Normans?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Medieval Europe
Forum Discription: The Middle Ages: AD 500-1500
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13261
Printed Date: 25-Apr-2024 at 11:55
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Normans?
Posted By: Attila2
Subject: Normans?
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2006 at 21:06
|
what language were they speaking? French or Nordic? were they more french or more Nordic in culture and tradition? |
Replies:
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2006 at 22:11
| They were speaking Norman French (spoken example available http://www.essentialnormanconquest.com/). It's considered a Romance language, a Langue d'oïl. I believe they had lived in a feudal system. |
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2006 at 03:03
The normans, my ancestors, were overwhelmingly Gallic (celts) racially and culturally. Scandinavian input in Normandy was quite negligible, it is estimated that not more than 30,000 scandinavians, male mostly, settled in normandy. By 1066, there were little trace of them, all assimilated.
The Normans spoke French, langue d'oil (the french spoken mostly in Northern French; Langue d'oc was the dialect spoken in the south) with the usual regional variation. The only impact the scandinavian had on the the language was the introduction of a few words about navigation and the sea. The terms were adopted not only in normandy but mostly in northern France
The Normans racially speaking, by 1066, were more Gallic than say the Francilians (Parisian), who had enormous Frankish input.
On the tapestry of Bayeux, the Normans, only referred to Normandy as a region, collectively, they were known as Franci (Frank or French as everyone in Northern France was referred to in those days). They were clearly conscious that French was their race and culture. At no time the Normans thought they were scandinavian, in fact, the French factions that invaded England regarded the anglo-saxons, vikings and britons with contempt. There was a system of Apartheid (I've already posted an article on the subject).
From the tapestry (ordered by Odo of Bayeux, Harold's brother)
FRATRES HAROLDI REGIS. HIC CECIDERUNT SIMUL ANGLI ET FRANCI IN PRELIO
.
"brothers of King Harold.Here fell the English and the French simultaneously in the battle."
HIC ODO EPISCOPUS BACULUM TENENS CONFORTAT PUEROS. HIC EST WILLELM DUX. EUSTASIUS. HIC FRANCI PUGNANT.
"Eustace. Here the French do battle." ET CECIDERUNT QUI ERANT CUM HAROLDO. HIC HAROLD REX INTERFECTUS EST.
"And those who were with Harold fell. Here King Harold was killed." The small group of viking that settled in northern France were quickly assimilated by the Gallic majority. After a generation or two, the Normans had adopted the French culture and language and were indistinguishable from their French neighbours. By 1066, the Norman had nothing in common with the scandinavians, who many misleadingly believe were the ancestors of the Normans. In truth, the scandinavian input to the people of Normandy was quite negligible. Most Normans were of Gallic decent, the Scandinavian merely gave the region its name.
------------- |
Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2006 at 03:51
|
I'm sure you're right about the quick assimilation Quetzalcoatl - but your statement... "they had nothing in common with the scandinavians, who many misleadingly believe were the ancestors of the Normans" could be misleading itself. ------------- |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2006 at 04:51
|
The Normans were very much aware of their Northman descent. They did not consider themselves Franks, but a different people. This becomes very clear when you read Dudo of St. Quentins History of the Normans. They maintained different values than the Franks, especially in battle ethics.
It is true however that the Norse language disappeared quite fast. In fact, the third Duke of Normandy, Richard I, was already unable to speak it. This can be explained easily: The settlers were mainly men, who married with the local women. As women where in chareg of children in early age, the first language of the second and third generations would be the mothers tongue. ------------- 
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2006 at 06:42
|
The Norman spoke a French dialect which according to medieval English accounts was looked down upon by the French as a country bumpkin dialect.
When early Norman kings of England met the kings of France they spoke through translators though tecnically they were both speaking French.
Very quickly after the Norman conquest the Normans abandoned it and would raise their children to speak French. It was considered useless, being unable to speak to either the English or the French and somewhat of an embarrassment to be heard speaking amongst well spoken French.
However the language still lives on as there are a few thousand Norman words in Engish.
------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2006 at 07:46
You also forgot the immigrants married within the population, and by 1066, after several generations, racially most of their ancestors would be Gallic.
Guillaume (William the Conquerer) would be mostly of Gallic lineage.From my POV Rollo was a norman but a scandinavian.
------------- |
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2006 at 07:53
That's nonsense, Norman French was the most refine of French. All Langue d'oil are smooth. There was no need for translator between regional variants of Langue d'oil (Langue d'oil differs from langue d'oc in softness mostly)
A Norman king of England who had ben isolated on the island would certainly not speak French as it is on the continent. The language do evolve.
How do you explain the Angevins (Plategenet mostly, and most Gallic of all French) find no problem in communication with the Normans of England when they inherited the throne of England? ------------- |
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2006 at 07:55
Yea, tell a Norman in 1066 he was viking and he would have strangle you. On the tapestry, the best source of the time, the clearly called themselves, French. ------------- |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2006 at 08:46
|
I was not referring to just 1066. In history you can not just take one moment and judge all of history on it. For a very long time, Normans cherished their Scandinavian ancestors heritage, as is very clear from the sources. And they did, like I said before, differ from the franks in battle ethics. The Normans considered themselves better fighters than the Franks, and also had a different view on killing in battle. Whereas for the Franks, at least in theory, killing was always bad, and even killing in battle had to be atoned for by confession and purification, the Normans had no such qualms. They took pride in being ruthless to their enemies, unlike the Franks who considered mercy to their enemies the highest goal.
That genetically, they would be more Frankish than Scandinavian does really not matter, as culture, unlike language, tends to be passed down through the male line. They were defenately not Gallic, as the Gauls were a celtic people who were overrun by the Franks in the Migration period, some 500 years previous.
As for the Angevins: they where Angevins, c.e. counts of Anjou, and therefore not Normans. -------------
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2006 at 13:53
|
The idea that feudal lords, especially of count/earl and upward, can be considered as representative of their peoples linguistically is somewhat optimistic.
------------- |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2006 at 14:36
Also, from what I understand in Genetics, which I actually want to start another thread on, doesn't the father only carry the Y gene? That would mean that while the mother passes on the X gene to her son, the son still and will always get the Norman Y gene. So that wouldn't disappear, and if they kept their culture, then by all means in every aspect they'd be Norman, except lanuage. ------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey 
|
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2006 at 14:50
|
Acually, what I meant was that culture, in this case being ethical rules of behaviour and conduct, are in a feudal society passed on from father to son, as the father will educate the boy on this, and not the (indigenous) mother.
As far as actual genetics go, I doubt the Franks, Saxons and Scandinavians differed enough genetically to make an actual difference. Apparently, blood type A is more common in Scandinavia than in England and France, but that would not really make a difference to their behavior, would it?  -------------
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2006 at 16:30
|
I brought up the ethnic part because in one of Quetzalcoatl's posts he made it sound as though the Normans weren't racially Scandinavian anymore and totally Gallic, which also means no Germanic blood like you said about the Saxons, Franks, etc.. But I think their bloood line could have stayed in intact, though I'm no expert. ------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2006 at 16:56
|
If you are interested in peoples and nationalistic feelings through history you should read this: Patrick Geary, The Myth of Nations, the Medieval Origins of Europe (Princeton, 2002).
It is one of my favorites. Very clearly written. It shows the theory of ethnogenesis, the coming into exitance of peoples. It is really good, and Geary is the current expert on the subject. -------------
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2006 at 17:41
In Chaucer English born French speaking characters speak a dialect that can't be understood by French people, is considered low class by them and is mockingly ugly and gutteral.
------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2006 at 19:33
If the Norman did indeed cherish their scandinavian heritage, they would be speaking an scandinavian language and retain their culture just like the Breton. Their impact on regional French is minimal, as compare to say the Franks, who by mingling Frankish and Romance created French.
LOL, the Normans way of war was exactly similar to the Franks. The Franks were ruthless and were known to have committed many excesses. The vikings while being brigands never usually slaughtered whole cities like the Franks usually did. Even Toulouse suffered slaughter during the crusade.
The Angevins were even more ruthless and warlike, since they managed to conquer maine, a part of Normandy.
No they weren't genetically Frankish but Gallic, the Francilians were the the one with massive Germanic input not the Normandy; Frankish immigration into Normandy was minimal and the Norman were mostly of Gallic stock, descended from the Bellovaci and Belgae.
------------- |
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2006 at 19:49
This is because you have a poor understanding of genetics. To start with the human genome consists 46 Chromosomes ( the Y chromosome, is almost vestigial, it's genetic contribution less than any other chromosomes and used to determine the sex only, but for 95% of the traits are not determine by the Y chromosomes.)
But one thing you are not considering, there was powerful Franco-Gallic landlords in Normandy. These landlords formed an alliance with the scandinavians, whose daughters usually married the Franco-Gallic sons. Therefore erradicating the Scandinavian Y-chromosomes down the line.
Although I'm not denying that there was a small genetic contribution from the scandinavian, this contribution was negligible when you look at the whole Normandy.
You check the Norman royal take for instance: Adela was the daughter of William the Conqueror who married stephen of Blois (who was from Blois not Normandy and became king of England). THe resulting heir carried the Stephen Y chromosome. The Normans constantly married their daughter with neighrbouring Royals, whose heirs usually inherited dukedom or important position in Normandy. Destroying the nonsense that the Y chromosomes were from the scandinavians lines only. ------------- |
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2006 at 19:52
That's probably because they were mostly likely of Breton-decent like the people of Quebec. Only one third of the conquerors of England came from Normandy. I repeat Norman French was/is very refine . ------------- |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2006 at 05:04
|
"LOL, the Normans way of war was exactly similar to the Franks. The Franks were ruthless and were known to have committed many excesses. The vikings while being brigands never usually slaughtered whole cities like the Franks usually did."
I have been studying the Vikingsettlers in England and Normandy for three years, and I have read all the main sources, books and articles on it. I can guarantee you, your opinions are completely contrary to those of the international scholarly society. I really put more faith in their well reseached thoughts than in your mindless ramblings. Your ideas on genetics are particularly nineteenth century and outdated.
Perhaps you should be a little more polite to the opinions of others, and not pretend you are allknowing. -------------
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 00:53
Wow your arrogance is astounding. You claim that I'm all-knowing then, without any proofs, you claim the international community support your ignomous claims: mostly propaganda on the internet written by Germanophile and NAZIs just like yourself; most can disimiss as the ravings of the germanophile without any foundation. All lies. Open a real history book not nonsense like britannica and Wikipedia.
Jut to remind you I descend from the Normans (I find it insulting to claim that Normans were scandinavians) and I back my claim with facts like the tapestry of Bayeux. The tapestry depicts the Normans as they were, their Frankish hairstyle, absence of beards and equipment.
You claim the Franks were gentle, where do you get that nonsense? Franks were known for carnage and excesses when they conquered cities. Read about the crusade and the havoc the French factions wreacked on defeated opponents.
In 1099, Jerusalem, the Franks (including Normans and other French Fracions) killed nearly 70,000 muslims and Jews. Medieval France was the most brutal place on earth. Do you think the French acquired the largest and most beautiful country in western Europe by being gentle.
You sure are confusing the more humane (less resilient and weaker) French of the French revolution with their forebears.
THe Normans way of war was exactly similar to its Frankish neighbours, simply because the Normans weren't set apart and were deeply involve with warfare in francia occidentalis. It is a fact they called themselves Franks and not Normans. it is all on the tapestry of bayeux. What you got to back your claim, a bunch of foolish medieval chroniclers with contradictory claims.
Don't talk to me about being polite when French history is being distorted by bigots.
Yea right these are vikings
 ------------- |
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 00:57
|
The Normans were quick to become French, particularly since they were a minority in their new duchy and a disproportionate number of the new people were young male Vikings who took local women for wives. After a few generations, the Norwegian language and customs were fading fast and the Normans were French. But they were French with a difference. While their language and other habits may have changed, the Normans were still, like all Vikings, supreme opportunists. Then http://www.hyw.com/books/history/William_.htm - William, the duke of Normandy in the 1060s, talked his way into a claim on the English throne. The king of Norway was doing the same thing. An English noble, Harold, also thought he had a lock on the crown once the king died. When the king, Edward the Confessor did die, in 1066, Harold defeated the king of Norway's invading army, but was in turn defeated by duke William and his invading Normans
A typical propaganda by the germanophiles. Look when they say the Norman were French, but immediately claimed the Norman were like the viking since they were opportunist. This is a bombastic and superficial claim. All nations are opportunistic.
The normans were overwhemingly gauls, their scandinavian ancestry is too small to be relevent, perhaps only historically, since the Duchy was created by scandinavian.
The French historians need to start to move their @sses and counter the lies of the anglo-saxons and germanophile, who constantly associate all great races of Europes with the Germanics.
I'm tired that fools around the world claimed French heroes as their own, simply because they have no heroes on their own.
Take this other source for instance
Normans, designation for the Northmen, or http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/N/Norsemen.html - Norsemen , who conquered Normandy in the 10th cent. and adopted Christianity and the customs and language of France. Abandoning piracy and raiding, they adopted regular commerce and gave much impetus to European trade. They soon lost all connection with their original Scandinavian homeland, but they retained their craving for adventure, expansion, and enrichment. In 1066 the http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/N/NormanCo.html - Norman Conquest of England made the duke of Normandy king of England as http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/W/Will1Eng.html - William I (William the Conqueror). The Norman nobility displaced the Anglo-Saxon nobility of England. The Normans readily adapted to the feudalism of N France and are believed either to have introduced feudalism to England or to have strengthened a pre-existing feudal system there.
It claims the "Norman" (in fact he meant viking) conquered Normandy. The Vikings never conquered Normandy. After the vikings were defeated by the Franks at chartres, a treaty was signed. Rollo's viking would be allowed to settle onto the King of France land, forming a dukedom, and help fight more raids.
This is the typical lies you would come across continuously on the net. As the NAZI said: tell a lie many times, it becomes a truth. ------------- |
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 01:12
|
http://www.regia.org/norm1.htm -
One source that clearly explain the anglo-saxons bias on the subject of the normans. Remember, the anglo-saxons are master of propaganda. Since everything that is read is in English, expect history to be written from an anglo-saxons POV. In French or other languages, the true history unveil and the anglo-saxon lies exposed.
http://www.regia.org/norm1.htm
------------- |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 04:28
|
I can perfectly read the Norman version of Wikipedia, and it's the norman from the channel islands which is even more different from standard French than the one of Caen was. Overall Norman isn't considered a distinct language of French, it's a dialect really of the French (langue d'oil is French, langue d'oc is Occitan), afterall you can consider people from Picardy, for example, also had a distinct language or the people from Burgundy too. You can even consider people from York spoke Yorkist and not English etc... Norman and French are perfectly mutually intelligible, I have no efforts at all to do to read Norman. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 04:55
The written form of Geordie is identical to the English written in the whole country, but the way it's spoken makes it unintelligable. The same five vowels are used, but they make completely different sounds.
------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 05:01
My sources:
Pagans and Christians; the interplay between Christian Latin and Traditional German Cultures in Early Medieval Europe, Hofstra, T., Houwen, L.A.J.R. en MacDonald, A.A. ed. (Groningen 1995). Page, R.I. “A Most Vile People”: Early English Historians on the Vikings; the Dorotea Coke Memorial Lecture in Northern Studies Delivered at University College London 19 march 1986 (Londen 1987). Page, R.I., An introduction to English Runes (London 1973). People and places in northern Europe, 500-1600 : essays in honour of Peter Hayes Sawyer, Peter Sawyer, Ian Wood en Niels Lund ed. (Woodbridge 1991). Roesdahl, E. and Wilson, D.M., From Viking to Crusader: The Scandinavians and Europe 800-1200, (Copenhagen, 1992). Sawyer, P., ‘Swein Forkbeard and the historians’, in: I. Wood and G.A. Loud ed. Church and Chronicle in the Middle Ages (London, 1991), pp. 27-40. Sawyer, P., Kings and Vikings: Scandinavia and Europe AD 700-1100 (London, 1982). Sawyer, Peter en Birgit Sawyer, Medieval Scandinavia, from conversion to Reformation circa 800-1500 (Minneapolis en Londen 1993). Sawyer, Peter, The Age of the Vikings (Londen 1962). Smyth, A.P., Medieval Europeans: Studies in Ethnic Identity and National Perspectives in Medieval Europe (Basingstoke, 1998). (LBGES: 15.70 c.ma *1998sm) Smyth, A.P., Scandinavian Kings in the British Isles, 850-880 (Oxford, 1977Smyth, A.P., Scandinavian York and Dublin: The history and archaeology of two related Viking Kingdoms, 2 vols, (Dublin, 1975, 1979). The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Dorothy Whitelock ed. (Londen, 1961). The Anglo-Saxons, James Campbell ed. (Londen, 1982). The Oxford Illustrated History of the Vikings, Peter Sawyer ed. (Oxford, 1997). Thomas, Gabor, 'Anglo-Scandinavian metalwork from the Danelaw: exploring social and cultural interaction', in: Dawn M. Hadley en Julian D. Richards ed., Cultures in Contact. Scandinavian Settlement in England in the ninth and tenth centuries (Turnhout 2000) 237-255. Thorman, Janet, ‘The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle Poems and the making of the English Nation’, in: Anglo-Saxonism and the Construction of Social Identity, A.J. Frantzen en J.D. Niles ed. (Gainsville 1997) 60-85. Townend, Matthew, ‘Pre-Cnut praise-poetry in Viking Age England’, Review of English Studies 51 (2000), pp. 349-371. Townend, Matthew, 'Viking age England as a bilangual society', in: Dawn M. Hadley en Julian D. Richards ed., Cultures in Contact. Scandinavian Settlement in England in the ninth and tenth centuries (Turnhout 2000) 89-105. Trafford, Simon, ‘Ethnicity, migration theory, and the histeriography of the Scandinavian settlement of England’ in: Dawn M. Hadley en Julian D. Richards ed., Cultures in Contact. Scandinavian Settlement in England in the ninth and tenth centuries (Turnhout 2000) 17-30. Williams, A., ’Some notes and considerations on problems connected with the English succession, 860-1066’, in: R.A. Brown ed., Proceedings of the Battle Conference on Anglo-Norman Studies I: 1978 (Ipswich, 1979), pp. 144-167, 225-233. Wilson, David MacKenzie, ‘The Vikings' relationship with Christianity in Northern England’, Journal of the British Archaeological Association (1967), pag 37. Wilson, David MacKenzie, The Vikings and their origins (London, 1970). Zettel, Horst, Das Bild der Normannen und der Normanneneinfälle in westfränkischen, ostfränkischen und angelsächsischen Quellen des 8. bis 11. Jahrhunderts (Munich, 1977). Bates, David, Normandy before 1066, (Londen en New York 1982). Christiansen, Eric, Dudo of St. Quentin, History of the Normans, (Woodbridge 1998). Houts, Elisabeth van, ‘Scandinavian influence in Norman literature of the eleventh century’, Anglo Norman Studies 6 (1983) 107-121. Houts, Elisabeth van, The Gesta Normannorum Ducum of William of Jumièges, Orderic Vitalis, and Robert of Torigni, (Oxford 1992). McKitterick, Rosamond, The early middle ages, (Oxford 2001). Onslow, Earl of, The dukes of Normandy and their origin, (Londen etc. 1945). Potts, Cassandra, ‘Atque unum ex diversis gentibus populum effecit: Historical tradition and the Norman identitiy’, Anglo Norman Studies 18 (1995) 139-152. The Oxford illustrated history of the Vikings, Peter Sawyer ed., (Oxford 2001). Warren Hollister, C. en Judith M. Bennett, Medieval Europe, A short history (Boston e.a. 2002).
Who the F*** cares if you descent from them? It was 1000 years ago, you wernt there.
I did not say that they were gentle, they were not. I said they had different battle ethics as a consequence of the Church Peace Movement which had become more and more present in the course of the tenth century. This you can read in every single history book ever.
If medieval chroniclers are so unreliable, how can a tapistry made for no other reason than propaganda be reliable?
Politeness is a virtue, you know. You should try it someday. You are the bigot. -------------
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 05:06
|
Well, I agree there is a very biased (sometimes close to the lie) version of history in the way Normandy is told in by the Anglo-Saxons (British and their cultural-associated countries). Normandy in French (Normandie) simply means land of the north, as far as I remember the largest scandinavian settlers in Normandy were from Denmark and not from Norway but it's just a detail. The Scandinavian settlement is considered small compared to the local population that was already in place. Rollo was indeed a scandinavian, yet his son William I Longsword was too French for his father's guards who rebelled against him and were defeated by an alliance between the Duke of Normandy and the King of France. As a matter of fact I couldn't and I doubt anyone could) name William I's mother (William I of Normandy, let it be clear, William Longsword not William the Conqueror). It seems Rollo himself wanted to retire, and end this life of war and raiding party. He besieged Paris it's true, but he agreed to defend the King of France and this land against other Vikings. He retired and gave the title to his son. To claim the Viking conquered Normandy is wrong, it's like claiming mercenaries used by most countries in history invaded the country using them. The size of the settlement is hard to tell, but the linguistic influence is limited to vocabulary, which in the end would be adapted to all of France. The Norman language for what I've seen, looks like a phonetic French directly writen (as you know in French we don't write like we speak) with a simpler grammar (some plural forms seemed simplified in what I've read, grammar seems more regular) and in the end it seems less extensive. Overall, let's put it straight, it's a bit of a dumbed down French. Yet, to claim it as a completly distinct language is going to far. Southern dialects of Occitan can be considered distinct, Corsican is distinct, Alsatian and Breton are both distinct. But Norman, really, it's very French. Genetic is a bit outdated, it's culture that makes a people but then the Normans are French by all means. Language, food, way of living etc.... I agree also the brutality of the French is understimated;, people see the Norman are rude and vulgar (well, there is some truth when you hear Norman jokes, it's all about sex and stuffs, they probably gave us that reputation lol) but the French weren't angels either. Even the southern ones of Toulouse, supposedly better educated, showed being complete savages in the crusade, the first crusade (that involved a Duke of Normandy, Robert Curthose) was led by Raimond de Saint Gilles, count of Toulouse, and it was in this crusade the Al-Aksa slaughter took place. Overall, the difference between French and Norman are really overrated. France is both culturaly and geneticaly very diverse. On both point Normans are certainly not, very far away from that, the best example of French diversity (I would rather take the Bretons for example, or the Gascons or the Alsatians). ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 05:13
Really? I've been to Sunderland and, although I had the feeling they butcher English, I could still understand what they said. If a Frenchman (and I was 14 back then) understand it, how comes an Englishman can't? I said writen Norman looks like a phonetic French. I've been to Normandy but there everyone speaks standard French now. I have no problem understanding the Queen of Britain when she speaks French though, assuming that counts of course. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 05:13
|
"From Ganger-Hrolf are descended the earls of Rouen. They called themselves for a long time kinsmen of the Norwegian chieftains and considered themselves such for a long time. They always were the greatest friends of the Norwegians, and all Norwegians who wanted to come there had a friendly welcome with them." Snorri Sturluson, Heimskringla, St. Olaf's Saga, chapter 20.
'Richer of Rheims called the Normans 'pirates' in a late tenth century work, almost a century after Rollo's arrival'
Bates, David, Normandy before 1066, page xvi.
'Roger II de Montgomery once boasted he was a 'Norman of Norman stock'
Bates, page xvi.
-------------
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 05:38
|
And yes, I am arrogant. I worked very hard, I earned the right to be. -------------
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 05:49
Being arrogant is a French characteristic, no one else can be arrogant and be taken seriously (although the British aren't so bad at this either). ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 05:51
 We Dutch can do it too, you know. We just dont show it off too much. We smile, and nod, and know we are better than others... -------------
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 06:25
 Frenchmen are definately more arrogant than Dutch....
Excuse me for butting in again but it was in the beginning in the 9th century, that the Vikings repeatedly raided the coast of Normandy and began to settle there - right?
First in 911 the area was ceded by the French king Charles III as a dutchy to the Normans - who should protect it from other Viking raids.
If it wasnt a "conquered" area - why didnt the French just chase them back into the sea again during those hundred years? ------------- |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 06:26
|
as far as I remember the largest scandinavian settlers in Normandy were from Denmark and not from Norway but it's just a detail
Rollo (Ganger-Hrolfr) was from Norway, he was the son of Rognvald, Jarl of Moer. He was outlawed by Harald Finehair for plundering in the Vik area, which was part of the Norwegian kings domain. Plundering was only accepted outside the kingdom, of course. -------------
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 06:30
|
Overall, the difference between French and Norman are really overrated. France is both culturaly and geneticaly very diverse. On both point Normans are certainly not, very far away from that, the best example of French diversity (I would rather take the Bretons for example, or the Gascons or the Alsatians). Very true. My story was referring to the period before 1066, as I have said before, but I dont think this came through that thick headed skull of Q. I think the later situation of the Dukes of Normandy might hvae kept the Normans and French apart for a little longer: As Dukes they where loanmen from the French king, but at the same time, as the English kings, they where the French kings biggest opponents. This, I feel would have kept them from feeling purely 'French'. This of course was purely political, and not cultural, and has little to do with the Northmen. I was not denying this. Also, by now, I have no doubt the Normans are as French as the rest. -------------
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 06:58
Not all sources agree that Ganger-Hrolfr is the same person as Rollo I believe.
------------- |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 07:33
I don't understand what you mean? When did the French chase the Normans out of France? ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 07:39
thank you,
Who was it who said, "the difference between the English and French is, the French think they're better than everyone else, but the English know they are."
I think the dutch are well down on the list, the Japanese, Germans and Chinese should be fighting it out for the minor places. ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 07:52
|
Can we start a threat on that? Or will it be closed for being too prone to attracting offence? -------------
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 07:55
No - they didnt chase them out - and I'm actually asking why they didnt...
Earlier in this thread it is mentioned that the Normans didnt conquer the area.
So I'm asking... - if they didnt conquer it, why would the French allow them to stay there for 100 years, and then furthermore give them a Duchy? Wasnt it partly to stop them from attacking again and again - and to make them "allies"?
------------- |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 09:17
Ho ok, I see. Well, I have a my opinion. In the middle ages it was the nobles who did the wars. Peasants had no weapons exepted for the soldiers working for the nobles and mercenaries. So there was a need for fighters really, using Viking mercenaries and granting them noble rights was a good way to put them on your side. In the end, Europe ended with a large amount of fighters which no ennemies since the Scandinavians and Magyars took christianism, that large amount of unused fighters is said to be a cause for the crusades. Don't get it wrong though, the Nordic settlement in Normandy is considered small. You don't see that many blonde in Normandy really. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 10:18
So you think that during the 100 years settlements (or strongholds), the Vikings gained a sort of prescriptive right to the area and conclusively gained acceptance from the French with the Duchy and the alliance as the result?
No, you are absolutely right - not too many blondes in Normandy
------------- |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 14:04
In that case perhaps you can translate for me, I can't....
Sanple http://www.bobjude.co.uk/bobjude/geordie/goingto.au - 1
Sample http://www.bobjude.co.uk/bobjude/geordie/gancanny3.au - 2
Sample http://www.bobjude.co.uk/bobjude/geordie/stotty.au - 3
Sample http://www.bobjude.co.uk/bobjude/geordie/chatup2.au - 4
Sample http://www.bobjude.co.uk/bobjude/geordie/blaydon.au - 5
------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 17:20
Is this some kind of poem about: shooting Scots along the road with your lads.  ------------- |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 19:55
It sounds very similar to a Lowland Scottish accent? It may be because some of the pronounciations in Scotland are still influenced by the Scots language, which was very similar to old English. I believe the first one he is saying "Howay, we're gonna walk it" which translates to "Come on, we are going to walk it." Via some of my good internet detective skills  , I found what sample number five actually was saying(nothing about shooting Scots, Axeman). The guy in Sample 5 was singing a line from the Gordie song entitled "Blaydon Races".
Oh lads, ye shud only seen us gannin', Rough Translation: Oh, lads, you should only have seen us
going, EDIT: Nothing about Scots, or "bleeding rearses" in "Blaydon Races" ------------- 
|
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 20:38
|
They say Geordie comes from Norse. A lot of the dialect words are pretty similar to old norse.
Scottish is a weird language, you'de imagine the further north you went the stronger the accent got. Avtually it's the opposite. In the far and islands the accent is minimal and in the Shetland practically English. On the borders however it's alomst as unitelligable as Geordie. So possibly a common Norse link. ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 22:08
Yea, my skull is so thick that I even take your insults as a compliment. Thank you for your compliment.
It was starting to dawn on me that I've gone too far and needed to delete the post. Now my tiny brain, housed within my thick skull, is telling me that, ostensibly, I was not the only one being discourteous. ------------- |
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 22:21
Why didn't they? Because after the defeat of Rollo at Chartre, it was agreed upon that Rollo's band would defend Normandy against future viking raids--in exchange--Rollo would be allowed to settle on the land. You call that conquest?
You forget Normandy was the french king land. It was just he was too weak to enforce his right. It's not just in normandy he couldn't enforce his right, but in nearly all other duchies. But the French king remained the Overlord. Rollo was a duke not a king. But in around 11th, the king of France also became of the duke of Normandy.
Look how weak the French king really was.The French king was simply a title and hardly represent the whole of France (Francia occidentalis). A very strong duke could have usurped the power, but he needed the guarantee that all other duchies would not group together and attack him in an attempt to rescue the throne. That's why many people confuse France with the French king. He only controlled a small fraction of the land (dark green). But the Capet, with the help of the Angevins, physically conquered all other duchies and went even outside Francia occidentalis (determine by the red boundaries). Every duchies within that boundary is culturally French and belong to the French sphere and therefore has the French king as Overlord.
Conquest meant separation of a Duchies from Francia Occidentalis, under a new king.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/maps/france-growth.jpg - http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/maps/france-growth.jpg ------------- |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 22:35
Here's how I think of it. The pronounciations of the words are so similar to the modern day Scottish accent, which was greatly influenced by the Lowland Scots language. The Lowland Scots language was heavily based off of Northumbrian, which was a mixture of not just Old Norse, but also Old Anglo-Saxon. You see, Geordie is one of the Northumbrian dialects. I think it is not just a common Norse link, but also a common Anglo-Saxon link. -------------
|
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 23:48
Why do I have the feeling it was an Englishman who said that. We all know the Englishman is arrogance personified (warning, this is a joke); we French are very humble people; we are unfortunately misundertood. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2006 at 04:27
Is that possibly because the Gaelic-speaking areas learned English as a foreign language quite late?
Whereas in the south and south-east Lallans is the 'natural' language of the people, and close enough to standard English so they didn't have to learn anything different?
------------- |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2006 at 04:32
You called me a Nazi, I'd say calling you thick skulled is a very polite reply to that.
-------------
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2006 at 04:33
|
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=557&PN=1 - Here is an older related thread - very informative.
------------- |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2006 at 04:59
I think your'e probably right.
When the Gailic speakers finally learnt the language maybe they learnt to speak English not Scottish.
------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2006 at 06:10
|
I can get the point in what they said in those sample yeah. You have to understand though speaking to someone face to face and to a movie or a video tape isn't the same though. I really wasn't confused at the geordie accept in Sunderland. I think it's a very bad example if you want to prove Norman French and French are distinct and unintelligible. The obvious reason being Geordie is an accent when Norman is a dialect. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2006 at 09:34
Yes, I agree with this theory. The Lowland Scots language sounds very similar to English, thus why they never had to learn it. However, the Highlanders learned English from the English, and thus, had a more English sounding accent. And don't forget the inhabitants Orkney and Shetland Islands had spoken a form of Norse for a long while until they learned English. -------------
|
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2006 at 09:48
Nope. The Normans were mostly Scandinavians, who had adopted French customs - at least, the ones who went to England. The population of Normandy itself may well have been French. But the aristocracy that ruled it wasn't. William didn't actually use Normans to invade England. He used a mercenary force, gathered from all over Europe.
Vikings aren't Germanic, except in Hitler's fevered brain. With the possible exception of some Danish groups ... however, the Normans were more likely Norwegian.
It's highly unlikely that Rollo was ever at Chartres. That was probably some other band of Vikings. It beggars the imagination to think that you defeat an invader, and then give him a bunch of land and let him physically embarass your leader at the signing of the accord. |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2006 at 10:14
|
him physically embarass your leader at the signing of the accord. You are referring to the incident of the kissing of the kings foot? That was funny!!-------------
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2006 at 00:38
LOL. I wonder what hisotry book you are reading. THe Normans weren't scandinavian. By 1066, the aristocracy was overwheemingly gallic, considering the fact, the Duchies married their daugters and sons to neighbouring noble of neighbouring duchies to seal alliances. William married her daughter, Adela, to Stephen of Blois (from Blois), whose son later become king of England and duke of Normandy. (Just one example to counter your misguided claim, that the aristocracy was scandinavian rather than Gallic).
The ones that went to England? LOL, again you hardly knows what you are talking about. It's not like they cut off from the continent. Only after the capetians war were the French factions of England were cut off from the continent and forced to assimilate. Prior to that a sort of apartheid system existed in England, Anglo-saxons and true scandinavians were set apart apart from the ruling French.
You are right on one point, the Normans feudal lords had no obligaion to serve overseas, so only a small fraction of the army was actually from normandy. Most mercenaries were recruited from France not europe as you claimed. The most numerous being the Bretons, flanders (not to confused with the Flanders of nowadays, the greater part of Flanders was in France, and all part ruled mostly by French elites.) and other area of France. Non- french mercenaries were actually rare.
Vikings were Germanics; what the hell you talking about? The Normans, I repeat were not scandinavians. The small number of scandinavians that moved in Normandy were danish, not norwegian. Normans are people of Normandy; they spoke French and are French, therefore, they cannot be scandinavian. Norsemen were scandinavians. Normans and Norsemen were related in names only. The anglo-saxons, for instance ,referred to the Normans as romans (weird enough, but understable since they still think people of the continents were all romans) and Norsemen as Normenns (that is the vikings. Clearly proving Normans and Norsemen were two completely different people by 1066.)
It's highly unlikely that Rollo was ever at Chartres. That was probably some other band of Vikings. [/quote] LOL, Rollo wasn't at Chartres?
This is because you have a poor imagination, no offence. I think the deal is pretty normal. It was impossible to contain the viking raids, due the cowardly nature of vikings, who usually avoid ton confront large armies and soft targets (they were like the terrorists of these days). France being a large country, the King of France, wisely decided to make use of the Rollo's band to counter the viking, instead of continuing a vain struggle to contain the viking. As Normandy increase in power, the duchy shielded Paris.
Extract
The Treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte was signed in the autumn of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/911 - 911 between http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_the_Simple - Charles the Simple and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollo_of_Normandy - Rollo , the leader of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking - Vikings , for the purpose of settling the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normans - Normans in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neustria - Neustria and to protect Charles' kingdom from any new invasion from the "northmen". No written records survive concerning the creation of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Normandy - Duchy of Normandy . In addition, Rollo was to be baptised and marry Gisele, the illegitimate daughter of Charles, and become the vassal of the king. This last point was complicated because Rollo refused to kneel in front of the king and kiss his foot. A compromise was reached, whereby Rollo took the foot of the king but did not kneel, taking it so high that the king lost his balance and fell.
From this extract, one can instantly find out that Rollo, the count of Rouen (Duchy of Normandy will be created later), married Charles, illegitmate daughter. As such, as second generation descendents are automatically half-french. Along the line, since, the isolation from scandinavia, the descendents married with neighbouring duchies. Bu 1066 (155 years after 911), the amount of scandinavian running inside the Normans aristocrats would be negligible. ------------- |
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2006 at 00:39
What is that incident? He still kissed his foot though, meaning he was definitely defeated. I mean common, he still had to kiss the king foot. If the king of France was defeated, there would be no argument about foot kissing at the first place. The king would be more humble.
Good the king fell on his @ss. Franciliens (parisians) were arrogance incarnate, they were not even as gallic as the Normans, they were a mixture of Frank, roman and gauls. The more east and North you go the more germanics they were.
As I see it, the Fragmentation of France into the Angevin Empire and France, was more a racial divide, Gaul (Angevins, Normans) vs bastardised Franks.
 ------------- |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2006 at 06:52
|
Yes, but the kissing of the Kings foot was very emberassing to the ing in this case. You see, Rollo was certainly not going to do something as filthy as kissing a foot himself, so he delegated the job to one of his warriors. This guy did not have a problem with kissing a foot, but there was just no way he was going to bend down for it.
The king was seated on a backless stool. So, this warrior grabbed the kings ankle and pulled it upwards to his mouth, so causing the king to topple bckwars onto his back, and planted a firm kiss on the sole of the foot.
As the incident does not seem to have had any political consequenses, the king must have needed Rollo pretty badly. Or at least would not have been able to punish him for the humiliation.
I bet it doesnt say that in your 'History as it should have been' books....
You know, you are really fighting a losing battle here. Nobody agrees with your Nationlistic Biased French view anyway. -------------
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2006 at 07:36
There is absolutely zero evidence for it; it is pure speculation. As far as intermarriage therefore not Scandinavian .... look we are not talking a thousand years here or anything. We're talking about a handful of noble engagements over the course of about 5 or 6 generations. Nothing unusual to noble families anywhere in Europe, least of all France itself.
No he didn't. He had one of his junior warriors toss him over and kiss his foot. They probably all laughed at the king too. And yet ... the treaty went forward. Doesn't sound like they were much afraid of him. Sure sounds like he was afraid of them, to tolerate anything like that. |
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2006 at 21:37
I mean common, why would there be any foot kissing ceremony in the first place. Normally you kiss the back of the king's hand, not his foot. The king must have won something. But of course, Rollo is a honorable man, he won't kiss anyone foot neither in defeat and especially not in victory.
------------- |
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2006 at 21:44
Zero evidence, dude open a history; there was a Rollo at Chartres but nobody the origin of this Rollo.
The Intermarriage when between the the mix French-scandinavian descendents with the French of nearby duchies. By 1066, now can be considered to be scandinavian.
Imagine an immigrant moved in France in 1851, do you think in 2006, his descecndents would be anything like that immigrant.
No, he didn't toss him over, it was more an accident; the king fell while the man was raising his feet, otherwise the man's head would be on a stake. Why would there be a feet kissing ceremony in the first place? If the king wasn't in position of power, he wouldn't ask Rollo to kiss his feet.
------------- |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2006 at 03:47
I repeat, THERE IS NOT ONE ACCOUNT OF A ROLLO BEING AT CHARTRES. http://ice.mm.com/user/rob/Rollo/HistoricalRollo.html#N_8_ - http://ice.mm.com/user/rob/Rollo/HistoricalRollo.html#N_8_ It is a strictly modern invention to assume he was there.
Hahaha!!!! 
No, I'm afraid it was a situation more like a nerdy accountant in a biker bar. The king didn't accidentally fall over or whatever. The man's head wouldn't be on a stake because the Vikings owned him. One little skirmish at Chartres, and you think the French had the Vikings beat?? They probably realized at Chartres that they could never beat them, they mobilize the whole country and manage to basically catch ONE little pack of bandits. When there are dozens of raids happening simultaneously, what hope is there?
The French thinking was probably more along the lines of, let's give them land up north ... we can't catch them very well right now, but just wait til they've made homes in Normandy ... then we'll massacre them easily. |
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2006 at 21:42
|
I think you don't have a clue waht you are talking about. The Franks were terror incarnate when it comes to mass killing. The vikings were decisively defeated at Chartres. THat's why they were there to kiss the king's feet (one could literally say @ss). A nerd doesn't ask a bully to kiss his foott, the opposite is true. The low born viking accidentally tripped the king over, but somehow he didn't take offence, otherwise I wouldn't doubt he would have been killed by the king's knights. Most large scale engagement in France btw Vikings and French ended in the viking defeat. At Chartres Robert Le Justicier pulverised the vikings and forced them into an alliance.
------------- |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2006 at 01:45
Again, that's very unlikely. They never assembled large enough forces for any single defeat to be decisive.
If Vikings got into a large scale engagement, something had gone wrong for them. Their success was in mobility; many small groups conducting lightning raids before anyone could respond.
There's not a single historian or account before the 1800s (the birth of romantic revisionist nationalism in France and England) which claims that Chartres had anything to do with the foundation of Normandy. However, there are lots of accounts of a second group of "northmen" who were settling west of Normandy (and it is strongly borne out by toponymics in that area). As far as the kissing of the foot, it was Charles' attempt to save some face. It failed, because the Norse simply made a buffoon out of him. To have a junior warrior do it was insult enough, that would have most kings lethally offended. Charles was in no position (no pun intended!) to do anything about it. |
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2006 at 05:44
I want to see your imaginary sources. If there is anything to doubt, it is whether the viking had any impact on Normandy, or whether the origin of the name of the place is even scandinavian. If they had an impact it was minimal and there was little traces of vikings heritage in normandy by 1066.
You should read about the subject before commenting on it. Yes the viking engaged in several large scales battle both in England and France. Usually it ended with the viking being defeated, especially in France. They had some success in England though. ------------- |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2006 at 09:53
There is no pre-1800s source that says Rollo was at Chartres, that's the whole point. How can I show you what does not exist? Instead, why don't you show me a contemporary (or even just medieval account) that states he was.
No question at all. There are tons of toponymics in Normandy that are of Scandinavian origin. Not only that, the Normans were in consistent alliance with Scandinavians. Not only did William co-ordinate his attack on England with a Viking assault in the north, whenever Normandy itself was threatened, the Normans would call on great numbers of Vikings to come to its aid - for instance, around the year 1000 when Eudes of Chartres was threatening Normandy, the duke called on Olaf I of Norway to assist. |
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2006 at 20:24
ROFL. The battle of Stamford bridge was purely coincidental (there is no source that said the attack was coordinated. Why would William want another claimant to the throne in England to start with?). THe Normans had little contact with the scandinavians by 1066. Fact is after the conquest of England, the viking and anglo-saxons were both treated as lower class.
The Breton held 20% of the land, the rest was controlled by the Normans and other French factions. No scandinavians whatsover was a landlord as they, like the anglo-saxons, were dispossed of their land. Another fact, the Normans married mostly only with people of the continents or among French ruling elite of England. They clearly set themselves apart from the anglo-saxons and danes alike. They would take the occasional wives from the local population, but lest a male would adopt a French name (many anglo-saxons did), spoke French, they would remain at the bottom of the ladder.
Only after the capetian wars (about 1200+) when Anjou and Normandy were conquered by the Franciliens, and the Angevin kings and other French were cut off from France did they start to integrate with the locals (who still spoke old English).
I've already posted an article of the apartheid system set by the French in England. Clearly they didn't feel the vikings were their breathrens.
Extract ( the normans were strong defenders of the French language and culture just like any other French)
On the status of the English Language after the Norman Conquest It has been forgotten by many, most notably the English themselves, that for three centuries after the http://everything2.net/index.pl?node=Norman%20Conquest - Norman Conquest , England was ruled by a ruling class that spoke French. As http://everything2.net/index.pl?node=Matthew%20of%20Paris - Matthew of Paris , writing in the mid thirteenth century, explained "Whoever was unable to speak French was considered a vile and contemptible person by the common people". Or as the chronicler http://everything2.net/index.pl?node=Robert%20of%20Gloucester - Robert of Gloucester wrote in around the year 1300, (in French naturally) that "unless a man knows French, he is thought little of", adding that "I reckon that there are no countries in the whole world that do not keep to their own speech, except England only". In the 1320s, http://everything2.net/index.pl?node=Ranulph%20Higden - Ranulph Higden a monk from http://everything2.net/index.pl?node=St%20Werburgh%27s%20Abbey - St Werburgh's Abbey in http://everything2.net/index.pl?node=Chester - Chester , wrote a Latin universal history under the title of http://everything2.net/index.pl?node=Polychronicon - Polychronicon and included a passage on the state of contemporary education in England, stating that;
------------- |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 03:35
Just saying that doesn't refute the facts I have spoken of. If they have no contact by 1066, then they have only had no contact for about one generation, since the King of Norway had been invited to help protected Normandy from Eudes of Chartres in the 1020's.
Of course the Anglo-Danish were treated as a lower class. They were pagans for the most part, and the Normans were Christian and "civilized". Christian Vikings and pagan Vikings got into alot of conflict over this all over the Scandinavian world at this time. Do you think Vikings were some sort of united group?
Scandinavians from different kingdoms didn't see and each other and then put down their weapons and hug each other, you know. And the Normans were much different, far more steeped in Christian culture than any of them. Vikings fought each other alot, they even battled one another in England several times. It was Danes and Saxons against Norwegians at Stamford Bridge. Danes and Norwegians had fought in London itself prior to that (check the origins of the song, "London Bridge is Falling Down"). Particularly the Normans were a breed apart. But they were just as much a breed apart from the Vikings, as they were from the English or Parisian French. The Normans conquered England; not the French. Normans are Normans. We can argue all day about who the Normans were, but it's very clear they were their own thing, neither French nor Scandinavian, by the time of the Conquest. Saying that the Normans were French is like saying that the Ostrogoths of Odoacer and Theodoric were Romans. They spoke Latin, and married Romans; fought "barbarians", wore togas, converted to Christianity; lived in villas, went to the baths and gymnasiums; Odoacer and Theodoric were even military officers in the Roman army before they took power, and Theodoric's Ostrogoth kingdom was run in Roman style. But they weren't Romans!
Wrong, plenty of Saxon and Danish nobles retained their holdings, the ones that could demonstrate loyalty to their new overlords even expanded their territory in some cases.
So? All British royalty from Canute right down to recent times has done the same thing. French nobility married with Spaniards, Prussians, Germans, God knows what else. Are you not aware of the nature and purpose of marriages in feudal kingdoms?
That was what the Normans did best - clearly set themselves apart from everyone else. They set themselves apart from the Scandinavians, set themselves apart from the French, and then set themselves apart from the English.
They didn't feel the Anglo-Danes were their brethren, no.
No, not really! Norman French was greatly different from Parisian French, from the beginning.
No, I don't think that's been forgotten at all. But apparently the French have forgotten that the Normans weren't speaking the same French as the French king. Anglo-Norman French is a very distinct dialect, even in the 11th century.
Well that was nothing new. The Anglo-Danish had been opposing favouritism towards Norman appointments and style of government, even under Edward the Confessor. Was he Gallic French too? 
Do you think French kings went out and married Parisian commoners? No ... they went abroad too. You clearly have a deep misunderstanding of feudal marriage as an institution, here. Danish kings of England did it before the Normans, and Saxons before them. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 04:34
You mean when anyone mentions Robin Hood or Hereward the Wake or Ivanhoe in England all they get is a blank puzzled stare?
Good guy Saxons versus bad guy Normans (except Richard I) is one of the staple themes of schoolboy fiction in England and always has been.
------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 08:04
|
"On these open shores, the mark of pagan invasions was strong during the 10th century. Rollon's conversion in 911 followed by his position as count of Normandy is fairly considered a famous date in the history of France. [...] The population is not fully renewed: judging by toponymy, the Norman colonization was mostly along the shore and had little influence on the society or on the institutions (Normandy is no more "Scandinavian" than Occitania is "Roman"). The Christian feudal system, however, was destroyed and renewed. Under the duke Richard II (996-1026), the monasticism flourishes again at Jumieges and Fecamp, where the duke has a splendid palace. In the same time, from sources written here, we have informations on the land, on the people, on the coinage, on the institutions - and we find so little Scandinavian traces. Even the Norman nobility seem mixed: the "ethnical" borders are undoubtely surpassed. We could think that even the Norse bands of 9th century had several Galo-Christians among their ranks, as the legend of Hastingus suggests (told by Raoul Glaber) - there's no doubt that they often negotiated with the Frankish counts and kings, being bound by alliances or coalitions. Slowly fixed and converted, the Normans on the Seine assumed the post-Carolingian civilization quite well. The duchy is ruled through comitates (pagi), but most often by vicounts and relatives of the counts. [...] Besides a right on the shipwrecks and some exile sentences, nothing significant is different between Richard II and the other French principes. [...] He uses the same methods; perfectly integrated and a good ally for Hugo Capet and Robert the Pious, but that doesn't stop him to interfere for Eudes II of Blois. He's a node for many networks inside the kingdom and outside it. He also interferes at the Normans "across the sea" (the true Danes) to redeem the vicontess of Limoges, taken prisoner around 1010 at St. Michel-en-l'Herm. [...] In this new province it came the time to invent, or at least to fix, the past. The canonic Dudon from St. Quentin writes at Richard II's command a history of the first Norman dukes. [...] What else Dudon offers before 911 or 943, even many times after these dates, but pure inventions? He doesn't know anything about the true Denmark or about the Scandinavian culture. But he leads us in a mythological "Dacia" to tell us the origins and the great deeds of Hastingus and Rollon (see also C. Carozzi - "Des Daces aux Normands ..."). They are proud, they fight, they negotiate and cheat in way that is similar with the realities during the kingdom of Hugo Capet and Robert the Pious! [...] Why should we wonder that Normandy is painted with so little true Scandinavian nuances, when the acculturation was strong and fast from the beginning?" (translation and adaptation from Dominique Barthelemy - "L'an mil et la paix de Dieu", a analysis of the French feudal history between the end of Xth century and the middle of XIth from this point of view of the "peace of God", but also going many times beyond that, as you can see from these paragraphs) I should add that also Lucien Musset has some similar opinions in his book "Les invasions".
I will come soon with few considerations on some other points you made.
|
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 08:21
I don't think anyone's arguing that. The Norman impact on France was much like the Norman impact on the English population; they formed a ruling class with very little impact on the general population.
Mixed, yes. All nobility throughout all Christian Europe were mixed. |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 08:52
Edgewaters, the point of those paragraphs is that Normans during Richard II were "French", therefore the Normans of William (Guillaume  ) were also "French" (including the nobility, so even Richard II or William themselves).
Now about some of your earlier points:
For one thing, being Roman is much different than being French (or belonging to many other ethnicities/medieval identity groups). In some periods of the Empire (let's say during 3rd century for example) you could be Roman though you were ethnically Lybian or whatever. Being Roman wasn't about having Latin as mother tongue (though you were forced to know it to live in that society), wasn't about being fully integrated into a pure Roman set of values and customs and forgetting much of your own (as the above author argues about the Normans from Normandy).
Then again, the Goths of Theodoric weren't that Roman as you insinuate. Parts of the aristocracy refused the Classical culture (well, Theodoric was "Roman", had educated his children in the Roman way, tried to impose a public Roman school, but he had opponents; and as we know the dynasty of Amalii fell - the death of Theodat in 536 - and the conservative Gothic factions which followed it were even hostile to the Roman culture).
The "Romans" among the barbarians from the 5th-6th century kingdoms were just a small elite which in itself was not fully persuaded to adopt the new culture. As Theodoric said: "the poor Roman imitates the Goth, the rich Goth imitates the Roman".
Coming back to Normans, were they just imitating the continental society?
Reading my last message I'd say they really integrated into this society.
It's all about identity - assumed and perceived from outside. If you think of yourself as a French/Roman and most around you, too, then you're a French/Roman. Analyse again Theodoric's kingdom and XIth century Normandy and see that the comparision cannot be done.
This is a really funny point. So a Marseillese is not French, because he's speaking in dialect? Let's plunge in the middle of 11th century, were the Aquitans French? But the Burgundians? Or for you France is a small "island" around Paris??
Though he made some erroneous points, Quetzacoatl is right on this one. The conquerors of William were speaking French and installed the French language (dialectal as it was) in England.
What's your reason to consider them Scandinavian? How were they culturally representing Scandinavia and how were they culturally representing the continental post-Carolingian France?
|
Posted By: Konstantis
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 10:34
|
The Normans were called ''Keltes'' by the Greeks.The word Keltes is the Greek word used to describe the Celts,the Gauls.Perhaps the Greeks,my ancestors, knew that the Normans were genetically more celtic than scandinavian,since many warriors of the Norman army were Bretons. I think that since the Normans spoke French or at least a type of French, they should be considered French.They were not the same as the French of Paris,but they were provincial French.
The racial admixture with the vikings is a fact and can be seen in many traits exhibited by the vikings.The Normans inherited from their viking ancestors the naval skills,the surprise attacks,the speed of movement,the brutality and ruthlesness.
But the differences which set them apart from the vikings were much more.They spoke a type of French,they fought in the French manner using the cavalry as their crack troops and they organised their Duchy according to the carolingian feudal system.They inherited from their carolingian ancestors the technique of building strongholds and they perfected it.
Even the terms that they used in their army were French.
The Normans should be seen as a caste among the French,originating from Normandy and not as a distinct people.
------------- "Stranger, tell the Lakedemonians that here we lie dead obeying their orders." Tombstone on the tomb of the 300 Spartans |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 12:43
I'm not sure how much value should you give to such testimonies.
Opening again the book of Dominique Barthelemy we find this Richer of Rheims describing Hugo Capet as the king of the "Gauls, Bretons, Danes, Aquitans, Goths, Spaniards and Gascones". Do you really think there were these 6 strongly shaped "non-French" ethnicities/identities (the first one seems to be "French")?
At the same time Richer of Rheims proves his - otherwise expected - naivity in judging the people of "France". He identifies the western kingdom of the Franks with Cesar's Gaul and its 3 parts: Belgia, Celtica and Aquitania. He also claims that the more you go south, the less rational are the people you meet, though everywhere it's the same quarreling spirit. The most rational are the Belges (people living north of Seine). Well, you know where Rheims is ...
Another observation would be that there's a tendency to "archaize" the people, i.e. to characterise them not by realities of the present, but by the memories of the past. As at the core of the French kingdom were the Gauls, its neighbouring feudes have similar obsolete characterizations, in particular your account showing Normans to be pirates (if indeed the information is correct and he talks about the followers of Rollon)
We shouldn't transform all the medieval stereotypical views into evidences with absolutely no interpretation/critical spirit.
|
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 13:17
|
Yes, of course chronicles are not always reliable. But there is a big difference between dividing the people in groups with archaic names or calling a group of people 'pirates'. Seems a lot more personal to me. And as I clearly showed, it was not I who drawed that conclusion, it was Mr Bates. Read the article, it is very convincing. -------------
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 13:29
|
Calling Normans pirates at the end of 10th century looks to me like when, in the same period, Liutprand of Cremona in his mission to Constantinople loaded the Byzantines with a lot of derogatory terms (avarice, liars, vicious, born from a fratricide etc. ) based on a mythical Roman image, and also bounded in the past.
What's Bates argument (I don't have the article, can you sketch some arguments concerning some issues discussed here?) that this sentence reflects indeed a reality and it's not, like I suggest, an insult to Normans, the expression of an intolerance to an "other".
|
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 13:59
|
Dont have it here, Im at my parents house, I will look it up when Im back in my room... Its a book, not an article...
But I remember it was just one exaple in a list which shows that both the Normans and the Franks considered there was a difference between them. -------------
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 14:01
Have you any idea at all about how many different and distinct ethnicities were considered French in the 11th century? France was a conglomerate of many different groups - Bretons, Gallo-Franks, Occitanians, Flaems, and many others. They didn't even all speak French or any dialect of French!
I'm not sure how much he "imposed" anything. The Ostrogothic Kingdom mostly consisted of established non-Ostrogothic "Roman" populations.
Yep, with a few innovations.
The Normans identified themselves as Normans, distinct from the French (despite being a part of the French culture), and were perceived as very, very distinct by the French.
See my above comment on the diversity of France. Remember that medieval kingdoms were nothing like modern nation-states; they were generally the cultural empire of a small group. Paris and London being classic examples, up until the birth of nations.
For a very brief period, and with limited success. It would better be stated that they attempted to install the French language, but ended up speaking English themselves.
They were a hybrid culture. Franko-Norse, if you like (rather like the term "Anglo-Norman"). Practically speaking, the Normans were the Normans.
That hasn't got anything to do with race or genetics ... it's vestiges of their Scandinavian cultural heritage. |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 15:52
People change faster than your imagination seems to allow them to. My earlier source even claimed that Scandinavians were fast acculturated. You had no counterargument to that.
Please point out the date in history when the Bretons and the Franks and the Goths became French. If you're unable to, then please tell me why these are different ethnicities. Provide arguments, so far I've seen only statements.
He certainly gave an impulse a public education when he paid wages to the teachers from the schools of Rome. While your observation is quasi-irrelevant as the education in the Roman Empire decayed severely since the 4th century, especially during the 5th (so what the majority of the population was "Roman"?). It's not like Theodoric's measures saved it, but he tried to do something to save it.
Let me sketch our "dialogue":
Me: All it's about how A is seen.
You: A was seen as A, so much different from B.
Nothing valueable there. Sorry!
Aelfgifu, I think I solved the Normans = pirates dilemma. I will come a bit later with the response. I also think the peoples listed by Richer of Rheims as being under the authority of Hugo Capet are the provinces (dukedoms) of France i.e. Bretania, Normandy, Gasconia, Gothia etc.
Oh, Edgewaters, and I think I know a reason for your confusion:
Well, being French has little to do with the genetics. Especially in the medieval world where an identity could be created/assumed within the same generation.
I think it's a question of socio-cultural identity.
|
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 21:02
Of course there would be differences between them. You hardly know anything about France, do you? People from regions to regions vary greatly in customs and dialects (it is the same with Germany). France can even be broken into France proper (northern France) and Occitania (southern France)
May I remind you the Franks denominator also applied to Normans (refer to tapestry of Bayeux where the invaders of England were collectively referred as Franci (Franks or French)). Normans were Franks. But a Norman and a Francilians (the merovingian Franks) have major differences, just like Normans and Angevins weren't the same. But they all fell under the same culture as French. They belong to the Francia occidentalis sphere (although I would not consider the Breton and Burgundian as french entities at the time; the Normans, Francilians and Angevins were beyond any doubt solid French factions (with culture and tradition firmly rooted).)
Yet Norman French and Parisian French have more in common that with say Aquitanian French. ------------- |
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 21:18
You get it all wrong, simply because you are unacquainted with the history of France and what the term French mean. French, here, isn't a nationality but a culture and associated with a set of customs. It only has a loose racial element. The Normans were mostly Gallic (with minimal Franks, roman and scandivian inputs), while the Francilians were Gallo-Franks (with considerable roman input), yet they were both French.
Breton, in those days, weren't considered French; they spoke a different language although they were associated with Francia occidentalis, culturally speaking they weren't French (nowadays they are considered French beyond any doubt).
Same could be said about the occitanians in those days.
THe only French factions by 1066 were the Francilians, Normans, Angevins and region of immediate influence such as Blois.
And People, Norman French is a dialect of langue d'oil just like Parisian French is dialect of Langue D'oil. The difference between the two languages were trivial and they were perfectly intelligible. Both were langue d'oil dialects of old French. A langue D'oc (in the south of France) and langue d'oil were also intelligble.
------------- |
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 21:20
I think you too are falling into the trap of thinking the word French has to be associated with the world nation. No! French started as a culture that progated throughout what is now modern France. The nucleus of French culture was in Normandy, Anjou, and ile-de-france.
If the Francilians hadn't gotten into the way of the Angevin and Normans (who established the first French overseas colony) by cutting them off the continent and therefore preventing the influx of continental French to the British island, French would have been the principal language of England and europe today. ------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 03:42
|
Quetzacoatl, I'm not considering them as a nation, on contrary, I'm trying to see the "French" of 11th century as a medieval identity (mostly cultural).
Can you detail about Bretons and Burgunds being separated identities at this time?
Especially Burgunds (and shouldn't we make differences beween the kingdom of Burgundy and the dukedom/duchy of Burgundy?), because I'm thinking of Burgundian phenomena like Cluny, and even the "peace of God".
|
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 04:04
Why would I argue against something I have already agreed upon? Yes, the Normans took upon themselves French culture, but they retained elements of Scandinavian culture as well.
This is quite spurious. You want a "date"? This is a process that took centuries. I would say it did not reach its final completion until the emergence of the nation-state in the 18th and 19th centuries.
You've gone from "imposing" a new thing to attempting to "save" an old and existant thing. In just a few sentences.
You want me to provide evidences why I agree that Normans had adopted continental culture? It's a basic premise of both our arguments that I presume we agree upon. Why would that need evidence? I'm curious as to what problem you would have with this premise, as you seemed to be trying to establish it earlier. I was merely agreeing upon it as a premise, not making an argument.
You haven't been following my argument, or this thread very much. The issue is not whether they were French or Scandinavian. The issue is whether they can be considered to have at least partially Scandinavian influences and whether or not they were a distinct group in France.
As if it was a quantifiable value, rather than qualitative. Please, at least frame your questions in a sensible form. For instance, "What was the nature of French influence in Norman culture? How does it contrast with Scandinavian influences, if there even were any?" I can't answer a nonsensical question. |
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 04:15
Well, although many Bretons spoke French (especially the elites)--unlike Normandy, Anjou or Ile-de-France--the Breton also spoke widely a celtic language.
Burgundy (the kingdom around Lyon, now Rhone-alpes region), although one may say they were French (they spoke provencal French, didn't they) their sphere of influence fell into the HRE; they didn't have the French king as overlord as it was the case with Normandy and Anjou.
From a modern POV, Burgundians and Bretons are obviously French, but not in 1066.
Here is a map
 The limit of Francia Occidentalis is shown. Within Francia Occidentalis, there were two competing French factions: the Angevin (centred around Anjou) and the Francilians (which control Flanders, Blois, Ile-de-France and Burgundy the Duchy).
I really can't figure it out how the Francilians managed to beat the Angevins. If I was born in those days, I would have definitely been part of the Angevins.
Do you think Anger would have been the capital of France if the Angevin had won? Or would they simply move to Paris? ------------- |
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 04:18
|
You are quite vain Edgewaters; why do you keep denying the facts. You sound like a broken record. ------------- |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 04:24
Are you unable to distinguish a fact from a conclusion, and a premise from an argument? It appears to me there are really no facts at dispute here, only conclusions. |
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 04:34
Coming from one who claims the viking fielded no armies, but only small raiding bands; it is certain that there are many facts at dispute here. ------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 05:32
Of course, in time you even changed your position to tautological sentences like this one (especially after "French language" argument):
The problem is you never conceded on anything, so the only thing I see is an apparently groundless opposition to "Normans are French" by making them either "Scandinavian" or "Normans", depending on the counterarguments issued.
I think we're wasting time here and I have a material to prepare (as I earlier promised). |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 06:09
Your quote is completely out of context. That was in a hereditary, not cultural sense.
Pot, kettle, black.
I haven't changed my position, I have merely clarified it and attempted to clear up apparent failure to make myself understood. It's your perception of my position that's changed; that was the entire intention. Same as your attempt to reconcile your statement re "imposing" to "saving". Why do your statements need to be so ... colourful? In just two posts you've frantically attempted to variously characterize myself and/or my statements as anachronistic, unimaginative, a spammer, incapable, petty, rigid, irrelevant, confused, pitiful, semantical, mocking, a "nit picker", accusatory, inarticulate, etc etc, repetitively in many cases. Don't you think, that given such a display of invective without apparent provocation (or even with some minor instance, given the appalling frequency with which you've relied on it), perhaps it's more than a little ... bizarre ... at this point for you to accuse me of "mockery" and "pointing the finger" as well? It's times like this that I think about what Jung said regarding what we dislike in others. It was really rather surprising and mystifying for me when you began that, during the course of your post that begins with "I see ...".
Isn't the difference entirely subjective? I think, throughout my posts, I've been pretty clear that the Normans had wholeheartedly adopted the trappings of continental culture. I consider that culture is not an inherent thing, we are members of a culture because we choose to act like it, therefore, I wasn't paying alot of attention to the difference between "pretending" and "being". There was no need for vituperation, a simple clarification would have sufficed. Language is an imperfect tool at the best of times, it is unproductive to lash out in anger and *cough* point fingers when it fails.
You state that I "choose convenient sentences out of a paragraph", and then yourself take a few snippets entirely out of the context in which they were made. I had stated that the Norman aristocracy was of principally Scandinavian heritage, not that they were principally Scandinavian in culture. To which you've been making all kinds argumentation about how much French culture they had adopted, something I don't dispute in the first place, and I get the distinct feeling you're attempting to portray my argument as if I'm claiming they were running about in longships, fighting with axe-wielding berserkers. Perhaps you aren't trying to give that impression but it comes across that way. I'd suggest it's necessary to establish points of agreement on which to form premises, rather than this consistent attack on things I don't disagree with in any case. Simple question: did the French conquer England, or did the Normans conquer England? If the latter, were the Normans just "French", or were they unique enough to be considered a distinct group called the Normans?
The Normans are Normans, that was my statement. Is there a problem with that statement that you can point out, besides your characterizations? I haven't conceded on anything, true enough, neither of us have. On the other hand, I haven't denied that the Normans were part of the French fabric and had adopted the French culture. The Normans were French, in that sense - a sense that doesn't rule out their differences. They were not merely or exclusively French, just like a 2nd + generation Italian American isn't necessarily merely or exclusively American (and before you say it - I fail to see why analogy used for simple illustration and familiar example must be contemporary in every case - anachronistic analogy may be imperfect, but it can still be useful for illustration) I merely point out that they were not French in the same sense that the Angevins were, brought a Scandinavian mindset to their way of practicing French culture, possessed Scandinavian heritage, were distinct in many ways, and retained some political connections with Scandinavian groups (eg King Olaf of Norway). That's my position, hopefully clarified. Is there any of it you doubt or would like to discuss? Be specific and that way we can dispense with arguing over premises we both hold already. |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 06:23
My quote: If Vikings got into a large scale engagement, something had gone wrong for them. Their success was in mobility; many small groups conducting lightning raids before anyone could respond. That pretty much speaks for itself. It says their success lay in small, mobile groups; it doesn't rule out other things. I also mentioned: They never assembled large enough forces for any single defeat to be decisive. Large enough. Not that they never assembled large forces at all. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 09:44
Bretons are French? I suppose the Welsh are English?
The concept of 'Frenchness' took even longer to emerge than the concept of 'Englishness'. ------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 09:46
|
Based on Lucien Musset - Les Invasions. Le second assaut ...
The Scandinavian traits are scarce. Most were eliminated when Normandy took a decissive feudal and Christian orientation. However, there were significant influences in fishing, sailing, shipbuilding, also duke's rights on some categories of shipwrecks. In the rural environment is known only a single property title of Scandinavian influence (the mansloth) and a series of toponyms which illustrate the colonization of the Scandinavians over the Frankish villas. A part of the aristocracy practiced during the 10th century a Northern matrimonial right but limited by the Church. Some of the Duke's laws against criminals bear also a Scandinavian mark (the outlawing - ullac), however even here, the framework is borrowed from the Frankish law. The older Frankish structures (centaines, pagi) revived everywhere (almost everywhere, as unlike in Upper Normandy - closer to the centers of the post-Carolingian authority -, the dukes of Rouen had certain problems in affirming their authority over the Lower Normandy - which escaped also the authority of the last Carolingians). As for the ethnicity of the colonists, according to their onomastics, it seems the majority was Danish and a large part of them inhabited for a while the north-east of England from where they brought new/altered anthroponyms, but also agricultural terms, especially betwen Bayeux and Orne, and less in the north of Cotentin. Other colonists, after inhabitting a while in Ireland and Scotaland, came in Normandy wearing names like Murdac or Donecan. These colonists have a Norwegian origin and estabilished mostly in Cotentin. The women were in a severe minority (the analysis set having 3 such names comparing to around 80 male names), so the newcomers must'd married local women since their first generations. Two social classes was altered: the aristocracy and the sea-shore populations. Nowhere the Scandinavians behave like a closed group. From the beginning of 11th century the aristocracy was extremely composite: besides Danes and Norwegians included Franks, Bretons and even Germans. The indigenous elements altered it greatly thus no significant differences were between the conquerors and the conquered at the beginning of 11th century. One last point is their double-faced identity. Snorri Sturlusson, writing in the 13th century, calls the old dukes of Rouen "Rudhu jarlar" (the jarls of Rouen) while Richer, hating Normans, calls Richard I "comes piratarum" (so like I thought, it was an insult. However I think it's related to Richard I's ancestry and the fact that his "cousins" were still haunting the seas). |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 11:00
|
Let me read your "context":
You're opposing the Normans (Scandinavian aristocracy with French customs) with a French non-aristocratic population in Normandy. Not taking in account that you earlier said that there's no French ethnicity before 19th century, I wonder what do you mean by these French in Normandy? Hereditary French (let's say Frankish?)? I couldn't conceive such an option, so for me the context says "French" and "Scandinavian" as original cultural environments. Otherwise you couldn't oppose "Scandinavian" with "French" (especially in Normandy).
Me: Theodoric [...] tried to impose a public Roman school You: I'm not sure how much he "imposed" anything. Me: He certainly gave an impulse (to) public education when he paid wages to the teachers from the schools of Rome. Of course, because I'm writing sometimes more than a one-liner, I also added something about his intentions: "It's not like Theodoric's measures saved it, but he tried to do something to save it."
As obviously you're not talking about Normans, what can I do about deviations like this one? a) Ignore them b) Identify (name) them as such and stop them. For instance, I'd characterise this action as basically an exageration. But unfortunately it's more than that. Some epithets are decontextualized, distorted or not to be found (I see no "incapable" just "unable to point out", which came after "please point out"), even the frame you presented has the same fate, as almost none addresses your person but your actions and ideas and unlike you're stating most of the cases are in fact only one occurence. Also, you're using yourself such characterisations when the opponent bothers you in some way - only from the last pages of this thread (and you started before I even contributed in some way here): "You clearly have a deep misunderstanding", "spurious", "You haven't been following" (if I'd were to follow your way I could victimize myself by infering from here something about my inability to follow a discussion  ), "I can't answer a nonsensical question. " and of course the latest additions: "colourful", "frantically" etc. Have in mind that all what I exposed here also can be characterised through epithets (names). I don't really want to bring them on, but you're not really helping in creating a discussion focused on arguments. Even now, I'm not certain about the points you attempted to make when you answered to me.
You picked up my first sentence and said "yep". Perhaps you haven't noticed the "just" vs "really", "imitating" vs "integrated". On the other hand, it was started from the analogy with the Ostrogoths, therefore my semantic opposition was somehow reflecting the factual differences between the two examples.
I hope to settle soon on all these things because as you suggest, it may happen that many of the issues we argue on are the same facts in a slightly different perception.
|
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 12:25
I can give you some stuffs from the book, the Angevin Empire by John Gillingham, page 95 and forward "the causes of defeat". The first and most obvious thing is John I was never at the place he was needed. Even the fights in Poitou and Gascony, where John I was supposed to attack while Otton IV attacked on the other flank, was done by Savari de Moleon and Elie de Malmort. Modern scholars, based on financial records of those times, seem to believe Philip II was indeed richer than John I despite the fact John I had a much bigger land. Yet it is impossible to calculate the exact wealth of both sides which is why those are constantly debated. Problems for the King of France was a lot of money was "lost through the net" which makes it hard to quantify. It was even worse for the Plantagenet, records for the Plantagenet are hopelessly incomplete. It seems, for example in 1202-1203, that Philip II's treasure recorded an entry of 197,000 Livres Parasis yet those include money Philip II saved from previous years for further uses so are not exactly an annual income. The same year was disastrous for John I in term of incomes, usualy England and Normandy taxation alone were the same than the one the King of France could gather, yet this specific year was really bad for John with about 38% to 45% only of the usual incomes. England usualy gathered 106,000 Livres Anvegins and Normandy 98,000. Ireland much poorer gathered usualy only 6,000 l.a. There are 0 records for Anjou and Aquitaine, although the policy of those places can tell the incomes they generated for John I was pitifully low, which is ironical when they were probably the wealthiest area of its sovereign. It is presumed John I received only 3,000 l.a. from those places. It was commonly assumed Richard I was wealthier than Philip II, although this is put in question that Richard I taxed his subjects to death? The Norman Exchegers Rolls of 1195 and 1198 reveal a duchy squeezed to its limit and left Richard I high and dry ruler of exhausted lands. It seems Richard I clearly outspent Philip II. Grumbling comments by Roger of Howden and William of Newburgh show that in the end of Richard I's reign many people in England were financialy opressed. According to Ralph of Coggeshall: "no age can remember, no history can record any preceding king who extracted so much money from his kingdom as that king amassed in the five years after he returned from captivity". John I's first years of reign gathered even more money per years that Richard I's last years. In modern money Richard I could gather £24,000 a year and John I $27,000 (inflation went there so it actually is the same). So, in term of incomes and at the early stages of the conflict, John I gathered more money than Philip II but at a high cost. Yet, Philip II could gather more of his money in the threatre in Normandy than John I did, which is were it mattered (Normandy taken, John I's land was cut), to put it in another way, Philip II was able to manage his money better than John I did. John I then was unable to gather his money at the right place, yet it's always more or so been the case. The Angevin Empire was a loose empire with many different laws within it's feudal states. Held through vassality of the king of France, it was impossible to apply big reforms in several terroritories, the Angevin Empire was more a cumbersome political structure administratively incoherent. Richard I could avoid the problem with good political movement but John I managed to turn the most powerful nobles of Poitou and Anjou against him. On Anjou (the greater Anjoy) itself, the only place John I directly ruled without contest was Le Mans, others were held through vassalities with barons and others. This was an explanation to the bad incomes John I would suddenly experience. The real masters of Poitou were the Lusignans, although nominally ruled by the Plantagenets. The Lusignans held directly nothing less than 13 "castellanies" when John I had 12 (those are including the ones held by his wife) while those including Poitiers itself and La Rochelle. In 1203, the strongholds of Beaufort and Chateauneuf sur Sarthe were simply handed down to Philip II by its defenders. In Gascony, John I was reduced to a defense position, Richard I there could control the area with a succesful alliance with Sancho of Navarre but at this point the King of Navarre is stuck in a war with Castile. Richard I also had an alliance with Toulouse which John I failed to renew and Toulouse went on the Capetian side. On the ground of alliances, Philip II won a powerful ally with Alfonso VIII of Castile. John I ressources in the south were then null. Although John I signed an alliance with Otton IV, Otton didn't interfere until the summer of 1203 as Otton was stuck in a strugle with the Prince of Swabia. And by then, it was too late. The only serious ally John I could have had was the Count of Flanders, but he was gone to the crusades and the other former ally Renaud of Boulogne joined the Capetian side too.... With ennemies all around, John I could only spread his troops all around when Philip II could attack from any front he wanted. Normandy was lost swiftly, with the help of Renaud of Boulogne which showed a brillant commander, Philip II could gather a stronger force there. Politicaly, economicaly, and diplomaticaly, Philip II totaly outperformed John I. Followed after the loss of Normandy and Anjou, the Battle of Bouvines where Otton IV finally participated and Renaud of Boulogne fought the king of France. At that point, the rest is only a succession of small victories reducing the sovereign of John I and the laters like that capture of La Rochelle, the Battles of Saintes and Taillebourg and the War of Saint Sardos until the 100 years war. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 12:34
|
Ho, and the Normans were/are Frenchmen.
------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 07:19
I've missed that one and forgot also about my little conversation with Quetzalcoatl. You're both right about the Bretons - I've overestimated the force of the Galo-Romans (it seems that here it happened as in England, the Romanic speakers were isolated in "islands" and were assimilated) and the intregration of Bretania in post-Carolingian structures and culture, while minimized the vigour of the Celtic invaders.
|