The Normans - what good did they do?

[Ouistreham]

The foundation of Normandy in 911 (1200 years ago) was an event of central importance in Europe's history.

Within a couple of years the Normans made of their Duchy the first modern state in Europe, the standard all other European states were modelled after.

Another fundamental event was the Revolt of 996: Norman barons rose up against Duke Richard II but peasants in their turn rose up against the barons and joined the Duke's cause. From then on serfdom was abolished and the feudal system was disciplined in such a way as to make possible an efficient administration and the subsequent military successes.

This is the root of both French and English ways (beyond their well-known differences) to combine liberty and authority, supported upon a strong national feeling.

Oh, and the Normans invented the French litterature (Chanson de Roland), the legends of King Arthur (Geoffroy de Monmouth) and of Tristan et Yseult (Béroul), and even the French language, which was first codified in the late 16th century by Norman poet François de Malherbe.

[Graham]

Oh, and the Normans invented the legends of King Arthur (Geoffroy de Monmouth)

The Normans did alot. But the first known mention of Arthur could be in the Y Gododdin Poem

[Laubach]

There was no Norman Conquest of Scotland. But Norman french knights were invited into Scotland since the time of King Macbeth(MacBheatha mac Fhionnlaigh).

King David I(Dabíd mac Maíl Choluim) was responsible for the Normanisation of the Scottish government and leaving behind the Gaelic lowlands. He created the hereditary title High Stewards of Scotland.

The House of Stuart descends from Walter fitzAlan who's father (Alan fitz Flaald) was from Brittany.

King David I also invited the Anglo Norman Douglases, Balliols, Giffards, Lindsays, Morvilles, Murrays, Oliphants, Sinclairs, Grants, Comyns, Bruces, Ridles etc..

Most of the famous Scottish lowland names in history come from the Normans.

I never said Normans conquested Scotland. I have referred to their influence and their legacy. But thanks for your explanation up

[Savant]

The halls were superb. Surviving wooden architecture in Norway and Karelia might give some indication of the possibilities here. And there WAS stone architecture before 1066. Some provincial examples are still standing, and are impressive enough in their way. Clearly, the centres will have had finer stuff, but the Normans bulldozed it.

I never said there wasn't stone architecture. I said the Normans improved upon architecture, and they did.

Which I see you are doing your best to abandon. Actually, what you say is rubbish, as Norman French, and Norman attempts to write English, were nowhere near as regular in orthography as you indicate.

The irony of an irish gramar nazi.... In any case, the Saxon had no uniform means of spelling, Normans brought that, albeit for identification for purposes of taxation in all likelihood.

[Savant]

Perhaps that's the case. However, those "acts of genocide", were against the Danes of the north, which were enemies of the Saxons, that the Saxons hadn't been able to remove for centuries. The Normans were able to overtake them fairly quickly, and very many Saxons participated in it. If anything, this greatly increased the loyalty of the Saxons to Norman leadership. Of course those Danes in the North didn't think of themselves as "Englishmen" at the time.

I don't know about Normans being responsible for the troubles in Ireland, and have never heard a case made for that indictment. I was under the impression that Irish Normans assimilated fairly well, as did Anglo Normans within a few generations. In any case, I think it's hard to say that England didn't flourish under Norman leadership, I realise this is a point of contention for many.

Well, they mutilated the body of the last English king and denied future generations of Englishmen the chance to pay their respects to his final resting place, they raped and molested the English women and children and murdered in cold blood Englishman in their homes, they committed great acts of genocide which, of course is glossed over in history lessons at school, they crushed and wiped out the English language and culture (it thankfully reared its head a few centuries later, but wasn't the same after), they imposed great structures upon the landscapes which later went onto house many an English "criminal"...not to mention they actually charge us to go see the things. The Normans started the whole 'troubles' in Ireland and even had the cheek to assimilate so closely with the Irish that even a Fitzgerald is thought less to blame than an innocent Englishman born of lowly serfs.

etc, etc...blah the Normans did great things eg: imposed themselves on the European continent to the detriment of thousands blah blah.

[Libertas]

I never said Normans conquested Scotland. I have referred to their influence and their legacy. But thanks for your explanation up

Many "Norman" families in Scotland like Grant, Beaton/Bethune and Comyn were actually Flemish as were the original Bruces who were Flemings settled at Le Brus (now Brix) in Normandy.
William the Conqueror's wife was Maud (Matilda) of Flanders.

BTW for Capt Blackbeard to blame the Normans for the Irish Troubles is ludicrously anachronistic.
Blame the Reformation because Protestant England could not allow a strong Catholic Ireland as a neighbour.
The Norman aristos in Irish became assimilated and "more Irish than the Irish".

The Catholic Irish hate the name of Oliver Cromwell or William of Orange but none denigrate the Normans in Ireland.

[Osweo]

I never said there wasn't stone architecture. I said the Normans improved upon architecture, and they did.

They all but obliterated one tradition of architecture, and imported an alien one. It's impressive, but had little root in this country. That is enough for nationally minded people to have reason to regret a little.

The irony of an irish gramar nazi....

I'm not Irish. Irish is capitalised, as is Nazi. Grammar has two Ms.

In any case, the Saxon had no uniform means of spelling, Normans brought that, albeit for identification for purposes of taxation in all likelihood.

The Normans had no uniform orthography. Their language was the largely unwritten vernacular of northern Gaul. Documents were written in Latin, as they had also been before 1066 here. The difference once, Latin had not been the SOLE literary language here. Centuries would pass before Norman French possessed a vernacular literature to match that of the English in the 900s.

Even when French did get more written down, it was no more rigorous in terms of spelling rules than English. You haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

As for 'purposes of taxation', Norman scribes often recorded the same men by three or more different spellings of his name, just as they did with the name of his settlement. It perhaps would have been more convenient to fix spellings, but this did NOT happen. It had little relevance back then, as most concerned with documents knew who and what they were talking about anyway.

Perhaps that's the case. However, those "acts of genocide", were against the Danes of the north, which were enemies of the Saxons, that the Saxons hadn't been able to remove for centuries.

This is hilarious. You know nothing of Eleventh Century England beyond the most crude outlines.

The Danelaw was the scene of intense mutual assimilation of Angles and Danes (AND (Hiberno-)Norwegians in the west) as soon as it was set up.

By 1066, it was impossible to split the population of Northumbria into English or Danish. Many people would have had to ask their grandparents for their exact proportions of Scandinavian pedigree.

I could dig up family trees where Danish names alternate between English ones quite freely. (Even Harold Godwinson had a non-English name!)

The Normans were able to overtake them fairly quickly, and very many Saxons participated in it. If anything, this greatly increased the loyalty of the Saxons to Norman leadership. Of course those Danes in the North didn't think of themselves as "Englishmen" at the time.

Pure nonsense pulled out of thin air.

In any case, I think it's hard to say that England didn't flourish under Norman leadership,

Only once the Normans themselves began to forget they were foreigners. In the meantime, Englishmen were reduced to cannibalism and futile suicidal revolt or drudgery.

Many "Norman" families in Scotland like Grant, Beaton/Bethune and Comyn were actually Flemish

Bethune is a settlement in that part of Flanders which is full of Anglo-Saxon toponymy. It's just a Frenchified form of 'Beeton'. up

[Der Steinadler]

The Normans were merely a tool of the Catholic Church, who coveted the rich farm land of England. There wasn't much to the Normans except as as gangs of plunderers, and enforcers.

As for the culture (architecture, music etc), most of it is just a derivitive of the Classical culture of Roma and Greece.

[Libertas]

The Normans were merely a tool of the Catholic Church, who coveted the rich farm land of England. There wasn't much to the Normans except as as gangs of plunderers, and enforcers.

As for the culture (architecture, music etc), most of it is just a derivitive of the Classical culture of Roma and Greece.

Perhaps you are right but the Plantagenets of Anjou who succeeded the Norman kings of England brought in a well-organised system of law and government and a "Gothic" style of architecture from northern France well beyond the abilities of earlier Anglo-Saxon builders and architects.

[Osweo]

Perhaps you are right

He's not. The Normans were gifted organisers. Credit where credit is due.