Norman’s ethnic cleansing

 

  Apparently the normans reign in England was tyrranny. According to that article the normans never tried to make any efforts to assimilate with the English. And there were a system of apartheid between the English and Normans. Could that be the origin of English hatred for the french. And also could that be the origin of the Upper class accent. You have to admitt that in England not so long ago they existed a caste system there. The article itself is controversial but nevertheless a good read. Somehow, I no longer feel proud of having a norman ancestry anymore.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/lj/conquestlj/conquered_01.shtm l?site=history_conquestlj_conquest

 

 

Originally posted by Clovis Could that be the origin of English hatred for the french.

I would say the "hatred" is mutual and based more in the hundred years war, Nap wars and so on, which are far closer to us.

Besides, the neighbours hate each other: French-germans, french-british, french-spanish, german-poles, poles-russians, spanish-portuguese, ...

The English didn't get along well with most of their neighbors at the time, don't forget.  Besides the French, there were frequent squabbles with the Scots and Welsh, and Ireland after Henry II invaded the Emerald Isle.  In another forum, I saw somebody write that the worst thing about Scotland's history is that the Scots were unlucky enough to have England for a neighbor.

Apartheid would be a correct term for what the Normans did right after 1066, but not ethnic cleansing--I don't see an organized effort to destroy the Anglo-Saxons as an ethnic group, or even to remove them wholesale from the land, as the Serbs did more recently with their "ethnic cleansing."  The land would have been useless without serfs to tend it, after all, and everything the Normans did was to make sure they remained in charge, which was also part of the thinking behind what the South African whites did with their form of apartheid.  Appropriately, in the Afrikaner language, it's pronounced "apart-hate."

They could defeat enemy soldiers but they couldn't defeat time, and eventually the Normans were assimilated in every place they conquered--in France, England, southern Italy and the Holy Land.  As the best knights in Europe, they excelled in fighting and castle-building.  However, their main role was to be the catalysts of medieval culture.  They invented almost nothing on their own, but instead learned architecture, tactics and the techniques of government from others.  Once they had improved on all of these things, and changed the face of Europe, they faded away.  By 1200 they were no longer a distinct people, and their kingdoms were in the hands of their former students.

Originally posted by Dawn One of the books I'm reading now "1066 the year of the Conquest" flips back and forth between Norman and English veiws of what lead up to and the conquest it self. It examines possible reasons for Williams invasion and looks at the English veiw of it. England having been at peace for some time and having their own way of electing a king were understandably upset by the invesion and left William little choice in subjegating them.

David Howarth's Hastings book is excellent, and his book regarding the Spanish Armada is great too.

Richard is actually the second Plantagenat king.

He was the grandson of Mathilda, daughter of Henry I, and Geoffrey of Anjou.

Also remember that kings like Richard le Coeur de Lion was a total Norman, yet he is revered by the English. He did not even speak English, only French!!!

 

 Wrong, Coeur de Lion mother was Eleanor of Aquittaine (born in poitier Aquittaine, France) and her Father was Henri Plantagen�t (note the French name indicating he has no freaking viking ancestry) the duke of normandy. Richard automatically inherited Aquittaine, the place he died and was buried.

Edited by Quetzalcoatl

Quetzalcoatl of course the Normans were not Vikings, if they were William would not have had to spend six months or more gathering and building ships to go to England and would not of had to promise half of England to his nobles. There would have been little concern about the cannel crossing It would have been a routine thing for a Viking force. To assume that the Vikings were "incapable of Frankish organisation and order" is a fallacy. For what ever reason they choose their own form of society structure but the Vikings were far from simply raiders. They were very ferocious, highly adaptable, with there own code of conduct and probably the best seamen around(at least in northern Europe) It has been suggested that the fighting mentality of the Normans was a direct result of the Norwegian blood that was introduced to the local population.

As interesting as discussing the merits (or lack thereof )of Viking warriors is ,it might be better suited to a thread of it�s own rather than hi jacking this one.

To return to your original premise that the Normans reign in England was nothing short of tyranny. From the point of view of the English how could it be anything but. The Normans invaded England on a premise that can still be said to be flimsy at best. That Duke William had a right to the throne because of a few suggested(I only say this because it is not 100% certain that they were made) promises and had gained papal support under false pretenses . Hereditary claims did not exist in that England and the death bed request of Herold carried a great deal of weight. The English were happy with their councils choice of king and then along comes William and his army and wins. One of the biggest problems the English had was that William distributed most of the lands to his Norman followers but what choice did he have. He had promised them it. He was ruthless in putting down the rebellions that followed (5 years or mor of them) And his harsh measures touched not only the nobles but the commoners as well. The ring of Norman castles must have been ment for protection from the locals because there wasn�t much of an outside threat at the time. That constant remainder of the conquest couldn�t have been good for creating good feelings with the locals.

You said that the Normans made no efforts to assimilate the English but within a few generations the English had assimilated the Normans to make a new bread of Englishman different than the old but not the same as the Normans of the continent either. Could it be responsable for the long standing hatred between the two states? Well it could make a real good start at it. What was the condition of affairs between the two before Hastings?

I disagree, the English kings that lead the invasion into France during 100 years war were themselves very Frenchy-blooded - it was the later wars against the real French and not the Normans that dampened the relations.

 Well strictly speaking it wasn't England vs France, more like an alliance of Anglo-Franco-Burgundian vs France and Scottland. Normandy naturally was at time under Frankish control. Since they sided with France after France defeated England and the flemish during the Capetian wars during the 13th century.

I disagree Quetzal, the Vikings quite effectively attacked Paris and I think the inhabitatants had to starve for a time, although I don't know much about it.

 Well these were war bands, a rather large one in that particular case. Knowing the nature of the conflict , it's pretty hard for the Frank to response to them. But they were thouroughly defeated later and at many occassion. But they don't seem to be under any central authority so another nabd will come later and raid another place. Anyone will appreciate that the vikings were successful because they have high mobility. They usually went for soft targets.

 

Remember that there was the Danelaw that took over the entire section of England and even Alfred the Great had to bargain with them. Even Shakespeare's Macbeth has a mention of a Norweigian army invading Scotland. It is no conincidence that Scottish accent acttually closely resembles the Scandinavian accent...  The founders of Russian nation were thus Scandinavian too. They even dared to attack Byzentium once too, and they once held a whole chunk of Ireland.

Well there is nothing they could do about, it is rather impossible in that time to protect there cost against the vikings. So they settled, gradually increase in number and therefore forming larger war bands which ressembled actually an army. Scottish certainly have little scandinavian influence, they are celtic, only the southern part of scotland was settled by viking. And I believe this has to nothing to do with there accent.

 

I read from an account by a Norman monk at the site of Hastings that Norman haircut was similar to that of monks.... so the Saxons were surprised that Norman army was made of "monks" ahahhaha

 Like Jean Reno in "les visiteurs"  . No it's Frankish hair style not normans, the original people of normandy already had it. It was for the warrior class in all France. Well the immigrants certainly adopted it.

I have doubts about Normans speaking refinded French.... they even pronounced H's! (Je parle francais un peu...) And likely their accent resembled Scandinavian.

  Normands french is known as langue d'oil, considered as more refined as la langue d'oc. They were spoken in France even before the arrival of the disproportionately smaller viking immigrants. The viking simply adopted the language and didn't modify it. THe reason for that is because the children usually take the accent of the mother, and although the viking population was small, they were also single so they married the locals. Basically there children will speak la langue d'oil. I'll believe William (Guillaume) would have spoken like Jean Reno in le Voyageur, old French is not exactly the same as modern French.

Edited by Quetzalcoatl

William was originally known as William the Bastard... lol.

What are the differences between Langue d'Oc and Langue d'Oil? Was Langue d'Oil used in rest of Northern France as well such as in Champagne or Auvergne? 

And what are Gascon and Provencal? Are they just dilects or are they a full language on their own?

Hmm... I suppose the Northern France would have been much more fully Celtic than the southern part since it was conquered later and was less accessible to Latin migrations from Roman Italy than souther parts.