Print Page | Close Window

The Norman invasion

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=27324
Printed Date: 28-Mar-2024 at 12:33
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: The Norman invasion
Posted By: winningstad
Subject: The Norman invasion
Date Posted: 31-May-2009 at 16:23
What were the most important consequenses of the Norman invasion for the development on the British Isles?

The question is kind of silly, because I think the answer would have to rely on too much contrafactual reasoning. But it may very well show up on my exam in a couple of days, so I´d be happy for any input.

First of all, I´m a bit confused when it comes to the concept of centralized feudalism. How did it matter to the political development? Anglo-Saxon England was very well organized even before the invasion, right?

Swapping the entire ruling class was obviously bound to make an impact, cultural as well as political. But at the same time it is my understanding that the Normans took good use of the existing structures (that´s how they gathered information for the doomesday book so quickly). So I guess I have to point out the most important ways in which their practises differed from the Anglo Saxons, and how that led to an outcome (for instance parliamentary democracy), that would not have been produced had William lost at Hastings.





Replies:
Posted By: JRScotia
Date Posted: 31-May-2009 at 16:34
I hardly see "parliamentary democary" as an outgrowth of the Norman invasion. I'm not big on alternative history which seems way too speculative on my taste though, so I can't really go further than that. There was nothing in the Norman system of government that particularly led them toward either democratic or representative government, however. This can as easily have happened in spite of the Norman invasion as because of it.   

-------------
Saor Alba


Posted By: winningstad
Date Posted: 31-May-2009 at 16:49
Well, parliamentary democracy was just an example. And as I stated above, I agree that the answer to my question easily becomes too contrafactual. But still, I would assume the Normans, swapping out the entire elite, would bring something with them that made a difference on the political development. But I don't know, that's why I'm asking:) 


Posted By: JRScotia
Date Posted: 31-May-2009 at 17:21
My own speculation: I would put down the devastation of the entire Welsh culture down to the Norman invasion. I'd say the same about the interminable wars between Scotland and England--would nver have happened without the Norman invasion which led to a much more aggressive government and leaders. Not that the Saxons hadn't at times fought with their neighbors but not with nearly the determination of complete subjugation of the Normans. 

Edit: But since that comes from an anti-English position, take it for what it's worth. (Doesn't mean I'm anti-Norman though having a few such ancestors myself, but the Normans seemed particularly prone toward foreign conquest)


-------------
Saor Alba


Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 31-May-2009 at 17:34
The Normans brought Britain into the medieval world of Europe. The Anglo Saxons were essentially disinterested in events abroad; When the Normans arrived, with their huge family connections on both sides of the channels it dragged them into a world which Britain had not been in before.

-------------


Posted By: JRScotia
Date Posted: 31-May-2009 at 18:00
Probably a lot of truth to that. While the Saxons had some ties with Europe--after all they had intermarried, but not nearly to the extent that the Normans did. 

-------------
Saor Alba


Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 31-May-2009 at 18:05
The Normans brought Judicial Combat to England as a form of irrational proof.  They also brought a different judicial system that was set up parallel to that which was already on the ground prior to 1066.  This split judicial system turned into what is now called Common Law under Henry II and his judicial reforms.


Posted By: winningstad
Date Posted: 31-May-2009 at 18:57
Originally posted by JRScotia

Probably a lot of truth to that. While the Saxons had some ties with Europe--after all they had intermarried, but not nearly to the extent that the Normans did. 


Yeah, the quintessential Anglo-Saxon king, Edward the Confessor, was son of Emma of Normandy and exiled there if I´m not mistaken.

But at any rate Parnell's point seems to be very true. England became a part of the European feudal system. And its focus changed from north to south (although that may have had to do with viking decline as well? The extent to which I don't know Norwegian history is terrifying!)


Posted By: bod
Date Posted: 31-May-2009 at 19:15
Originally posted by JRScotia

My own speculation: I would put down the devastation of the entire Welsh culture down to the Norman invasion. I'd say the same about the interminable wars between Scotland and England--would nver have happened without the Norman invasion which led to a much more aggressive government and leaders. Not that the Saxons hadn't at times fought with their neighbors but not with nearly the determination of complete subjugation of the Normans. 

Edit: But since that comes from an anti-English position, take it for what it's worth. (Doesn't mean I'm anti-Norman though having a few such ancestors myself, but the Normans seemed particularly prone toward foreign conquest)

You could add France to your list of problematic relationships caused by the Norman invasion.


Posted By: Wulfstan
Date Posted: 31-May-2009 at 19:43
My own opinion is that William the Bastard perverted and diverted England from her true course of association with the Nordic countries. The conquest by the Normans involved England in a futile quest for French provinces which was not to end until four hundred years had past. Was William`s ravaging of the North worth it because the effects were felt for centuries?
 
During the battle at Hastings, an axe wielded by a huscarl felled William` horse. Many English folk at that time no doubt wished it had been William who had been felled.
 
As the Nordic poet Thorkil Skallason said:
 
Cold heart and bloody hand
Now rule the English land.


-------------
From Woden sprang all our royal kin.


Posted By: JRScotia
Date Posted: 31-May-2009 at 21:50
Absolutely true. I didn't intend it as a complete list. I think there would have been huge changes (mostly for the better but no doubt some for the worst because humans have such CAPACITY for the worst) in the history of the British Isles and Europe in general had the conquest not taken place. But such speculation tends to be nothing but frustrating. I can think of a number of times when the fate of history balanced on a knife's edge and try not to think on it too much in many cases.

If only...

Originally posted by bod

Originally posted by JRScotia

My own speculation: I would put down the devastation of the entire Welsh culture down to the Norman invasion. I'd say the same about the interminable wars between Scotland and England--would nver have happened without the Norman invasion which led to a much more aggressive government and leaders. Not that the Saxons hadn't at times fought with their neighbors but not with nearly the determination of complete subjugation of the Normans. 

Edit: But since that comes from an anti-English position, take it for what it's worth. (Doesn't mean I'm anti-Norman though having a few such ancestors myself, but the Normans seemed particularly prone toward foreign conquest)

You could add France to your list of problematic relationships caused by the Norman invasion.


-------------
Saor Alba


Posted By: Evrenosgazi
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 14:43
Let us think. The norwegian army crushed Harold Godwinson at Stanford bridge, then march south routs the normans and controlled England. Would England be a world or continental power ? One of the important events in world history


Posted By: JRScotia
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 15:11
I'm not sure I get your point. I'm a long way from convinced that barring the Norman invasion that England would have been conquered by Norway.

Yes, it is an extremely important event in world history. That's why much would have been changed had the Normans been defeated. 


-------------
Saor Alba


Posted By: bod
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 16:13


The Normans were of Scandinavian descent, Normandy was a Viking province who had embraced French culture. 


Posted By: JRScotia
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 17:30
Quite true too, which in a round-about way meant that the Vikings did conquer England. In fact, my understanding is that the very name Norman came from their Norse origins.


Originally posted by bod



The Normans were of Scandinavian descent, Normandy was a Viking province who had embraced French culture. 


-------------
Saor Alba


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 17:53
Partly Scandinavian descent, to be correct. Vikings usually married local woman where available. 

-------------


Posted By: bod
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 22:25
Nothman - Norman


Posted By: hodekin
Date Posted: 03-Jun-2009 at 14:30

The Norman invasion of Saxon England, irretrievably broke the Northern facing outlook previously held (influenced heavily by the Old Scandinavian Empire of Canute) and instead brought about a southern facing exposure based on France, Papal Italy and all points leading to Byzantium.

 

In terms of Parliamentary Democracy, I should imagine that it would have been reached far more quickly in England via the concept of the Scandinavian 'Thing' rather than the autocratic Norman version of 'The Divine right of Kings' which as we know only came to an end with the advent of the English Civil War!

 

Had the Norman invasion never happened, Harold Hardaada of Norway and Swyen Estrithson of Denmark were still real contenders for the English crown and 'could' have usurped it at almost any time. Had either one of them done this, I cannot see the social structure and laws of Saxon England being greatly changed to any degree. England would have simply remained within the Scandinavian orbit of influence with which she was already quite comfortable.

 

The Norman takeover however was almost totally alien to the English in every degree, and it was this advent which brought about the expansionist policies and drive which England has been noted for ever since.

 

Without the Norman invasion of 1066 I honestly cannot see England being a major contributor to the Crusader movement and all that went with it in later years!

 

hodekin



-------------
A King he was on a carven throne in many pillared halls of stone,
with golden roof and silver floor and runes of power upon the door.


Posted By: Wulfstan
Date Posted: 03-Jun-2009 at 19:53
Hodekin:
 
What is less well known is the involvement of the English in the Byzantine Varangian Guard after the Battle of Hastings. Indeed, there was a large exodus of English to the Eastern Roman Empire at this time, and probable English settlements on the Black Sea coast.


-------------
From Woden sprang all our royal kin.


Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 03-Jun-2009 at 20:23
England played a very minor part in the crusading movement. To be sure, a few went on various expeditions, such as the taking of Lisbon or (Forget the fellows name, adventurer type) in 1104 (?) when a couple of ship loads of them helped King Baldwin overturn the Fatimids after the battle of Ramleh at Jaffa, but other than that they played a very small role in any serious expedition until the Third Crusade, and even then England was more like a crusading bank for King Richard than a confident 'English fighting force' People forget that the banner Richard brought with him to the crusade came and represented his beloved Aquitaine, not England.

-------------


Posted By: hodekin
Date Posted: 03-Jun-2009 at 21:08
I entirely take your point, but the King of 'Anjou' or King of 'Aquitaine' does not quite have the ring of King of 'England'LOL , and as you say, it was the Taxation of the English people that financed Richards continuous overseas adventures.
 
I still feel however, that without the consequences of '1066' even Richard would not be the household name that we hear of today, never mind having his statue outside the houses of Parliament! Wink
 
hodekin


-------------
A King he was on a carven throne in many pillared halls of stone,
with golden roof and silver floor and runes of power upon the door.


Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 03-Jun-2009 at 23:45
Originally posted by hodekin

I entirely take your point, but the King of 'Anjou' or King of 'Aquitaine' does not quite have the ring of King of 'England'LOL , and as you say, it was the Taxation of the English people that financed Richards continuous overseas adventures.
 
I still feel however, that without the consequences of '1066' even Richard would not be the household name that we hear of today, never mind having his statue outside the houses of Parliament! Wink
 
hodekin


Richard treated your country like a cash cow... Sort of like one of our modern millionaires who are 'silent partners' in various different companies, and who like to take the profit of those companies but do little of the work.

His brother John, though utterly incapable, at least put England first! Though the mess he made of the French posessions... well... A story for a different day perhaps.


-------------


Posted By: hodekin
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2009 at 04:04

I couldn’t agree with you more!

 

History hails Richard as the great legendary warrior King of England whilst his brother John is the skulking stay at home ne're do well!

 

But Richard cared little for England other than what he could ring out of it, and spent very little time in the country that paid for his overseas extravaganzas. As for John, well at least he stayed in England, but his defence of French possessions (as you suggest) was woefully short of the mark.

 

But the fact that (the cash cow) of England was there at the disposal of the likes of Richard in the first place is I believe a direct consequence of the Norman victory of 1066! Had England stayed in the hands of a Saxon line of monarchs or even Danish or Norwegian, do you think that this seemingly never ending supply of funding would have found it’s way along the long road to the Holy land?

 

An independent Saxon England or even one with strong Scandinavia ties would in my opinion have cast its gaze (and its money) more to the North and North East rather than the South and the Middle East.

 

I believe that England’s involvement in the Crusades (financially or otherwise) would not have been what it was but for the events of 1066.

 

hodekin



-------------
A King he was on a carven throne in many pillared halls of stone,
with golden roof and silver floor and runes of power upon the door.


Posted By: hodekin
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2009 at 06:21
Originally posted by Wulfstan

Hodekin:
 
What is less well known is the involvement of the English in the Byzantine Varangian Guard after the Battle of Hastings. Indeed, there was a large exodus of English to the Eastern Roman Empire at this time, and probable English settlements on the Black Sea coast.
 
Yes! the way I've heard it is that around the year 1080 a fleet of nearly 300 ships consisting mainly of Saxons and some Danes sailed for Byzantium to take service with the Guard. I should imagine that 'if' this happened, then the settlement in the Crimea would have been those families who were not part and parcel of the Serving Varangs!
 
Would William have allowed this to happen? perhaps it would have been a good opportunity to get rid of potential malcontents?
 
This is a very shadowy episode and I'm not at all sure that it can be verified as such, but it is worthy of further research.....can anyone else help with this?
 
hodekin


-------------
A King he was on a carven throne in many pillared halls of stone,
with golden roof and silver floor and runes of power upon the door.


Posted By: Wulfstan
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2009 at 20:08
Hodekin:
 
The best summary about this subject can be found in Byzantine Studies IAnother  New England? Anglo-Saxon Settlement on the Black Sea by J. Shepard.


-------------
From Woden sprang all our royal kin.


Posted By: hodekin
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2009 at 06:07
Thanks Wulfstan,
 
I'll check that out!Thumbs Up
 
hodekin


-------------
A King he was on a carven throne in many pillared halls of stone,
with golden roof and silver floor and runes of power upon the door.


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2009 at 11:53
Originally posted by hodekin

But the fact that (the cash cow) of England was there at the disposal of the likes of Richard in the first place is I believe a direct consequence of the Norman victory of 1066! Had England stayed in the hands of a Saxon line of monarchs or even Danish or Norwegian, do you think that this seemingly never ending supply of funding would have found it’s way along the long road to the Holy land?


It is a direct or at least indirect consequence as the Angevins inherited England through the Normans, but it would take more than a Saxon victory at Hastings to reverse the trends of the time. Money would still have flown to the crusading movement, except the crusaders would have been from Denmark and Norway instead of Anjou and Aquitaine. Possibly the total amount would be less, as Scandinavia wasn't as heavily involved with the crusades as the Frankish lands.


Originally posted by hodekin

An independent Saxon England or even one with strong Scandinavia ties would in my opinion have cast its gaze (and its money) more to the North and North East rather than the South and the Middle East.


There would have been a greater involvement with the Scandinavian kingdoms, naturally, and as a consequence English crusading might have followed more along the lines of Scandinavian crusading and focused on the Baltic in addition to the Holy Land. The pull of the crusades and Byzantium would be unavoidable however, as the Scandinavian kingdoms too took part in the former and had a long tradition of involvement with the latter.



-------------


Posted By: hodekin
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2009 at 16:48
Originally posted by Reginmund

Money would still have flown to the crusading movement, except the crusaders would have been from Denmark and Norway instead of Anjou and Aquitaine. Possibly the total amount would be less, as Scandinavia wasn't as heavily involved with the crusades as the Frankish lands.

 
All things are of course possible, and perhaps by the 3rd Crusade (once Jerusalem had been lost) this may have been the case to a limited extent. But without the 'steering hand' of the  Norman/French drive for more land, I doubt money and men would have 'flown' to the Crusading movement in quite the way you suggest!
 

Originally posted by Reginmund

The pull of the crusades and Byzantium would be unavoidable however, as the Scandinavian kingdoms too took part in the former and had a long tradition of involvement with the latter.

 
Again, it is possible, but I'm not so sure. For example, the Rus too played a major part in the history of Byzantium but how big a part did they play in the Crusades to recover Jerusalem? I believe that a Saxon or Norwegian victory in 1066 would have drastically altered Englands overseas involvements in later years.
 
 
hodekin


-------------
A King he was on a carven throne in many pillared halls of stone,
with golden roof and silver floor and runes of power upon the door.


Posted By: Jallaludin Akbar
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2009 at 20:53
Hello,

In my opinion, the greatest consequence of the Norman invasion would be language. In pre-1066 England, there were a group of dialects spoken that were known as 'Anglo-Saxon'. As William the Conquerer took over England, he brought with him the French language. For the next 3 centuries, French would be the dominant language spoken in the court, higher culture, as well as royalty. French trickled down to the population and has greatly affected the English that we speak today. In fact, it affected it so much, that I heard pre-1066 'Old English' sounds similar to modern day Icelandic.  


-------------
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
-Mahatma Gandhi



Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 06-Jun-2009 at 15:51
Originally posted by Jallaludin Akbar

Hello,

In my opinion, the greatest consequence of the Norman invasion would be language. In pre-1066 England, there were a group of dialects spoken that were known as 'Anglo-Saxon'. As William the Conquerer took over England, he brought with him the French language. For the next 3 centuries, French would be the dominant language spoken in the court, higher culture, as well as royalty. French trickled down to the population and has greatly affected the English that we speak today. In fact, it affected it so much, that I heard pre-1066 'Old English' sounds similar to modern day Icelandic.  


Hi.

Cultural influences from France, including language, entered more or less all European languages, regardless of whether they were ruled by French-speakers or not. However, the extent of French influence on English would no doubt be less had it not been for the Norman conquest.

English and Icelandic share a common root in the Germanic language family, so naturally the further back you go the more similar the languages become. Some linguists believe Old English and Old Norse were mutually intelligible, some disagree, but it can't be denied they were a lot more similar than now. Icelandic is a special case however, as Iceland's isolation has led to exceptionally little change in the language, so that it remains largely the same today as 1000 years ago, which is why modern Icelandic sounds similar to Old English. If you look at Scandinavia however, from where the Old Norse-speaking Icelanders came, the languages have changed so much that Old Norse is as alien to modern Scandinavians as Old English is to the modern English, with many French and German loan-words, but the Scandinavians were never ruled by a foreign language elite.

I'm not trying to disagree or undermine your statement here, I'm just elaborating it further to shed light on the complexities involved.


-------------


Posted By: hodekin
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 06:26
Well there you go Jallaludin,
 
Thanks to Reginmunds most erudite reply you have a perfect breakdown of the common roots of English within the Germanic family of languages.
 
Getting back to your post however regarding the greatest consequence of the Norman Invasion, I do not share your opinion that it was 'language'. As you pointed out, the Latin French that was brought over with the Normans was largely used by the ruling classes, the vast majority of the common people however remained with their 'Saxon/English' tongue.
 
As has been pointed out, there were of course several loan words from the French that became prominent in everyday speech for the common people, Mutton and Beef spring to mind. But other than that, I do not believe that the usage of the French language by the ruling classes drastically influenced everyday spoken English to any major degree.
 
On the question of similarities, of all the Germanic tongues I rather fancy that Dutch is perhaps the closest to English!
 
Just my opinion thoughWink
 
 
hodekin


-------------
A King he was on a carven throne in many pillared halls of stone,
with golden roof and silver floor and runes of power upon the door.


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 13:00
The French influence on English follows a trend. The words adopted are mostly big, hoity doity ones like "royalty", "honour", "splendour" and so forth, whereas the common everyday words were and still are of Anglo-Saxon origin, such as "man", "house" and most prepositions and personal pronouns.

If anyone is curious what the older forms of English might have sounded like:

The opening of Beowulf poem read in Old English: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L7VTH8ii_8 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L7VTH8ii_8

Gawain and the Green Knight read in Middle English: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrnXgVTTrCI - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrnXgVTTrCI (skip to 3:20 to go straight to the reading)

The linguist who posted the last vid also has videoes on Old Norse, Gothic, Old Swedish, older forms of German and so forth, for comparison. He also has videos on modern Icelandic, and it's plain to see how similar it is to both Old Norse and Old English.


-------------


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 13:15
There's more to language comparison than words. The syntactical structures of English are heavily influenced by French.
 
At its very simplest consider the formation of the plural in English: virtually identical to the French. Or consider the time-place sequence: German 'Er war gestern hier' as against French 'Il était ici hier' and English 'He was here yesterday'.


-------------


Posted By: hodekin
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 18:03
LOLLOL!
 
This debate is very interesting! on a side note however, it is beginning to remind me of the sketch in Monty Pythons 'Life of Brian' you know....'what have the Romans ever done for us'!LOL
 
This time it's 'What have the Normans ever done for us'!Big smile
 
All things said thus far a true and the development of modern English must of course owe an amount to the French influence first brought to England by the Normans. I still believe however that the main consequenses of the Norman invasion was not the influence over the language but the direction it pointed England into future history.
 
But as I've said before, this is only my opinion.
 
hodekin


-------------
A King he was on a carven throne in many pillared halls of stone,
with golden roof and silver floor and runes of power upon the door.


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 20:25
Both cases could easily be argued. Geek

-------------


Posted By: Chookie
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 21:43
Originally posted by hodekin

On the question of similarities, of all the Germanic tongues I rather fancy that Dutch is perhaps the closest to English!

Sorry, it isn't. The closest according to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Charter_for_Regional_or_Minority_Languages - European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages is Scots. Which developed from a distinct form of Middle English and was influenced by languages other than Norman-French (Gaelic, Norse and French among them).

<side note> The Norse (Viking) presence in Scotland, Ireland and Wales was basically Norwegian and/or Icelandic, in contrast to England where most Vikings were Danish.


-------------
For money you did what guns could not do.........


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2009 at 11:28
Originally posted by gcle2003

There's more to language comparison than words. The syntactical structures of English are heavily influenced by French.
 
At its very simplest consider the formation of the plural in English: virtually identical to the French. Or consider the time-place sequence: German 'Er war gestern hier' as against French 'Il était ici hier' and English 'He was here yesterday'.
 
Funnily I didn't notice the odd coincidence in that comparison. German 'hier' means English 'here' whereas French 'hier' means English 'yesterday'.
 
I hope that didn't confuse anyone.
 


-------------


Posted By: hodekin
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2009 at 13:08
Originally posted by Reginmund

Both cases could easily be argued. Geek
 
As in fact what we are doingSleepy
 
 
hodekin


-------------
A King he was on a carven throne in many pillared halls of stone,
with golden roof and silver floor and runes of power upon the door.


Posted By: hodekin
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2009 at 13:13
Originally posted by Chookie

Sorry, it isn't. The closest according to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Charter_for_Regional_or_Minority_Languages - European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages is Scots. Which developed from a distinct form of Middle English and was influenced by languages other than Norman-French (Gaelic, Norse and French among them).
 
Well, I did say 'fancy' and I did say 'perhaps' but thanks for the info ChookieWink
 
If 'Scots' is developed from 'Middle English', how does that go down North of the border?Smile
 
hodekin


-------------
A King he was on a carven throne in many pillared halls of stone,
with golden roof and silver floor and runes of power upon the door.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2009 at 19:12
Calling Scots a different language from English is like calling Lëtzebuergesch a different language from German. Which of course I do all the time because of my neighbours Smile
 
Lëtzebuergesch is just as influenced by French as Scots is by Gaelic, and it's remarkably similar to middle Franconian dialects, just as Scots is remarkably similar to English dialects along the borders.
 
I just wish people would call Anglo-Saxon Anglo-Saxon and reserve 'English' of any period for the language that resulted mostly from the merger of Anglo-Saxon with French. But I recognise it's one of my lost causes.


-------------


Posted By: hodekin
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2009 at 16:04
Originally posted by gcle2003

I just wish people would call Anglo-Saxon Anglo-Saxon and reserve 'English' of any period for the language that resulted mostly from the merger of Anglo-Saxon with French. But I recognise it's one of my lost causes.
 
(Oxford) Whispering from her towers the last enchantments of the Middle Age...
Home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names, and impossible loyalties!
 
Mathew Arnold 1822-1888
 
HodekinLOL


-------------
A King he was on a carven throne in many pillared halls of stone,
with golden roof and silver floor and runes of power upon the door.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2009 at 20:19
Yes them too. But those of us of a lighter shade of blue have our causes too. Cry
 
You rarely see the quote in full: nice one.


-------------


Posted By: Jeannie
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2009 at 11:46
One interesting thing (to me) that people rarely mention is that after the nobility in Lowland Scotland eventually became Norman. Many people assume a great hostility between the Normans and the Gaels, but there is very little actual evidence of this at least no more than the normal Lowland/Highland friction.

It is essential to keep in mind that the Normans in Scotland were there by invitation!  What is frequently referred to as the Davidian Revolution took place in Scotland under King David I during his 30 year reign (1124 – 1153) during which he granted lands to many Norman knights and brought about the foundation of monasteries, the Normanisation of the Scottish government, and the introduction of feudalism by French and Anglo-French knights to whom he granted lands and titles.

Unlike in England, there was extensive intermarriage between Norman and the earlier Gaelic population. Robert the Bruce was, for example, half Gaelic and half Norman.

David I's reign is actually a fascinating one. He was quite an amazing many who in many ways transformed Scotland (better? worse? who knows?) The immense changes in Scottish culture, government and religion wouldn't have come about without the Norman Invasion, however.




Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 23-Sep-2009 at 20:27
Hi all!

Just thought I'd throw in my two cents! I would suppose that England, like France was always composed by numerous accents as it is today, and as it was more composed of 50 or so years ago. I would suggest that if any comonality existed between the English language and a continental language it would be the language spoken in Flanders, Holland and Frisia? This area was the nearest point on the continent to both England and Scotland and who really knows just were else the "Northmen" settled besides Normandy? Actually, I think they were actually hired as mercenaries to protect the area, and prevent other pirate raids!

But let us concede that the Dutch and Frisians were of a different breed! Maybe more Germanic than Norse in language. But, I contend that language is more a cause of seperation than anything else. And the language of the literate is and probably always will be different from the "great un-washed." It was only the push towards education that ever led to any great standardization of any language, and the invention of print, tended to settle the spelling problems, even though it took a long time.

For example, as a young man, here in the USA, I could tell the home town of many people eventhough they lived only 50 or so miles away, and this was during the period of say 1956-60. Needless to say that anyone from further away stood out like a sore thumb on a brain surgeons hand.

As far as language and people(s)moving around; there has been mention of the Varangian Guard, and many here may not know that this group was allegedly made up of a real mixture of people and languages. Supposedly within this group were English, Dutch, Germans, Swedes, Norse, Franks, and the so called Vikings that settled in what is now Russia, Ukraine, and the Black Sea area in general. The really strange thing in Byzantine history is the group of people now considered as an influx of Celts, that ended up occupying central Asia Minor, this very area was also the centre of the mysterious Hittite (Hatti?) Empire, and it has variously been said to have been located in places called Phyrigia, as well as Galatia, one of those areas that carried a clearly similar name to Caesar's Gaul / Galli! (it is most interesting that even today the French consider themselves as "Gallic", rather than French!)

Even one of the early leaders of the Ottomans (Othmen?) had the name Aps Arslan! (hope I spelled it correctly?) the name which to me at least has a very Norse sound to it, as well as spelling.

Oh well, enough spouting off! Sorry for the mistakes, don't have time to check everything you know.

Regards,

Ron

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 24-Sep-2009 at 19:51
Since I have received no response to my previous post, I just felt that I might mention the Scots!

Some of you might well know that Scottish support went to the King(s) of France before those of England, and this support lasted for many years (if not hundreds?). The king(s) of France were a part of the body guard of these kings much like King David of the Bible was guarded by his, "mighty men of reknown", etc.

It is also thought that these men made up a special military group used to both protect the King and break the enemy lines if necessary, thus much like the Immortals of the Kings of Persia.

As far as I know, as long as the Low Countries were somewhat allied with England (maybe via language?), they were mostly the enemies of Scotland!

Any comments?

Regards,

Ron

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 25-Sep-2009 at 01:10
The really strange thing in Byzantine history is the group of people now considered as an influx of Celts, that ended up occupying central Asia Minor. It was one of those areas that carried a clearly similar name to Caesar's Gaul!
 
One interesting this about the red hair: http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/red-hair/the-historical-distribution.html - http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/red-hair/the-historical-distribution.html
 
"Red hair is most commonly found at both the west and eastern fringes of modern Europe. Although red hair in the human population is most commonly associated with those of British or Irish descent, dark red or reddish-tinged hair can be found in a few other Caucasian populations. The Galatian invasion of 275 BC gave modern Turkey a smattering of the present-day population who have red hair and green eyes, as well as some in Iran."
 
I think about Iran it means "Galesh" people who live in the north of Iran, A Galesh woman wearing an Iranian scarf:
 
 
They mostly live in the province of Golestan (Land of Gol/Gaul) in Iran, as I mentioed in this thread: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=25324 - Where was the ancient "Gaul" located? , Unfortunately there is not much info about Gaulish language in Gaulistan province of Iran, I hope this project give us some info:

http://www.hrelp.org/grants/projects/index.php?projid=150 - http://www.hrelp.org/grants/projects/index.php?projid=150

Documentation of the language and lifestyle of the Galesh, province of Golestan, Iran
Helen Jahani, Uppsala University

Project Summary:
The Galesh are herdsmen in the Alborz mountains. Their total number is unknown, but diminishing rapidly due to the modernisation of the Iranian society. This project attempts to find out if the language of the Eastern Galesh in Golestan is similar to any of the languages of the settled population in the area or if it should be regarded as a language of its own. In Galeshi there are many terms for husbandry and dairy production, which are not found among the agriculturalists. Since the lifestyle of the Galesh is severely threatened this project will document important aspects of it before it is too late.

Some Galesh kids in a village:
 
 
Even one of the early leaders of the Ottomans had the name Aps Arslan! (hope I spelled it correctly?) the name which to me at least has a very Norse sound to it, as well as spelling.
Oh well, enough spouting off! Sorry for the mistakes, don't have time to check everything you know.
Alp Arslan was the name of a Seljuq king, that is Turkic and means "a valiant lion".
 


-------------


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 25-Sep-2009 at 16:26
Dear Administrator,

You, most kindly wrote;

"Alp Arslan was the name of a Seljuq king, that is Turkic and means 'a valiant lion'."

Do you beleive such a name would be out of place in say Norway, or Sweden, or Dane-mark, or even Estonia, etc.? You must remember that a name such as Alp Arslan, might well be somewhat distorted since it had to survive numerous translations and languages, etc., before it reached our times!

You also wrote;

"One interesting this about the red hair: http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/red-hair/the-historical-distribution.html

'Red hair is most commonly found at both the west and eastern fringes of modern Europe. Although red hair in the human population is most commonly associated with those of British or Irish descent, dark red or reddish-tinged hair can be found in a few other Caucasian populations. The Galatian invasion of 275 BC gave modern Turkey a smattering of the present-day population who have red hair and green eyes, as well as some in Iran.'

I think about Iran it means 'Galesh' people who live in the north of Iran, A Galesh woman wearing an Iranian scarf:"

To your response I say ditto! A lot of historians place a great deal of credence to a "Celtic" invasion or movement of some Celtic tribe from its home somewhere in Central Europe into the Eastern realm of Europe, into the Greecian area, and into Asia Minor, and in the case of your information, even into what at one time may have been a part of Armenia, and is now part of an artifical nation called Iraq!

The greater question is why there exists so many places in our maps of the past which carry the letters "Gal" or Gaul", etc. Almost any place one looks when examining old maps, or at least our current historians version of how the world must have looked at one time or another, one quickly sees, the emrergence of places called either "Gaul", or "Galica", or "Galata", or a few other versions.

Your view will be appreciated!

Ron




-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2009 at 08:20
This thread is about "The Norman invasion", it is better that we discuss about these things in the thread that mentioned about Gauls or this new thread that I posted some hours ago: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=27755&PID=625902 - Gaulish Beltane & Galesh Baleno, Summer Festival , I believe there are some relations between similar names in the Indo-European cultures. You may be right to say some non-Indo-European words, like that Turkic word, could be in fact Turkified.

-------------


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2009 at 12:56
Originally posted by gcle2003

There's more to language comparison than words. The syntactical structures of English are heavily influenced by French.

At its very simplest consider the formation of the plural in English: virtually identical to the French. Or consider the time-place sequence: German 'Er war gestern hier' as against French 'Il était ici hier' and English 'He was here yesterday'.

An interesting post! I would make an assumption that "gestern = yesterday and hier = here!"

It is most obvious in English that "ici = here" never took any hold on common speech, since a common call of approval in England is "here, here!" But, wait, just what does "here, hear" mean? Maybe it was "hear, hear?"
See; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hear,_hear

Where we are all told the correct spelling form to be used!

But, wait right here! Meaning "right now", or "this instant moment", etc. The Wikipedia post tells us; "Hear, hear is an expression used as a short repeated form of hear ye and hear him. It represents a listener's agreement with the point being made by a speaker."

But, just because "it is written" are we to believe it? Just consider that at some point in the development of modern English, some one, some where, made it popular to shout such words, concerning either someone's words or someone's arrival! Thus, a herald, might well shout "here, here" to notify a soon to be arrival of some importance to a village or convent, etc. It might well mean closer to "pay attention" or merely "attention?", or even "listen up?"

One definition of "hear" is "To attend, or be present at, as hearer or worshiper; as, to hear a concert; to hear Mass." In this case it is not really necessary to actually "hear" the sounds, but one is "seen" at the event, he or she is bodily evident! Thus with the addition of the word "come", as in "come here", meaning basically "come to this place or spot, etc.", there also exists "come hear", which basically means "come and listen!"

Another definition of "hear" is; " To accede to the demand or wishes of...", or more specifically be a supplicant!, or aceed to someone, etc.

Strangly, one definiton of "here" is "hair!", and in general one might well consider "here" to mean mostly "in the present place and time, etc."

Sometimes we are even confronted with the word "heir?", which is pronounded suspiciously like "here" and "hear!", as well as the words, "ere" and "err!", or the difference in the pronounciation and innotations, depends much upon one's accent and another's ear!

So, just what is the definition of "Heir?";

"(n.) One who receives any endowment from an ancestor or relation; as, the heir of one's reputation or virtues.
(n.) One who inherits, or is entitled to succeed to the possession of, any property after the death of its owner; one on whom the law bestows the title or property of another at the death of the latter.
(v. t.) To inherit; to succeed to."

So, considering just how the word is used "heir" could be similar to "next", as in "he is next to receive the fortune" or, depending upon certain conditions "he is awarded the fortune because he is the proven heir!" Thus "to be an Heir, is to be in the past, or "yesterday", and to actually take possession of those "past" articles, possessions, or titles, is the "present!"

So, what about the word found above spelled "hier?" Just what does it mean other than "yesterday?"

"hier- var. of hiero- before a vowel: hierarchy." And as well; "hiero- 
a combining form meaning “sacred,” “priestly,” used in the formation of compound words: hierocracy. (How about a "social" or "political" position or a Titled post, that is "in-heirit-able?")

Also, especially before a vowel, hier-."

Well certainly any "hierarchy" could be considered but a "hierocracy?"

But what is a "hierarchy?"

But, first maybe you should look at this site?;

http://www.woxikon.com/fra/hier.php

Please pay particular attention to the orthographic section!

Now please look at the following;

http://www.answers.com/topic/hierarchy
Where amongst other things you will see the following; "[Middle English ierarchie, from Old French, from Medieval Latin hierarchia, from Greek hierarkhiā, rule of a high priest, from hierarkhēs, high priest. See hierarch.]"

I suggest that you might well remember that ancient church positions, or at least those mentioned as positions within ancient Judaism, were all "inheritable" posts. The positions passing from family to family, such as the "Levites", the "Cohens", the position of "High Priest", etc.
Some times one family held both the religious and the secular positions at one time! Caesar is a Roman version!

One must remember that England was reportedly Romanized twice in its reported history, once by the Romans first under Caesar, and a few years later almost fully colonized by the Romans, and later the "Norman", who spoke a Romanized language!

I am sorry, it seems I have become carried away, and have written way too much, and since I am now hurried, I cannot even remember my point to the entire thing. Maybe one of you can figure it out? oil?

Regards,

Ron



-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com