Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Hastings 2016

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Hastings 2016 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Hastings 2016 - 10/7/2017 1:12:47 PM   
Zorch

 

Posts: 8076
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Toby42

I'm still not sure if the Norman Conquest was a good thing for Britain?
warspite1

Any particular reason for that thought process? Specifically what do you believe the continued Anglo-Saxon rule would have achieved that Norman rule didn't - or what did Norman rule do that was to England's (Britain's) detriment and that wouldn't have happened under the Anglo-Saxons?

I would be interested to hear your thinking here.


If William had lost Hastings, there would have been subsequent invasions, by William or others. The Anglo-Saxons were viewed as weak and ripe for conquest. Sooner or later, they would have been defeated and subjugated. Life was nasty, brutish, and short back then.

warspite1

Maybe. Harold saw off one claimant at Stamford Bridge and, if the accounts of Hastings are correct, could have beaten off a second. William, having won, faced no further attempts (as far as I know). So why would Harold necessarily have?


William, assuming he survived defeat at Hastings, would have come back. And so would the Danes - Cnut IV of Denmark threatened to invade in the 1080s. English history from 800 AD on is full of foreign invasions. This is what happens to islands without a strong navy.
warspite1

Maybe, had he lost, William would have been granted safe passage back to France - but I wouldn't put any money on it

So one of the key points behind post 24 was to try and understand what the Normans gave England that Harold - his position greatly strengthened through two key victories - didn't have. So you say there were subsequent invasions. Okay, but why was William able to defeat those and what is it that makes you believe Harold couldn't have done so? Is this a lack of military technology? If so what? Economics? If so how did William improve the English economic position?

Do you have any books on this subject to recommend old chap?




William, after losing, would have retreated to his fortified camp where he landed, and taken ship back home.

William brought a new overclass to England. His lords built lots of castles to secure their rule. The overall impact of the Normans is still debated. The trend seems to be that it was not as big an event as once thought.

There were no invasions (except for the Scots) during William's life. But the threat was real.
There are myriads of books about The Conquest and its impact. I have no pretensions to being an expert on post-1066 England.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 31
RE: Hastings 2016 - 10/7/2017 2:01:27 PM   
rico21

 

Posts: 2827
Joined: 3/11/2016
Status: offline
The Norman system was:
- A powerful administration that collects tax efficiently (except Robin Hood), which allows to raise and pay a powerful army.
- An implacable power over his subjects which takes away all will to rebellion or disobedience.

(in reply to Zorch)
Post #: 32
RE: Hastings 2016 - 10/7/2017 7:25:27 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 42959
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Toby42

I'm still not sure if the Norman Conquest was a good thing for Britain?
warspite1

Any particular reason for that thought process? Specifically what do you believe the continued Anglo-Saxon rule would have achieved that Norman rule didn't - or what did Norman rule do that was to England's (Britain's) detriment and that wouldn't have happened under the Anglo-Saxons?

I would be interested to hear your thinking here.


If William had lost Hastings, there would have been subsequent invasions, by William or others. The Anglo-Saxons were viewed as weak and ripe for conquest. Sooner or later, they would have been defeated and subjugated. Life was nasty, brutish, and short back then.

warspite1

Maybe. Harold saw off one claimant at Stamford Bridge and, if the accounts of Hastings are correct, could have beaten off a second. William, having won, faced no further attempts (as far as I know). So why would Harold necessarily have?


William, assuming he survived defeat at Hastings, would have come back. And so would the Danes - Cnut IV of Denmark threatened to invade in the 1080s. English history from 800 AD on is full of foreign invasions. This is what happens to islands without a strong navy.
warspite1

Maybe, had he lost, William would have been granted safe passage back to France - but I wouldn't put any money on it

So one of the key points behind post 24 was to try and understand what the Normans gave England that Harold - his position greatly strengthened through two key victories - didn't have. So you say there were subsequent invasions. Okay, but why was William able to defeat those and what is it that makes you believe Harold couldn't have done so? Is this a lack of military technology? If so what? Economics? If so how did William improve the English economic position?

Do you have any books on this subject to recommend old chap?




William, after losing, would have retreated to his fortified camp where he landed, and taken ship back home.

William brought a new overclass to England. His lords built lots of castles to secure their rule. The overall impact of the Normans is still debated. The trend seems to be that it was not as big an event as once thought.

There were no invasions (except for the Scots) during William's life. But the threat was real.
There are myriads of books about The Conquest and its impact. I have no pretensions to being an expert on post-1066 England.

warspite1

Interestingly this comes from Professor Robert Bartlett's excellent documentary The Normans. Describing England under Edward the Confessor he states:

11th Century England offered much more than just territory [Edward] ruled over one of the wealthiest and best governed states in Europe, efficient and highly centralised. Only the King could mint money and the English silver penny was famous for its purity and stability. Most importantly, money flowed into the Royal Treasury thanks to England's sophisticated tax system.



_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Zorch)
Post #: 33
RE: Hastings 2016 - 10/7/2017 10:47:38 PM   
nicwb

 

Posts: 519
Joined: 4/26/2010
Status: offline
quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: nicwb

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch

Why isn't it called the William Conquest, seeing as he was the prime mover?
warspite1

Well it was carried out by the Normans - who were actually more Viking than French - and not William on his own......


Didn't William have a lot of non-Normans in his army? If memory serves, only the nobles/men at arms were Norman; the rest were a mix of mercenaries, peasants, and adventurers, etc. Without William the Bastard it would not have happened.
warspite1

Not as far as I know - but then this is not exactly my specialist subject - so you may well be right.


It is correct. William's force included troops from Flanders and Brittany.

warspite1

Yes, but further to Zorch's point that wouldn't stop it being called a Norman invasion as the Normans were in charge, provided the commander and the key units of the army.

Barbarossa is the German invasion of the Soviet Union - not the Axis invasion. Napoleon attacked Russia with the French Army (although in practice of course it was full of Italians, Poles and all sorts of nationalities).

I'm sure that 1066 is sometimes referred to as William's invasion of England in the same way as one may say Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union or Napoleon's invasion of Russia.

But this was a Norman invasion, the effects of which were the imposition of Norman rule which of course meant imposition of much of their culture, language, customs etc upon Anglo-Saxon England.


Quite so - I expect the description "Norman Invasion" though was a label posted at a at later time.

Another reason is that the Norman's were the ones that actually stayed plus of the senior nobles William was the only one with a semi plausible claim to the throne. Being seen as legitimate ruler was an important feature of medieval society as you were thus entitled to claim the support of the Church. As I recall William had obtained some sort of consent from the Pope.

A final reason - the invasion led to a far more brutal event called "the harrowing of the North" where William conduct a series of repression designed to prevent any revolt against rule.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Toby42

I'm still not sure if the Norman Conquest was a good thing for Britain?
warspite1

Any particular reason for that thought process? Specifically what do you believe the continued Anglo-Saxon rule would have achieved that Norman rule didn't - or what did Norman rule do that was to England's (Britain's) detriment and that wouldn't have happened under the Anglo-Saxons?

I would be interested to hear your thinking here.


If William had lost Hastings, there would have been subsequent invasions, by William or others. The Anglo-Saxons were viewed as weak and ripe for conquest. Sooner or later, they would have been defeated and subjugated. Life was nasty, brutish, and short back then.

warspite1

Maybe. Harold saw off one claimant at Stamford Bridge and, if the accounts of Hastings are correct, could have beaten off a second. William, having won, faced no further attempts (as far as I know). So why would Harold necessarily have?


William, assuming he survived defeat at Hastings, would have come back. And so would the Danes - Cnut IV of Denmark threatened to invade in the 1080s. English history from 800 AD on is full of foreign invasions. This is what happens to islands without a strong navy.
warspite1

Maybe, had he lost, William would have been granted safe passage back to France - but I wouldn't put any money on it

So one of the key points behind post 24 was to try and understand what the Normans gave England that Harold - his position greatly strengthened through two key victories - didn't have. So you say there were subsequent invasions. Okay, but why was William able to defeat those and what is it that makes you believe Harold couldn't have done so? Is this a lack of military technology? If so what? Economics? If so how did William improve the English economic position?

Do you have any books on this subject to recommend old chap?




William, after losing, would have retreated to his fortified camp where he landed, and taken ship back home.

William brought a new overclass to England. His lords built lots of castles to secure their rule. The overall impact of the Normans is still debated. The trend seems to be that it was not as big an event as once thought.

There were no invasions (except for the Scots) during William's life. But the threat was real.
There are myriads of books about The Conquest and its impact. I have no pretensions to being an expert on post-1066 England.


The invasion and occupation brought more than a new overclass it also brought a new language - French. The result is modern English. it also tied England far more closely to the continent than before - William whilst king of England was still also Duke of Normandy (and technically a subject of the French Crown in that capacity). A long term effect was that the English throne held continental possessions for quite some years.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 34
RE: Hastings 2016 - 10/8/2017 2:18:31 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 42959
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: nicwb

Another reason is that the Norman's were the ones that actually stayed plus of the senior nobles William was the only one with a semi plausible claim to the throne. Being seen as legitimate ruler was an important feature of medieval society as you were thus entitled to claim the support of the Church. As I recall William had obtained some sort of consent from the Pope.

warspite1

According to Professor Bartlett (some of which is depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry) William's claim was supposedly based on Edward the Confessor 'promising' him the crown (although Harold claimed the same) and Harold agreeing to William's succession when he visited Normandy in 1064. After Harold crowned himself (on the day of Edward's funeral!) William sought support from nobles all over Europe and from the Pope (which he got).


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to nicwb)
Post #: 35
RE: Hastings 2016 - 10/8/2017 4:27:32 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 42959
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: nicwb

The invasion and occupation brought more than a new overclass it also brought a new language - French. The result is modern English.

warspite1

Yes French was spoken by the nobles but the everyday language became a mixture - one of the reasons we have many words for the same thing was the introduction of French words into our language. Old English names - Ethelred, Egbert - died out and French names - Henry, William, Robert, Henry took over.


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to nicwb)
Post #: 36
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Hastings 2016 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.141