The Normans - what good did they do?

[Savant]

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.

LOL! Except for the fact that "nationally minded" had no meaning at the time since there was only a confederation of tribes (who'd already mostly displaced the native inhabitants) with their own identities and dialects. I'm sure any "nationally minded" original brits didn't see their architecture as being "native to the country" either. LOL!!

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

Well you were Irish the other week, I guess you've changed your mind now. You do that a lot.

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.

Certainly the Normans had uniform linguistic standards and their superior forms of administration, compared to the tribal administration of the Saxons, demanded that they too establish uniform standards to function within it.

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.

Certainly I do, it's you who's (again) clueless. Although this isn't as bad as your "paleolithic farmers" faux pas. That one will live on forever... That's why even to this day there are various spellings of Saxon derived names.

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.

Yes, the scribes HAD to record the same man using various spellings, since the men being recorded would be referred to with different spelling of the same name.

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

Well if it makes you feel better to imagine this, I wont stand in your way. It's not as if your big on facts anyhow, I know they have a tendency to wreck that fantasy world you live in....

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.

Well that's funny, the Anglo Saxons and the Danes sure did engage in a lot of historical butchering of each other to be described as "mutual assimilation". You'd never know they were so "assimilated" with the way that so many Saxon English accompanied William in the "harrying of the North". Wait... does this have anything to do with the paleolithic farmers, and Europe being uninhabited until the Neolithic?

Pure nonsense pulled out of thin air.

Indeed, as are many things you say, but hillarious nonetheless...

[Osweo]

LOL! Except for the fact that "nationally minded" had no meaning at the time since there was only a confederation of tribes (who'd already mostly displaced the native inhabitants) with their own identities and dialects. I'm sure any "nationally minded" original brits didn't see their architecture as being "native to the country" either. LOL!!

Nationally minded people of our time. Which was obvious to anyone with any functioning reading comprehension.

'Tribal confederation' is a stupid thing to say for Eleventh Century England.

'Original Brits' in the implied sense of 'Britons vs. Saxons' is stupid too, given the ages between 450 and 1066 AD.

Well you were Irish the other week,

Certainly the Normans had uniform linguistic standards and their superior forms of administration, compared to the tribal administration of the Saxons, demanded that they too establish uniform standards to function within it.

Provide evidence of this 'uniform linguistic standards' or admit that it's bullshit you dreamt up in one of your usual deliriums.

Certainly I do, it's you who's (again) clueless. Although this isn't as bad as your "paleolithic farmers" faux pas. That one will live on forever...

You mention that a lot. I never bothered looking into it at the time, assuming that I'd made a typing error, as people do occasionally do. Given that I have a degree in British Prehistory, it's pretty stupid to assume I would ever MEAN what you suppose I did there. Especially given my grasp of Graeco-Latin word elements like palaeo-.

That's why even to this day there are various spellings of Saxon derived names.

Are there? Do enlighten us, and then I'll be able to tell you HOW you got this odd notion stuck in your head.

Is THIS what you're talking about?
Osweo - actual Old English.
Oswiu - an anglicisation of Bede's Latinisation of the OE.
Oswy - Middle English and later English evolution of the original.

AElfred Alfred Ilfred Ilfry is a similar set of spellings that are separated by centuries of time.

Give some actual examples, so we can see what the fuck you're actually on about, and can see how stupid you are in this case.

Yes, the scribes HAD to record the same man using various spellings, since the men being recorded would be referred to with different spelling of the same name.

Does this sentence actually mean anything?

Well that's funny, the Anglo Saxons and the Danes sure did engage in a lot of historical butchering of each other to be described as "mutual assimilation".

How do the two things actually preclude each other?

You'd never know they were so "assimilated" with the way that so many Saxon English accompanied William in the "harrying of the North".

I had a quick internet search for details of an English element in William's army on this occasion, and found nothing. Give us some of your precious facts, eh? This was early on, only in 1069, a mere three years after Hastings, so the Norman army will still have retained much of its 1066 form, without having transformed into a regular levy from the populace as would happen when things normalised with time. Perhaps some English infantry had been recruited by this point, you'll have to demonstrate that. This doesn't illustrate any weird idea that the Northern campaign reconciled the 'Saxons' to Norman rule, though.

[Der Steinadler]

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.

'law and government', who's law and what principle was it governed by ?

as for Gothic Architecture, it may look impressive to some, but as I said it's
merely derivitive from the Classical Architecture of the Greeks and Romans...
see Romanesque.

[Aemma]

'law and government', who's law and what principle was it governed by ?

as for Gothic Architecture, it may look impressive to some, but as I said it's
merely derivitive from the Classical Architecture of the Greeks and Romans...
see Romanesque.

Well not all of its architecture was a lift from these cultures. The Normans were the ones to refine and export the motte-and-bailey systems of castle building. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey

[Savant]

This whole notion of Normans being some horrific oppressive element is almost hillarious to me, particularly when being parroted by Saxon romanticists. The Normans took over England, but they allowed English to keep their language, improved their systems, put England on the map as a power, and became English themselves within a few generations. Now compare this to the Anglo Saxon invasions of England who committed what can only be thought of as "ethnic cleaning" upon the indigenous Celts, pushed them all into Wales, and obliterated their language. The Norman invasion was nowhere nearly as brutal as this, yet the Norman critics don't feel very inclined to raise this comparison, for some reason...

In any case, you'd be hard pressed to make the case that England didn't flourish as a nation under the Normans by any objective measure.

[Der Steinadler]

Well not all of its architecture was a lift from these cultures. The Normans were the ones to refine and export the motte-and-bailey systems of castle building. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey

True, but, the fact they had to build these kind of things indicates they were having problems.

A divided society based on a population reduced to serfdom ruled by a philo-semitic gang.

Not superior in my books.

[Albion]

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.

As Osweo has already told you - that is complete rubbish. The Danes in England can't even really be called Danes since the intermarriage with the Angles was rife.
They basically replaced the Kingdom of Northumbria with a Kingdom of York encompassing a similar area until it was incorporated into the newly forming England.

May I remind you that Old Danish and Old English had some degree of mutual comprehensibility still at this time and that there were still some familial and regal ties with Jutland still.

Most Northerners today still have both Anglo-Saxon and "Viking" ancestors. Just take a look at Yorkshire - they're still very proud of it there.

There was no genocide against the Danes, there was however a vengeful Norman military harrying and destroying the North.

LOL! Except for the fact that "nationally minded" had no meaning at the time since there was only a confederation of tribes (who'd already mostly displaced the native inhabitants) with their own identities and dialects. I'm sure any "nationally minded" original brits didn't see their architecture as being "native to the country" either. LOL!!

England was already unified but suffering from Danish / Norwegian and Norman harassment as well as a unifying and expanding Scotland in the Northumbrian frontiers - Osweo's Bernicia and the modern Lothians.

Certainly the Normans had uniform linguistic standards and their superior forms of administration, compared to the tribal administration of the Saxons, demanded that they too establish uniform standards to function within it.

You underestimate the Anglo-Saxons too much. Even today England and Wales are ruled by Common Law based on Germanic (Anglo-Saxon) law codes instead of Civil Law (Roman Law) like most of Europe including Scotland.

The Counties (Shires), Boroughs (Hundreds), Parliament / constitutional monarchy (Witan) were all Anglo-Saxon in origin - later built upon or tweaked or largely left alone by the Normans.
It is said that Anglo-Saxon England was one of the most well-governed areas of Western Europe - the Normans inherited a good system and a unitary nation and added to it their own expertise in governance.

I think you miss the point - Normans greatly built upon what was already a good system but neither side can be denied to have been good administrators.

'Tribal confederation' is a stupid thing to say for Eleventh Century England.

I think he missed the part where the Heptarchy became the unified kingdom.

This whole notion of Normans being some horrific oppressive element is almost hillarious to me, particularly when being parroted by Saxon romanticists.

In many ways the Normans were bad - they bought feudalism to England, they treated the English as second class citizens and gave themselves control of the land overnight and changed much about the nation.

But they did do some good which is the purpose of this thread. Whether we like it or not the Normans had a huge impact upon this country and it's people.
Medieval England would have been totally different had they not invaded, perhaps more like the Low Countries I'd say. And it is medieval England and the preceding Anglo-Saxon England which left us with the modern nation.

The contribution of the Normans was huge given their small numbers. I agree, their contribution shouldn't be downplayed, but then again I cannot bring myself to matyr them neither.

The Normans took over England, but they allowed English to keep their language,

I'd say it was more a policy of indifference rather than some effort to preserve it - they didn't care what lowly peasants spoke.

improved their systems

Indeed, they built upon what the Anglo-Saxons had started.

put England on the map as a power,

That they did. They brought whole new military ways to England, I highly doubt English history would have taken such a course without them.
I doubt England would have been as strong or able to go about attempting to subdue the British Isles like it did.

and became English themselves within a few generations.

But still born into a privileged class. Go to Northumberland and visit the Percy family, over dinner they might tell you about their long pedigree...
I can think of a few families around here too.
You my be interested to know that people with Norman surnames are more likely to get higher paid jobs - it just goes on - someone posted it on the forum somewhere.

Now compare this to the Anglo Saxon invasions of England who committed what can only be thought of as "ethnic cleaning" upon the indigenous Celts, pushed them all into Wales, and obliterated their language. The Norman invasion was nowhere nearly as brutal as this, yet the Norman critics don't feel very inclined to raise this comparison, for some reason...

I think this is rather stupid. In Eastern areas Celts were either killed, pushed out or outbred, but in the west they largely remained.
To be honest that is one of three outcomes from successful invasions in history - replacement by a large group of invaders, a small group of invaders take on the customs of the natives, or assimilation by a smaller group of most of the much larger population.

What do you expect? No one likes being invaded, of course Anglo-Saxons and their descendants wouldn't think highly of it in the same way the Celts wouldn't have liked being invaded either.

Not many people still believe in a total wipeout theory. In some areas the Celts would have been wiped out, in most western and southern areas that is unlikely and known to be false.
Even most early Anglo-Saxon kingdoms followed similar areas to the former Roman-drawn tribal boundaries of the Celts.

In any case, you'd be hard pressed to make the case that England didn't flourish as a nation under the Normans by any objective measure.

England flourished all right, but the population who were reduced to feudal peasants which would have been most of them wouldn't have taken a good view of it.



I think you've been a bit over-defensive of the Normans - most people who know anything recognise that they did some good here and brought some benefits and were important in making England what it is today.
Of course you should expect some people not to like them though as is natural.

[Savant]

Yeah, I think I'm the one who posted the study about people with Norman surnames and having higher incomes, etc. I admit the possibility that I'm biased, *I* have a Norman surname and my folks mostly descend from colonial era settlers in Virginia who were "ancient planters", many of whom were descendents of Cavaliers in the English Civil War, and of course there's lots of Norman lines in that corner of the gene pool. However, I think that objectively speaking that the Normans were very good for England in the aggregate, putting Britain on the map as a power, the Magna Carta, etc. I think you'd be hard pressed to make the case that they weren't good for England, that's all. I do acknowledge that I am possibly biased, and don't claim that the Anglo Saxons were somehow complete morons who would have just been worthless if the Normans wouldn't have come along...

[Joe McCarthy]

I'm unsure how I've developed a reputation as an anti-Norman, but while they brought many good things to England they began a series of events that have left a bitter legacy both in terms of French-English relations and Irish-English relations that continues to this day. The Hundred Years War was made possible because Edward III claimed the French throne, and this claim would not have dragged England into that squabble without the Norman conquest. As for the Irish, they were on pretty good terms with the English prior to the arrival of the Normans, and though one might argue they continued to be so afterward, the Norman invasion set the stage for later troubles that probably wouldn't have been an issue otherwise.

[Libertas]

'law and government', who's law and what principle was it governed by ?

as for Gothic Architecture, it may look impressive to some, but as I said it's
merely derivitive from the Classical Architecture of the Greeks and Romans...
see Romanesque.

You need to read some good books about the Plantagenets and about medieval architecture, I fear.

Also the recent book from Chris Wickham, "The Inheritance of Rome", about early medieval Europe up to the year 1000 shows that the peasant majority of England was one of the least free in Europe on the eve of the Battle of Hastings.