|
I think it's just one of many examples of a natural human instinct to conquer other people's territory - as prevalent now as at any tikme in history. I don't know what records, if any, were available to the Normans (I studied Greek and Roman history), but most of them probably didn't know much about the Vikings. They just did their own thing,
And as you imply, FP, who is to say that their influence was bad? Anyone not sure could spend some time in Durham Cathedral. Personally I'm glad it was the Normans: if it had been the French we would have beaten them, as we did for most of the rest of the millennium.
|
|
"...who is to say that their influence was bad?"
Discussing this brings into question our assumptions about human behaviour and the fact that our modern standpoint judges many things totally differently from how they were seen at the time.
To us, the Vikings were brutal, cruel and destructive - at least in their pre-Christian era. But even in those times they were capable of wonderful art and in battle were courageous until death. They thought nothing of enslaving and selling their captives and were driven by an insatiable thirst for exploration - it is accepted that they were the first Europeans to set foot in America and to establish colonies there. Their literature - consisting mainly of the Norse sagas - is distinguished.
By the time the Normans - now Christian and having embraced the legacy of Rome as well as other influences - exerted their power over England, they were able to impose an efficient central government, having carried out one of the most remarkable tasks - the comprehensive survey of the whole country in the Doomsday Book ("Doomsday" here meaning "Day of Reckoning"), a clearly defined social system (the feudal system) and efficient judicial and religious systems. They were nothing if not well-organised.
But their most lasting and profound legacy is language. Though Old French (their language) did not emerge as the primary template for the common tongue of England, the influence of French on Anglo-Saxon, resulting in Middle English (the language of Chaucer) is huge. Quite simply, without the Normans we would not have the Modern English that millions speak as their first language today, and that is a second language for for a vast number of other people.
If you go to Tenerife, for example (where I've spent quite a few winter holidays), you are quite likely to find that the Spanish shop assistant serving a Russian customer is speaking in their only common language - English.
"...if it had been the French we would have beaten them..." Well, I know it's tongue-in-cheek, but of course it wasn't "us" who fought the Normans - it was the Anglo-Saxons. "We" as, modern-day English people, are partly French, at least culturally. And if you read the history of the Battle of Hastings, you will learn that the Anglo-Saxons came within a whisker of winning that day. If that had happened, who is to say whether it would ultimately, hundreds of years later, have been a good thing?
Edited by FP on 15/10/2018 at 21:19
|
|
Wonder what happened to my reply of yesterday????
Meanwhile, I suggested the William was quite lucky. If he had invaded earlier or later in 1066 it may well have been a different story. Harold was otherwise engaged disposing of the remnants of the Vikings near York when the invasion began. His forced march from York to Hastings after a battle took it's toll on his men. Even then they were apparently getting the best of the fight when Harold was killed, which demoralised his men.
Interesting to consider what the UK would have been like if Harold had won the day. He had a well disciplined and seasoned army, only a very tired one.
Good thread FP
Cheers Concrete
|
|
"Wonder what happened to my reply of yesterday????"
Sorry Concrete - no idea. It is indeed a good thread, and nothing's been deleted.
|
|
" "We" as, modern-day English people, are partly French, at least culturally."
But equally, as your interesting paras above make clear, partly Norman. I don't know enough about mediaeval history to know how much of our culture came from the Nortmans and how much from further south, but it's an interesting question.
I suppsoe it hinges on how much we were influenced by the Plantagenets: they were originally from Anjou which is south of Normandy but not that much further south.
|
|
Whether Vikings, Saxons or Normans, a wave of proselytising religious zealotry engulfed the relatively well organised largely secular populace, resulting in not just taxes for the king, but yet more taxes to support both the erection of hundreds of sometimes massive monuments to superstition and also the indulgent lifestyle of its administrators (especially those at 'head office' ) to which eventually Henry VIIIth thankfully called a halt, and a reversal, much to the annoyance of the immensely rich and powerful chief vicar.
|
|
"Secular" is probably not the best word - before Christianity, the ordinary people had their paganism; true secularism is relatively modern.
And for centuries, religion and temporal power went hand-in-hand. There's little doubt (as a recent TV programme pointed out) that the christianisation of the Vikings, in Normandy and elsewhere, was mainly to give them access to the culture and prosperity of kingdoms who had converted before them and with whom they wished to trade. As well as formidable travellers, the Vikings became hugely successful traders.
Henry VIII's position was an interesting one: he was the first ruler directly to oppose the power of the church in a country where for centuries the two had operated together. Of all his separations/annulments/divorces none was more significant than his rejection of the Catholic church.
Though John F clearly isn't a fan, without it there would have been no great churches and cathedrals - monuments of course to the power, wealth and arrogance of man as much as to anything else - nor the transmission of the mathematics, sciences and culture of the ancient world before the Renaissance. The birth of western music and drama was through the church.
Things like this just aren't black and white.
|
Though John F clearly isn't a fan, without it there would have been no great churches and cathedrals - monuments of course to the power, wealth and arrogance of man as much as to anything else - nor the transmission of the mathematics, sciences and culture of the ancient world before the Renaissance. The birth of western music and drama was through the church.
Apart from the great cathedrals (none of which are much more impressive than the basilica of maxentius built nearly 1000yrs earlier) - not so. It took centuries to escape the stultifying effect of religion upon human imagination and development. Mathematical and scientific progress only resumed in the face of stern religious opposition. Even today in England there are faith schools which forbid the transmission of certain sciences, as you put it. As for culture, there was little beyond religious iconography and gregorian chant. And in some religious societies, music and certain art forms are forbidden. Music and drama only really developed when composers and artists escaped the restrictions of religious commissions.
PS here's a bit of culture sculpture that would have gobsmacked Bernini
www.stlfinder.com/model/w12-engine-crankshaft/2583...8
Edited by John F on 25/10/2018 at 18:48
|
|
As FP so wisely says, things aren't black and white, in matters like this just as in car care.
There is no need for science and religion to be in complete conflict. Most people accept that the world evolved rather than being created by any sort of big bang, or seven days' work by God. Science can help to show us how - but for some of us, religion helps to deal with the question 'why?'.
Sure, the first chapters of Genesis are based on legend: the courageous 19th century bishop John Colenso was the first to question their historical truth, and was roundly condemned by the Victorian church establishment. But he was surely right: one can debate where in the Old Testament legend becomes history. My guess is somewhere about Abraham.
I'm a Christian, and proud of it, but I have the greatest respect for agnostics - those who admit to not knowing what or whether to believe. I have less respect for the type of atheist who claims to know there is no God. Atheism, and secularism, shouldn't be rammed down our throats any more than should religion.
|
As FP so wisely says, things aren't black and white.......
Hm. Pretty obvious and not particularly wise.
There is no need for science and religion to be in complete conflict. Most people accept that the world evolved rather than being created by any sort of big bang, or seven days' work by God. Science can help to show us how - but for some of us, religion helps to deal with the question 'why?'.
Sadly, there is still much conflict. And the question 'why?' is only a problem for those who think that the underlying premise of the question, i.e. a reason for matter, existence, etc, actually exists.
I have less respect for the type of atheist who claims to know there is no God. Atheism, and secularism, shouldn't be rammed down our throats any more than should religion.
There is much misunderstanding of the term 'atheism'. It is not a something, like some sort of ideological -ism; it is a not something. For instance, I, and probably you, are anudists. The concept of being a non-nudist is much the same thing as being non-religious. That is why there are very few a-theist or a-nudist societies. Anyway, as most here know, you cannot prove a negative.
It seems you might misunderstand secularism as well. It is possible to be religious and a secularist. Indeed, the National Secular Society supports freedom of religion as well as the freedom to criticise and even laugh at it without the risk of being burnt at the stake, stoned or shot. No throat ramming there - in stark contrast to the current 'shoebox' xmas present campaign; few know that each box will be stuffed with religious propaganda.
www.secularism.org.uk/news/2018/09/nss-to-host-maj...m
|
|
Hello Chaps,
I am returned from my dalliance with the medical fraternity. This thread is still interesting. There is of course no clear cut answers to any questions posed about culture, lineage etc etc. Although I have lived the majority of my life in England and support the English sports teams I have no English blood in my body. Well not unless it crept in prior to the 1400's which is about as far back as we got with genealogy. My mother was Irish and my father was Scottish. Good lines back hundreds of years. Good genes too. I do appreciate the Celtish culture and attitude and feel very at home with it but I cannot define myself as a Celt because I think nurture has played a greater part in my development than nature. Suffice to say I am pleased that my ancestors passed on some gifts to me and my siblings and we have used them to our advantage. Fascinating subject though.
Cheers Concrete
|
I have no English blood in my body. Well not unless it crept in prior to the 1400's which is about as far back as we got with genealogy.
I bet you do. Even seriously tribal people (e.g. some Kurds, Jews, and countless others who identify with a particular label) are quite a mixture if you unravel their DNA. You must have an amazingly complex family tree if you have established the ancestry of all thirty two (assuming no cousin intermarriage) of your great-great-great grandparents - a mere five generations, let alone six centuries!
I remember meeting a very pukka English person of impeccable background with brown eyes and slightly frizzy hair - some ancestor was apparently big in sugar in the West Indies about 300yrs ago......
Go to Cornwall and observe the locals, some of whom display clear north African characteristics, probably resulting from interaction with Phoenician traders 4000yrs ago, even though they have mostly interbred locally for hundreds of years.
|
|
I agree John F. Probably a bit too bold a statement from me. There probably have been inter race marriages within the respective families over the years. Our precise lineage only goes back about 250 years but the names and connections do go back to the 1400 hundreds. I know what you mean about physical characteristics. In the west of Ireland and west Wales there a lot of swarthy people with very dark hair and eyes. It is supposed to be from the remnants of the Spanish Armada, some of which were shipwrecked along that coastline. The survivors obviously assimilated into the local community. I do have very fair hair and blue eyes though, as befitting a Celt, and this trait does run through the family. Great subject though and quite an eye opener when you dig down into family history.
Cheers Concrete
|
|
