity)
Mar/26/2006, 6:33 pm Link to this post Send Email to thewilliam theredforum2002   Send PM to thewilliam theredforum2002
 
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: Origins of Normandy


TWTRF,I would not have the arrogance to presume as such.I am trying to get you and your cronies to engage in a debate where you are able to back up with evidence of some repute.
As for 'venting bile' this is something you would well know about.Your postings are grammatically appalling.Your lack of literary structure is such that when people see a posting of yours then I am sure that they feel unable to tackle it because trying to break it down into component parts to analyse is to put it mildly difficult.
Debate is only taken forward by presenting evidence that can be discussed/challenged.This is something you seem unwilling or incapable of doing.
Your forum made a statement that Kig Harold was not English.What I was attempting to get you to do was to qualify such an outrageous statement.But as usual you seem devoid of the ability to do so.
I have read your postings with great disbelief and have tried to engage.What I think upsets you is to see your 'style ' made into parodies by myself and others.
Your arrogance and wanton disregard for the views of others pretty much sums up the viewpoint and people (Norman usurpers) you are attempting to portray as the be all and end all of civilisation.
Athelstan,Anglo-Saxon until I die!

Last edited by Athelstan937, Mar/26/2006, 7:47 pm
Mar/26/2006, 7:14 pm Link to this post Send Email to Athelstan937   Send PM to Athelstan937
 
Housecarl 1066 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 02-2006
Location: Northern-most Saxon border.
Posts: 620
Karma: 1 (+1/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Origins of Normandy


WTF

Ever heard of 'pot' and 'kettle'?

Your geekish, arrogant and uneducated "forum" of idiots is too cowardly and stupid to provide just one source to support your childish and laughable faeces, then debate it!

If you did, maybe you'd have earned respect in the past...maybe?

1. Firstly, grow up and develop communication skills
2. Learn about balanced history sources in the mature/real world
3. Learn grammar, punctuation and spelling(ie."arnt"-aren't...and many more!)
4. Re-read your own woeful posts and correct their many factual errors!

Last edited by Housecarl 1066, Mar/26/2006, 7:36 pm


---
http://1066andallthat.forumfree.co.uk/
Mar/26/2006, 7:32 pm Link to this post Send Email to Housecarl 1066   Send PM to Housecarl 1066
 
Gyrth Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 02-2006
Posts: 123
Karma: 1 (+1/-0)
Reply | Quote
paragraphs, paragraphs, please...


I'm not usually a stickler for that sort of thing, people have different posting styles, but for goodness sake, WTF, have pity.

And stop calling Harold "Usurper," it only serves to make you look silly and further detracts from your credibility. Really. Seriously.
Mar/27/2006, 2:35 am Link to this post Send Email to Gyrth   Send PM to Gyrth
 
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: Origins of Normandy


TWTRF ,I am puzzled by your use of the word 'Viking' as in 'Viking history'

'The Vikings began raiding the North Sea and Atlantic coastal areas. Louis tried to have Scandinavia christianised but the mission failed disastrously. After Louis, his 2 sons Louis 11 the German and Charles the Bald cynically carved up the Kingdom between them. Charles took Francia Occidentalis which included Neustria., in 861. The Vikings raided his territory along the Scheldt, Seine and Loire rivers. He bought them off with silver and gold. Charles was followed by Louis the Stammerer and Charles the Fat. Charles the Fat was deposed in 887 after he bought off the Vikings to terminate their depredations.'

The term is a generic one I believe brought into use in the 17th/18th Century .It is used as a catch all phrase to describe many people from different areas of Scandanavia and even into Europe as far as Kiev.If you had addressed someone from any of these areas as a 'Viking'they would not have understood what you were talking about.
So when talking about the origins of Normandy just which part of Scandanavia did you Normans come from?
Athelstan 937,

Last edited by Athelstan937, Mar/27/2006, 4:28 pm
Mar/27/2006, 4:14 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: Origins of Normandy


Athelstan:

That's an interesting question, to say the least. At the time the Vikinigs(also called the "Northmen", hence, "Normandy")were raiding France, they were also busy raiding and trying to take over England. This was the time, you should remember, of King Alfred, who beat them back, but accepted a "Vikiing" presence in the part of England(north and east),eventually referred to as the "Danelaw". Alfred did not buy them off; that was left to later kings, notably Ethelred "the Unready". But France apparently allowed these "Northmen" to settle in Western France, in the part that eventually became Normandy. Supposedly the "Vikings" were under the command of one Hrolf the Ganger(also called Rollo later on).The Dukes of Normandy were descended from this Hrolf. It seems plausible that this Hrolf came from what is now Norway, just as the raiders who "depredated" Scotland and Ireland mostly did. But I think the various accounts conflict. In any case, the "Danes"(who apparently actually did come from what is now Denmark)who invaded England at the time of Alfred and the "Vikings" who invaded France at approximately the same time, were at least linguistically, close relations.
Anne G
Mar/27/2006, 5:04 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: Origins of Normandy


TWTRF
'We believe that the Normans who invaded Angleland in 1066 were influenced by not only their Viking history but by the history of the peoples their ancestors clashed with and learned from to take their land in what was Gaul.'
Is that so.They were not then influenced by greed, avarice or an over inflated view of their own importance.They were not interested in the wealth of the land of England.
This was pure and simply land grab ,theft and invasion.
There is no written evidence that they held any'revolutionary' creed or belief.the views that you ascribe to them are not as far as I am aware laid down.
What evidence do you have for this pernicious statement?
Athelstan,Warrior of the Hicce.
Mar/28/2006, 11:19 am Link to this post Send Email to Athelstan937   Send PM to Athelstan937
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2 





You are not logged in (login)