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

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Normans?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 11>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Quetzalcoatl View Drop Down
General
General

Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984 		  Quote Quetzalcoatl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Normans?
    Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 00:53
Originally posted by Aelfgifu

"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 Your ideas on genetics are particularly nineteenth century and outdated.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.
 
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
 


Edited by Quetzalcoatl - 13-Jul-2006 at 01:24
Back to Top
Quetzalcoatl View Drop Down
General
General

Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984 		  Quote Quetzalcoatl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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 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 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 Norman Conquest of England made the duke of Normandy king of England as 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.


Edited by Quetzalcoatl - 13-Jul-2006 at 01:23
Back to Top
Quetzalcoatl View Drop Down
General
General

Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984 		  Quote Quetzalcoatl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 01:12
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
 
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
Exarchus View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18-Jan-2005
Location: France
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 760 		  Quote Exarchus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 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!
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952 		  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 04:55
Originally posted by Exarchus

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.
 
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.
 
 
 


Edited by Paul - 13-Jul-2006 at 04:57
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Aelfgifu View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 25-Jun-2006
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3387 		  Quote Aelfgifu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 05:01
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

 
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.
 
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 Normanneneinflle in westfrnkischen, ostfrnkischen und angelschsischen 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 Jumiges, 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).

 
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

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.
 
Who the F*** cares if you descent from them? It was 1000 years ago, you wernt there.
 
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

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. 
 
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.
 
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

 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.
 
If medieval chroniclers are so unreliable, how can a tapistry made for no other reason than propaganda be reliable?
 
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

Don't talk to me about being polite when French history is being distorted by bigots.
 
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.
Back to Top
Exarchus View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18-Jan-2005
Location: France
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 760 		  Quote Exarchus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 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!
Back to Top
Exarchus View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18-Jan-2005
Location: France
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 760 		  Quote Exarchus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 05:13
Originally posted by Paul

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.
 
 
 


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!
Back to Top
Aelfgifu View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 25-Jun-2006
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3387 		  Quote Aelfgifu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Aelfgifu View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 25-Jun-2006
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3387 		  Quote Aelfgifu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Exarchus View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18-Jan-2005
Location: France
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 760 		  Quote Exarchus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 05:49
Originally posted by Aelfgifu

And yes, I am arrogant. I worked very hard, I earned the right to be.


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!
Back to Top
Aelfgifu View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 25-Jun-2006
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3387 		  Quote Aelfgifu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 05:51
Big smile 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...Wink

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.
Back to Top
Northman View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 30-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4262 		  Quote Northman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 06:25
LOL
Frenchmen are definately more arrogant than Dutch....Wink
 
 
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?
 
Back to Top
Aelfgifu View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 25-Jun-2006
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3387 		  Quote Aelfgifu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Aelfgifu View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 25-Jun-2006
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3387 		  Quote Aelfgifu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.

Edited by Aelfgifu - 13-Jul-2006 at 06:39

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.
Back to Top
Northman View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 30-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4262 		  Quote Northman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 06:58
Originally posted by Aelfgifu

Rollo (Ganger-Hrolfr)
 
Not all sources agree that Ganger-Hrolfr is the same person as Rollo I believe.
 
 
Back to Top
Exarchus View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18-Jan-2005
Location: France
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 760 		  Quote Exarchus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 07:33
Originally posted by Northman

If it wasnt a "conquered" area - why didnt the French just chase them back into the sea again during those hundred years?
 


I don't understand what you mean? When did the French chase the Normans out of France?
Vae victis!
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952 		  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 07:39
Originally posted by Exarchus

Originally posted by Aelfgifu

And yes, I am arrogant. I worked very hard, I earned the right to be.


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).
 
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.


Edited by Paul - 13-Jul-2006 at 07:41
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Aelfgifu View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 25-Jun-2006
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3387 		  Quote Aelfgifu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Northman View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 30-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4262 		  Quote Northman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 07:55
Originally posted by Exarchus

Originally posted by Northman

If it wasnt a "conquered" area - why didnt the French just chase them back into the sea again during those hundred years?
 


I don't understand what you mean? When did the French chase the Normans out of France?
 
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"?
 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 11>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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

This page was generated in 0.093 seconds.