Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 27th, 2017, 11:53 PM   #11
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Bulgaria
Posts: 3,116

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Rolls View Post
I'm intrigued by your opening comment. I'm 80 years old, English, and I have never come across anyone expressing hatred (other than in jest) for the events of 1066. There are, after all, many vital turning points in the country's history - the loss of the French possessions culminating in Mary's 'Calais engraved on my heart' comment, 1588 the Spanish Armada, the loss of the American colonies, 1805 and Trafalgar, 1815 and Waterloo, 1940 and the Battle of Britain - just a few at random, all of them with the potential to have been even more significant in that they were aimed at a far more homogeneous Britain than was the case in 1066.
The Norman conquest didn't destroy Britain - but it certainly changed it greatly.
Mike
I've seen it first here in this very forum. It's history forum, so the name of the Conqueror pops up here and there and some UK/English historomites express/ed some form of resentment towards him & affection towards pre-norman England.
At Each Kilometer is offline  
Remove Ads
Old October 28th, 2017, 12:05 AM   #12

notgivenaway's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2015
From: UK
Posts: 5,365

SOme people do. This is why there is Anglish, and other (imho silly) points of linguistic purism.

1066 is a foggy event, since none of Harold, Harald Hardrada, nor William, had a watertight claim. I honestly think it was a smash and grab, and William just won out in the end.

There are some who resent that a native English dynasty was toppled.
notgivenaway is offline  
Old October 28th, 2017, 12:12 AM   #13
Citizen
 
Joined: Oct 2017
From: Poland
Posts: 20

Quote:
Originally Posted by At Each Kilometer View Post
I've seen it first here in this very forum. It's history forum, so the name of the Conqueror pops up here and there and some UK/English historomites express/ed some form of resentment towards him & affection towards pre-norman England.

Yeah, exactly. I am a Tolkien fan (you know, the guy that wrote the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit) and i heard Peter Jackson or someone else comment that he made Rohan on the basis of ancient English society from before 1066, making it similar (e.g. i heard that for some reason Anglo-Saxons glorified the relationship between maternal uncle and his nephews and Eomer is the king's of Rohan nephew by his sister) only he changed their fighting style a bit because he thought that if Anglo-Saxons used cavalry they might have been possible to avoid a "foreign invasion" from 1066. It interested me. Besides, i saw many youtube comments in which their authors referred to pre-1066 as "golden age". Sorry for my bad english.
Copernicus is offline  
Old October 28th, 2017, 12:12 AM   #14
Academician
 
Joined: Apr 2017
From: Cologne
Posts: 55

@Michael Rolls & Copernicus

As some others expressed, that can be, that it depends to who you talk to.
There is another thread here, where somebody expressed voelkisch movement ideas of the 19th century, about the Saxon-Frankish conflict.
That comes from the same source.

During that century, after the defeat of Napoleon, you have political (original religious) movements in Europe, that are a transformations of former conflicts.

In a nutshell that works like – we – the Saxons (so Angle-Saxons, everybody) are defending Europe against foreign invasions, coming mainly from the south.
And then you draw a line – from the Romans – it were Saxons who defeated the Romans, next the Franks and Christianity vs. Saxon paganism, later French vs. Saxons (in a form of Prussians or English) etc.
By that - we, as Saxons or protestants or nationality here, do have a legitimation to preserve and – of course – rule – as the others are foreigners or weaken by foreign ideologies (like Italian aka Roman Catholics, or French revolution etc.).

That exists in all different forms from politics to history to neo-paganism.

If Copernicus now says, yes – I deal a lot with people who might have an interest into vikings, paganism etc. he can stumble faster about such guys, who quote such things.
If he would be from a Common Wealth country, I would have guessed, that this is the cause, because they have sometimes hardcore British extreme positions and perceptions that are based on propaganda of older times.
Not on an academical level of course, but you have that even in the US.
Happened to me more than once during that life-time that people on other continents (America, Asia etc.), that have a strong British influence, assumed, based on me being German, that I must have a dislike of Irish, Italians, Spanish or French.
Because in their perception – German translates to Prussian (that is Saxon) – and so is in line with the Anglo-Saxon party-line.
While you see already on the list that all those countries have in common that they are all Catholic domains.
But overall - this is the reason why in these movements, in the 19th century, everything that comes from these regarding countries is labeled bad.

The Normans got basically the Saxon club-membership revoked and are considered as French, like the Christian Franks, that attack the pure Saxon original European.

That this is all historical nonsense – is taken for granted – but people who are into that are not because of history. Historical events only serve here for the legitimation of something different.
You have that on the English wiki about Saxon Wars. Somebody wrote that article and 100% did this person do that by best believe.
If you have no clue – that looks logical – while some information is missing.
But because that information is missing – you have then guys here who argue – that there was some common pagan Saxon unity vs. the French/Frank Christians, who started to enforce their bad foreign ideas onto the innocent natives.
Exact the same thing like the Normans did. Or Napoleon. Or whoever.
Comes all from the same brew.

I know such sentences from people who are into paganism one way or the other, too. But I would not narrow it down to a British problem. The same line can come from an Indian (via British influence) or Italian who thinks he has viking ancestors and has because of that club-membership in the Saxon club.

But again – that are all people who are not into history, they are into Dungeons&Dragons, otherwise they would not fall for that stuff and see in two seconds that something is fishy with the information OR they have a real-life agenda (you can even sell books by that).

Edit: Copernicus - you just wrote - while I was typing. Tolkien Fan. That counts to me into paganism. Fantasy etc. Yes. There you have such guys. That is what I mean.
They do not know that. That might be even innocence, because they read it somewhere else and were never interested to figure it out, if that is actually real.

Last edited by Ryanx; October 28th, 2017 at 12:25 AM.
Ryanx is offline  
Old October 28th, 2017, 12:20 AM   #15
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2015
From: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,078

Well I dislike 1066 and wish the Saxons had won.

I detest William, the bastard, and take pleasure in his miserable end.

I suspect that he would have faced much more resistance if the Saxon Nobility had realised that he was not a second Knut.

However it was probably inevitable that Saxon England would be destroyed as it had fallen behind the Continent in military technology and organisation and lacked the maritime skills to prevent invasion.
peccavi is offline  
Old October 28th, 2017, 12:21 AM   #16

SirOrmondeWinter's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,455

Quote:
Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
I have observed that people of Britain, especially from England, use to hate the year of 1066, calling it a foreing invasion and a downfall of the country. May i ask why? As someone in a different topic explained it already, the Normans didn't change English society that much, and much of pre-1066 culture remains still. And literally every each one of the European countries experienced a non-native dynasty ruling for at least a couple of years. One thing is certain: The Normans didn't harm English people as much as the Anglo-Saxons did when they invaded the insland and started conquering and extermnating Celtic people. So what are you mad at if you are not better yourselves (no offence, conquering other nations was common in Mmiddle Ages)?
The last time what would become Britain is successfully invaded?
SirOrmondeWinter is offline  
Old October 28th, 2017, 02:51 AM   #17
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 4,460

Quote:
Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
One thing is certain: The Normans didn't harm English people
"Nowhere else had William shown such cruelty. Shamefully he succumbed to this vice, for he made no effort to restrain his fury and punished the innocent and the guilty. In his anger he commanded that all crops and herds, chattels and food of every kind should be bought together and burned to aches with consuming fire, so that the whole region north of the Humber might be stripped of all means of sustenance. "


The above was written by one of his supporters!

“My narrative has frequently had occasions to praise William, but for this act which condemned the innocent and guilty alike to die by slow starvation I cannot commend him. For when I think of helpless children, young men in their prime of life, and hoary grey beards perishing alike of hunger, I am so moved to pity that I would rather lament the griefs and sufferings of the wretched people than make a vain attempt to flatter the perpetrator of such infamy.”


Quote:
Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
as much as the Anglo-Saxons did when they invaded the insland and started conquering and extermnating Celtic people.
And you preface that as something certain?The transition from roman britain to anglo saxon england is one of the most debated topics in our history with many models used to potentially explain it. And yet you write as if this 19th century view is a certainty.

The normans built 500 motte and bailey castles around england to subdue the population. I do not conclude from this that life didn't change much with the norman takeover. The normans dispossessed the english of all their lands. The result is that even today 66% of the land is held by 160,000 families, 70% of England is owned by less than 1% of the population. This is a direct result of the norman invasion.

For the Last 1,000 Years, the Same Families Have Owned Most of England
authun is offline  
Old October 28th, 2017, 03:19 AM   #18
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Bulgaria
Posts: 3,116

Quote:
Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
Yeah, exactly. I am a Tolkien fan (you know, the guy that wrote the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit) and i heard Peter Jackson or someone else comment that he made Rohan on the basis of ancient English society from before 1066, making it similar (e.g. i heard that for some reason Anglo-Saxons glorified the relationship between maternal uncle and his nephews and Eomer is the king's of Rohan nephew by his sister) only he changed their fighting style a bit because he thought that if Anglo-Saxons used cavalry they might have been possible to avoid a "foreign invasion" from 1066. It interested me. Besides, i saw many youtube comments in which their authors referred to pre-1066 as "golden age". Sorry for my bad english.
In my humble opinion of an outsider, this man was indeed a remarkable leader, he singlehandedly brought the most radical change in England - the lands and riches of the anglo-saxon ruling class were removed by him and given to his vassals. His legacy endures to this very day: language, culture, castles, stone cathedrals, end of slavery /he banned slave trade/, but above all i read in guardian an article that descendants of norman nobility today still own lots of land in England, which is truly remarkable. I presume english historomites detest him because of harrying of the north.
At Each Kilometer is offline  
Old October 28th, 2017, 04:39 AM   #19

Edric Streona's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2016
From: Japan
Posts: 3,359

Oh yes. The Conquerer. Or bastard as he’s known was a loathsome creature. But I don’t hate the year 1066. It was one of my first Periods of interest.
Edric Streona is offline  
Old October 28th, 2017, 05:00 AM   #20

Commodus's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,372

The Normans didn't change all that much, and eventually assimilated into our way of life. I certainly don't hate 1066, especially as I think it's entirely possible William had a legitimate claim to the throne. Harold was a brave man, but the manner in which he acquired the crown was incredibly suspect.

The only thing I am leery about when it comes to the Conquest is the way in which is influenced the North/South power divide here in England, so more wealth was concentrated down here in the South East and our Northern compatriots were either impoverished, repressed or ignored.
But that's not just on the Normans, is it? Many other generations, in various ways, carried on this practice.

But no, I don't hate the Normans. In fact, I think they contributed a lot to my homeland in their own fashion. They weren't monsters.
Commodus is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
1066, english, hate



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
1066 - an overrated date in English history notgivenaway Medieval and Byzantine History 8 October 15th, 2016 03:11 AM
English society 410 to 1066 johnincornwall European History 17 December 3rd, 2015 01:16 AM
Should the English have submitted to William immediately after Hastings in 1066? Uhtred European History 14 January 16th, 2014 01:46 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.