Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Normans?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 91011
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Normans?
    Posted: 02-Aug-2006 at 03:49
Originally posted by Exarchus

Originally posted by gcle2003

If it was the political heir it would be ruling over much of Germany and Italy and the Netherlands. It isn't.
 
Could you maybe clarify what you mean by 'political heir'?
 


Borders change, There has been example of countries loosing their origin (in that case, Belgium), one example are the Mauritius, whose former capital is still a French oversea territories (whose population doesn't want to leave France, they were asked twice and last time they refused independance at more than 99%, this is a native population and not settlers).

In that case, since the Treaty of Verdun, there is a continuous existence of the Kingdom of France, sometimes as a loose confederation, sometimes as an absolute monarchy. To the French republic that succeeded the Kingdom.
 
So you would claim Italy is the political heir of the Roman Empire? Macedonia is the political heir of Alexander's empire? Turkey would be the political heir of the Ottoman empire, I suppose, but would it be the political heir of the Byzantine Empire, or would Greece be? Austria is presumably the political heir of the Holy Roman Empire, or should that be Germany? Or is that also France?
 
What would Mongolia be?
 
The UK, of course, under that scheme, would be the political heir of the British Empire?
 
In normal usage heirs inherit their predecessor's property . That's why they are called heirs.
 
Nobody - recently - has inherited the Empire of the Franks.
 
PS: You could possibly say with some justification that France is a descendant (with some intermarriage thrown in) of the Frankish Empire, but that's a totally different matter.
 
 


Edited by gcle2003 - 02-Aug-2006 at 03:53
Back to Top
Exarchus View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18-Jan-2005
Location: France
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 760 		  Quote Exarchus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Aug-2006 at 04:08
Originally posted by gcle2003

So you would claim Italy is the political heir of the Roman Empire? Macedonia is the political heir of Alexander's empire? Turkey would be the political heir of the Ottoman empire, I suppose, but would it be the political heir of the Byzantine Empire, or would Greece be? Austria is presumably the political heir of the Holy Roman Empire, or should that be Germany? Or is that also France?
 
What would Mongolia be?
 
The UK, of course, under that scheme, would be the political heir of the British Empire?
 
In normal usage heirs inherit their predecessor's property . That's why they are called heirs.
 
Nobody - recently - has inherited the Empire of the Franks.
 
PS: You could possibly say with some justification that France is a descendant (with some intermarriage thrown in) of the Frankish Empire, but that's a totally different matter.
 
 


Actually, yeah Turkey is the heir of the Ottoman Empire. Just like The French Republic is the successor of the Kingdom of France.

For Italy, I wouldn't say so, the Western Roman completly disintigrated. Therefore I don't see a successor. You could argue though the Eastern Roman Empire would be followed by the Ottoman one and finally by Turkey, so Turkey could be called successor of the Eastern Roman Empire (and only the eastern).

As for Macedonia, as far as I remember it's not a country but a part of Greece.

Austria and Hungary would both be successors of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Since it was a double monarchy.

THe Holy Roman Empire totaly disintegrated, so no one really can claim the title of heir, Austria may be the closest though. But then, the imperial title ended then to France and finally to Germany. But it was such as loose title.

Most of the examples you gave aren't good (apart Turkey), because you're talking of heir that where totaly disintegrated, whole country saw it's existance ended. The Western Francia didn't collapse, it became just the Francia when the other two collapsed.  At that time, all 3 could claim the inheritance, but only one remained.
Vae victis!
Back to Top
Exarchus View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18-Jan-2005
Location: France
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 760 		  Quote Exarchus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Aug-2006 at 04:12
Ok for the Dukes, about the Counts?
Vae victis!
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2006 at 07:43
Both Capetians (Robertians) and Ottonians are some dynasties somehow related to Carolingians, therefore I don't know how a primacy between them is resolved.
 
As for Hugo Capet's rule, these people (IMO most probably)  represent the main political entities of those times (provinces if you want): Danes - Normandy, Gauls - the royal domain around Paris and Orleans, Burgundy, Aquitaine (without Gascogne - i.e. Poitou, Limousin, etc.), Bretagne, Gascogne, and probably Goths and Spaniards would refer to Septimania and the territories south of Pyrhenees - the Spanish march and the two factions disputing it - the counts of Toulouse in north and counts of Barcelona in south.
 
On the other hand, Hugo Capet was a king with a questionable authority, not over all these ex-Carolingian possessions, but even over his own domain. Though some of the dukes recognize a formal loyalty to the king, their freedom is quasi-absolute!
The kingdom will strenghten during next two centuries or so. Even Hugo Capet's son and successor, Robert II the Pious will make some steps forward. Though traveling seldom outside his royal domain (and one of these journeys was in fact a pilgrimage to the tomb of St. Foy in Conques), he'll see at his court Richard of Normandy or Guillaume V of Aquitaine. Also, starting with his reign the title of dukes of Burgundy entered the royal family.
 
 
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2006 at 08:00
Originally posted by Exarchus

In normal usage heirs inherit their predecessor's property . That's why they are called heirs.
 
Nobody - recently - has inherited the Empire of the Franks.
 
PS: You could possibly say with some justification that France is a descendant (with some intermarriage thrown in) of the Frankish Empire, but that's a totally different matter.
 
 


Actually, yeah Turkey is the heir of the Ottoman Empire. Just like The French Republic is the successor of the Kingdom of France.
 
[/QUOTE]
'Successor' and 'political heir' are widely different concepts. If all you are trying to say is that France is a successor state to the Frankish empire, I wouldn't quarrel, though it's a bit of a stretch. Bielorus, the Ukraine, the republics of central Asia and the Caucasus and so on are all successor states to the Soviet Union. But you cannot call any one of them, even Russia, the 'political heir' of the Soviet Union.
 
That's effectively what I meant by a 'descendant'.
 
Nobody has 'inherited' the Ottoman Empire: there is therefore no political heir of it. A financial heir inherits the money; a literary heir inherits the copyrights; a political heir inherits the political power.

For Italy, I wouldn't say so, the Western Roman completly disintigrated. Therefore I don't see a successor. You could argue though the Eastern Roman Empire would be followed by the Ottoman one and finally by Turkey, so Turkey could be called successor of the Eastern Roman Empire (and only the eastern).
 
You don't think that Magna Graecia, including Anatolia didn't disintegrate when the Byzantine empire fell, just as much as Italy did? I don't see why the Turkish invasion was less of a disintegration than the Germanic invasions of Italy. But again, as long as you stick to saying 'a successor' I don't see so much of a problem.
[/QUOTE]

As for Macedonia, as far as I remember it's not a country but a part of Greece.
I wouldn't say that too loudly around any Macedonians. Macedonia is a country even if the Greeks do insist, quaintly, on the EU calling it the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.


Austria and Hungary would both be successors of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Since it was a double monarchy.
 
Accepted. But again that's different from being the political heirs. Neither of them have any jurisdiction over the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia and so on. When an empire falls apart all the constituent parts are successor states to it.


THe Holy Roman Empire totaly disintegrated, so no one really can claim the title of heir, Austria may be the closest though. But then, the imperial title ended then to France and finally to Germany. But it was such as loose title.

Most of the examples you gave aren't good (apart Turkey),
Well, I gave them as counter-examples: it's obvious that none of them have inherited the original empire.
because you're talking of heir that where totaly disintegrated, whole country saw it's existance ended. The Western Francia didn't collapse, it became just the Francia when the other two collapsed.  At that time, all 3 could claim the inheritance, but only one remained.
 
So none of them was the political heir to the empire. You can't be the political heir to anything if you only control part of it.
 
A successor is OK.
 
 
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2006 at 08:04
It occurs to me that the nearest thing to a 'political heir' of the Frankish Empire would be the EEC between 1956 and 1973 - i.e. the original six, France, Germany, Italy and Benelux.
 
That's the only time something particularly like the empire has existed on the map as a (relatively) unified political entity, with jurisdiction in some areas over the whole territory.
 
(It's borders were better aligned than those of Napoleon's empire.)


Edited by gcle2003 - 03-Aug-2006 at 08:05
Back to Top
Exarchus View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18-Jan-2005
Location: France
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 760 		  Quote Exarchus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2006 at 15:21
What difference do you set between successor and political heir?
Vae victis!
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Aug-2006 at 05:18
Originally posted by Exarchus

What difference do you set between successor and political heir?
 
A 'political heir' inherits the political power of its predecessor (to a fair degree of approximation). So the Soviet Union could be considered the political heir of the Tsarist Empire, and the French Republic the political heir of the Kingdom of France.
 
(Of course a political heir can lose or gain power subsequently, and also there may be a period of dissension before the heir gets its inheritance.)
 
A successor state merely follows its predecessor as the authority over part of the predecessor's territory. So present-day Kazakhstan, like present-day Russia, is a successor state to the Soviet Union (and to the Tsarist empire).
 
(Note: that means the political heir is also a successor state, but a successor state is not necessarily the political heir.)
 
An alternative reading might be that all of the successor states can be considered joint political heirs, in which case it would be allowable I suppose to call present-day France a political heir to the Frankish empire, but not the political heir.
 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 19:51
Agreed on most points, except that William the Bastard, later William the Conqueror had undoubltedly some Viking traits and was responsible for launching the line of rulers that conqured Wales and part of, Scotland and were also responsible for the first attacks on the Irish mainland. A culture isn't a blood line, it's an inherited/learned way of being. I agree with you that the invading armies of the Normans( and the vikings and Germanic tribes for that matter) couldn't possibly have diluted the genetic lines of the original celtic tribes in Britiain or Normandy.I am of the conviction that most of our genes, and I mean here people that come from countries settled by the celts, are more or less the same. Excluding imported genetic lines from emigrants. America is a good example of how a culture is learned. There are people there from all over the world, but they are still united in terms of economic aspirations and self image. In my experience, and that is a bit limited having only met about 20-30 americans in my life,
they were all quite different but all proud of America, not necessarily about it's foreign policy, but about the concept of America. That is probably how the Normans did it, as the Romans did it before them and so on.
Been lovely chatting, but I have to knit some fish - Goodnight Neo-N
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 91011

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.062 seconds.