thewilliam theredforum2002
Registered user
Registered: 03-2004
Posts: 484
Karma: -5 (+2/-7)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
 Renegade Odo
'Bishop' Odo of Bayeux is emphatically not a Hero of The Norman Revolution 1066-1100.
He is a classic case of the renegade in History.He betrayed the revolution but we are clear that it is important to know some salient facts about him in order to begin to fully comprehend the magnitude and depth of his treachery to the Conqueror and the Red.
1. He was born around 1030-35 and died 1097.The Conqueror's half-brother and son of Robert the Devil (aka the Magnificent)Duke of Normandy and Herleve,a tanner's daughter.
2. The young Conqueror gave him control of Bayeux while still in his teens.
3. He supported the revolution in Normandy 1054-1058 and fought at Hastings.
4. After Hastings,he was granted Kent and while the Conqueror administered Normandy,he was effectively ruler of Angleland where he co-led the revolutionising of land ownership which followed the annihilation of the Anglo-Saxon-Dane leadership elite at Hastings.
5. He backed the Conqueror's suppression of the counter-revolutionary uprisings of 1069.1075 and 1080.
6. In 1082,he raised an army through his vassals to enhance his claim to the papacy in Italy.At this time,he was the largest landholder in Angleland and 3 years after Robert Courtheuse's counter-revolutionary acton at Gerberoi,was clearly intent on a counter-revolutionary venture of his own.The Conqueror crossed to the Isle of Wight with a detachment of soldiers,intercepted the 'bishop', personally arrested him and had him imprisoned in Rouen.
7. The Conqueror,on his deathbed in 1087,was bullied into granting his release by other Norman leaders.
8. In 1088,with Robert Courtheuse,and the Frankish King's covert support,he co-led the counter-revolutionary uprising against the Red.The plan was to seize key centres in Kent and Sussex as a base for a generalised insurgency.The Red astutely separated Courtheuse from Odo politically and next defeated him militarily at Rochester and saved The Norman Revolution from catastrophe.
9. As punishment for 1088,the Red expropriated his lands in Angleland and exiled him to Bayeux.
10. He joined Courtheuse in the First Crusade of 1096 but never reached The Holy Land,dying at Palermo in 1097.
Rob,CT,Hugo,S.Walsh (all in personal capacity)
|
|
Sep/4/2004, 12:16 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: Renegade Odo
All;
The Conqueror was the son of Duke Robert and Herleve but Odo's father was not Robert as her father could not marry her to Duke so he arranged for her to marry another Count whose name is unknown?? Odo was son of that marriage and so half brother.
Franc B (personal capacity)
|
|
Sep/5/2004, 8:04 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: Renegade Odo
I've always thought Odo's formative break with the Conqueror was after he co-suppressed the counter-revolutionary rising of 1075 with Archbishop Lanfranc led by Breteuil de Gael and Waltheof.
I can see there are compelling reasons for 1079 and Gerberoi but I think that Odo's well-known personal/political domination of Courtheuse makes the view that Courtheuse inspired him to undertake the 'Rome venture' of 1082 more than incredible.
It also occurs to me that his action at Hastings has always been over-rated.Unlike the other Norman leaders who were armed with lances or swords,he carried a viking war-club that day and not the mace that later history armed him with.His action was more motivational than anything resembling bravery.
Bill H. (personal capacity)
|
|
Sep/9/2004, 9:32 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: Renegade Odo
Bill
If you look at any of those incidents where the Bishop of Bayeux looked suspect you could find a "break" or "seedbed of a break".Take the time in 1067 March to December,to be precise,when with FitzOsbern he ruled Angleland in the Conqueror's absence.
He clearly got a taste for playing a game of his own then.The Conqueror's primary, political-social base was always the Fortress of The Revolution: Normandy.Odo's manoevres are always linked to the assessment that the Conqueror and later the Red operates on an "extended line" of control which is vulnerable to manipulative and not-so manipulative assault.Angleland is set at the core of that analyis.That is why his counter-revolutionary action of 1082 was centred there.
To what extent his alliance with FitzOsbern, in 1067,shaped his outlook in later years is difficult to gauge with any degree of certainty.If you consider that by 1070-71 FitzOsbern was heavily involved in semi-co-ruling Normandy with the Conqueror and that the Duke-King chose him to confront Le Frison at Cassel in early 1071.Le Frison was a formidable warrior who the Conqueror must have known would have provided more than a stern test for FitOsbern,even though the Richildis cause was just.
Had he read more into what happened between March and December 1067 and decided that something suspect had occurred and could re-occur in a more virulent form?
John G.,Vice-Chairperson (personal capacity)
|
|
Sep/11/2004, 11:35 am
|
Link to this post
Send Email to thewilliam theredforum2002
Send PM to thewilliam theredforum2002
|
Athelstan937
Registered user
Registered: 11-2005
Location: The Lands of the Hicce
Posts: 127
Karma: 2 (+2/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Renegade Odo
What is this nonsense
5. He backed the Conqueror's suppression of the counter-revolutionary uprisings of 1069.1075 and 1080.
Counter revolutionary uprisings my arse.The English were fighting for their own land,their customs and birthright.They were fighting to expel an invader who came to take all that was theirs.
A revolution is where one system of rule is replaced by a different system not one where the sysytem is merely usurped for the benefit of the new ruler.
I have just recently found this noticeboard and I have never come across such deluded beliefs.
|
|
Dec/12/2005, 3:05 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to Athelstan937
Send PM to Athelstan937
|
mousteriana
Registered user
Registered: 03-2005
Posts: 936
Karma: 6 (+6/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Renegade Odo
Athelstan:
I'm afraid the problem with most of the people on this list is that they either (a) haven't read much of the literature relevant to this period or (b), which seems more likely, they simply ignore "counter evidencee" that doesn't fit with their view of it. I know of no reputable historian of the period who subscribes to these ideas, though some are more "pro Norman" than others. And believe me, I've read a fair amount of the relevant literature, including some primary sources, when I could get hold of them.
Anne G
quote:
Athelstan937 wrote:
What is this nonsense
5. He backed the Conqueror's suppression of the counter-revolutionary uprisings of 1069.1075 and 1080.
Counter revolutionary uprisings my arse.The English were fighting for their own land,their customs and birthright.They were fighting to expel an invader who came to take all that was theirs.
A revolution is where one system of rule is replaced by a different system not one where the sysytem is merely usurped for the benefit of the new ruler.
I have just recently found this noticeboard and I have never come across such deluded beliefs.
|
|
Dec/13/2005, 3:20 am
|
Link to this post
Send Email to mousteriana
Send PM to mousteriana
|
mousteriana
Registered user
Registered: 03-2005
Posts: 936
Karma: 6 (+6/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Renegade Odo
Athelstan:
I'm afraid the problem with most of the people on this list is that they either (a) haven't read much of the literature relevant to this period or (b), which seems more likely, they simply ignore "counter evidencee" that doesn't fit with their view of it. I know of no reputable historian of the period who subscribes to these ideas, though some are more "pro Norman" than others. And believe me, I've read a fair amount of the relevant literature, including some primary sources, when I could get hold of them.
Anne G
quote:
Athelstan937 wrote:
What is this nonsense
5. He backed the Conqueror's suppression of the counter-revolutionary uprisings of 1069.1075 and 1080.
Counter revolutionary uprisings my arse.The English were fighting for their own land,their customs and birthright.They were fighting to expel an invader who came to take all that was theirs.
A revolution is where one system of rule is replaced by a different system not one where the sysytem is merely usurped for the benefit of the new ruler.
I have just recently found this noticeboard and I have never come across such deluded beliefs.
|
|
Dec/13/2005, 3:21 am
|
Link to this post
Send Email to mousteriana
Send PM to mousteriana
|
