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 30th, 2017, 11:42 AM   #81
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Chalfont, Pennsylvania
Posts: 2,039

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Evans View Post
To address the original question, as others have said the English don't 'hate' 1066, for one thing, we'd hardly be likely have an annual re-enactment of the battle of Hastings if we did! Do other nations re-enact battles on home soil that 'they' lost?
Don't you British have reenactments of the English Civil War? Didn't the Parliamentarians win and the Royalists lose in battle in 1649 or so, and then the Royalists win and the Parliamentarians lose by popular opinion in 1660? So you English reenact battles in your civil war that both sides eventually lost.

And of course American Civil War reenactments are very popular in the USA despite the fact that both sides won some and lost some of the battles, and that the South eventually lost the war but could be said to have won the peace with acts of terrorism after the war.

There are also Indian Wars reenactments in the USA.

I once saw a genealogy post by an Apache Indian named McIntosh but couldn't answer because it was a dead link. He traced his ancestry to Archie McIntosh, a famous quarter Scottish and three quarters Indian - Cree and Iroquois I think - scout who married an Apache and settled in Arizona. The modern day McIntosh said he was descended from Archie's son Donald and grandson Donald.

Archie McIntosh's son Donald was probably named after Archie's brother, Lieutenant Donald McIntosh (1838-1876) of the 7th cavalry, killed during Reno's valley fight. So there is an Apache branch of the McIntosh family that would view reenactments of the Little Bighorn as reenactments of a battle where a relative in the US cavalry was killed.

The Northern Cheyenne Reservation is close to the Little Bighorn Battlefield, so probably a number of Northern Cheyenne take part in the annual reenactments of the Little Bighorn, the last victory of the Sioux and Northern Cheyenne before their defeat.

But the Little Bighorn Battlefield is actually in the Crow Reservation, the tiny remnant of the once vast Crow lands that were stolen by the Sioux or sold to the US government. And the Sioux and Northern Cheyenne continued their aggression against the Crows even in 1876, and were camped without permission in the best hunting grounds in the Crow reservation when the 7th cavalry found them.

So most of the Indians in the reenactments of the Little Bighorn, portraying not only the Crow and Arikara scouts for the cavalry but also the Northern Cheyenne and Sioux, are actually Crows, who may have somewhat mixed feelings about portraying the enemies of their ancestors in a reenactment of the greatest victory of those enemies and a defeat for their own ancestors.

And I think that many English people who see reenactments of the Battle of Hastings may have somewhat similar mixed feelings and be uncertain which side - if either - they should favor. Some may be pro Anglo-Saxon, some pro Norman, some Welsh may think "a pox on both your houses", and many English are probably ambivalent and confused about who they should root for.

Last edited by MAGolding; October 30th, 2017 at 11:47 AM.
MAGolding is online now  
Remove Ads
Old October 30th, 2017, 11:52 AM   #82
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Chalfont, Pennsylvania
Posts: 2,039

Quote:
Originally Posted by Warwolf View Post
Nope. Harold II was.



It wasn't William's throne. The Witan decided that Harold Godwineson would be the new king on Edward's death. William's relationship to Edward - they were cousins - is not important, as the Anglo-Saxons did not have a hereditary monarchy. They elected their monarchs - and they elected Harold. It was the Normans who introduced hereditary monarchy to England.
see my post # 78 on page 7 and also this thread:

Heirs of Anglo-Saxon Kings of England
MAGolding is online now  
Old October 30th, 2017, 01:15 PM   #83

Haesten's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,486

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius View Post
No documents in French appear in England until Henry II and the Angevin dynasty. William produced documents in Old English and Latin, by 1066 the spoken language was middle English (OE/Norse) not the written West Saxon Standard OE of the church. Orderic tells us that William never learned to write standard OE, he doesn't say if he could understand the street English spoken. The GND tells us that Norse was spoken in Normandy in Duke Richard I's day (William's great grandfather).
The Normans were clearly proud of their Norse heritage, using Norse names, telling Norse stories and calling in Norse reinforcements against the French/Angevins when necessary etc.

Orderic tells us that he could not understand the language spoken at the Abbey of Saint-Evroul in Normandy, his father was Odelerius of Orléans, who had entered the service of Roger de Montgomerie, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury.
The Vita Ædwardi Regis tells us that Harold's sister was multi-lingual, one language being the lingua franca spoken in western Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vita_%C3%86dwardi_Regis
Haesten is offline  
Old October 30th, 2017, 01:26 PM   #84

Lucius's Avatar
the governed self
 
Joined: Jan 2007
From: Nebraska
Posts: 16,194

Thank-you, Haesten.
Lucius is online now  
Old October 30th, 2017, 09:24 PM   #85

Eryl Enki's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Apr 2017
From: Lemuria
Posts: 411
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edric Streona View Post
Er... not Baker, Carpenter, Fletcher, Archer, Turner, Fuller, Adler, Walker, Hunter, Cotter, Miller, Butcher, Fisher... these are purely trade/occupation based surnames.

the others might sometimes have French origins in the words but the surname maybe taken after master/lord/employee, town of origin, local geography, physical traits .... surnames will give you very little insite into genetic ancestory.
I wanted to mention this. However there are two forms of Carpenter one is from the French carpentier (which means carpenter in English) and one is derived from the profession. Names after professions are usually carried by Anglo-Saxon folks even if it's borrowed from French. However, if it's an anglicized form of Carpentier then it's French, most likely Huguenot. Archer could be either as well.

I shouldn't have said "most likely" when in fact this method allows for a large margin of error. It is the simplest method of distinction though.
As for dilution. I'd say no. The elites tended to marry each other rather than commoners. Dilution would have occurred only recently. My 20+-10% estimate may be correct.

Last edited by Eryl Enki; October 30th, 2017 at 10:02 PM.
Eryl Enki is offline  
Old October 30th, 2017, 09:51 PM   #86

Eryl Enki's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Apr 2017
From: Lemuria
Posts: 411
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haesten View Post
No documents in French appear in England until Henry II and the Angevin dynasty. William produced documents in Old English and Latin, by 1066 the spoken language was middle English (OE/Norse) not the written West Saxon Standard OE of the church. Orderic tells us that William never learned to write standard OE, he doesn't say if he could understand the street English spoken. The GND tells us that Norse was spoken in Normandy in Duke Richard I's day (William's great grandfather).
The Normans were clearly proud of their Norse heritage, using Norse names, telling Norse stories and calling in Norse reinforcements against the French/Angevins when necessary etc.

Orderic tells us that he could not understand the language spoken at the Abbey of Saint-Evroul in Normandy, his father was Odelerius of Orléans, who had entered the service of Roger de Montgomerie, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury.
The Vita Ædwardi Regis tells us that Harold's sister was multi-lingual, one language being the lingua franca spoken in western Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vita_%C3%86dwardi_Regis
The Normans were way more oppressive toward the English. And what reinforcement the Normans used against the French (let's called this faction Franciliens to avoid confusion)? The Angevins were responsible for conflict with the Franciliens (starting with the First Anglo-French war which the Angevins lost, followed by a series of wars), not the Normans. The Normans hardly had any war with France. They were usually busy fighting the Angevins over Maine.
Eryl Enki is offline  
Old October 30th, 2017, 11:45 PM   #87

Haesten's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,486

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eryl Enki View Post
The Normans were way more oppressive toward the English. And what reinforcement the Normans used against the French (let's called this faction Franciliens to avoid confusion)? The Angevins were responsible for conflict with the Franciliens (starting with the First Anglo-French war which the Angevins lost, followed by a series of wars), not the Normans. The Normans hardly had any war with France. They were usually busy fighting the Angevins over Maine.
Wace, a Jersey Norman writing for Henry II in the Roman de Rou tells Henry not to trust the French as they only wish the Normans harm. Henry an Angevin sacked him and commissioned Benoît de Sainte-Maure, a Frenchman to write the history instead.

The Roman de Brut (Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae) and the Roman de Rou of Wace are among the earliest examples of Norman French.
Haesten is offline  
Old October 31st, 2017, 12:16 AM   #88

Haesten's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,486

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius View Post
Thank-you, Haesten.
Dudo of Saint-Quentin in his Historia Normannorum, commissioned by Duke Richard I and his half brother Rodulf of Ivry, tells us that.
"Richard I of Normandy was sent by his father William I Longsword to learn the "Dacian" language with Bothon (Bernard the Dane). It is generally accepted that Dudo erred and meant Danish – that is, in the same passage he states that the inhabitants of Bayeux more often spoke "Dacian" than "Roman" (i.e. Old French)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodulf_of_Ivry
Haesten is offline  
Old October 31st, 2017, 05:51 AM   #89

notgivenaway's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2015
From: UK
Posts: 5,228

Quote:
Originally Posted by At Each Kilometer View Post
What's is exactly norman DNA? Who are the major participants in the formation and development of this early medieval ethnic group. Rollo and his northmen, very close to jutes, angles and saxons, frankish population of Normandy, also germanic ppl and celto-romans. On other hand anglo-saxon lords were also somewhat mongrels/ certainly not 'pure blood' jutes, angles or saxons of their initial invasion. 650 years and more from roman withdrawal to 1066 is a lot of time. So germanic & celtic ppl - some of the latter speaking latin vulgate in the past.

EDIT: The main 'ethnic' difference between the conquerors and the conquered is language. Old english vs old french.
Normans by William's time had mixed in well enough with the Franks, and were thus a rough Celtic, Norse, and Germanic mix. The Norse element would have been pretty minor.
notgivenaway is online now  
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.