AD 43 And AD 1066

[Pertinax]

The Normans of course also campaigned in , and held, parts of Ireland. The position was rather strange in that the Normans were considerably more advanced in military technology , but , as they sought to dominate and hold land with people on it as a physical power base the gaels/hebrideans just sought to control people alone as tribal power structures so a sort of uneasy stalemate existed.I presume I will now spark a USA/Vietcong analogy .

[longbow]

Would you say that the Normans in England receive too much of a bad press?

 

The bad press they receive is richly deserved in my view (there's no love for the Conqueror in Durham),the ten year Genocidal campaign in Northumberland was a diabolic act of savagery by the Normans.You have to do a fair bit of Pillaging and burning to make a Earldom the size of Northumbria uninhabitable,which one of the Doomsday books states.

With the departure of the Huscarls to the Varangian Guard after 1066,the best English troops had left the country so the Northumberland Earls allied with the Scots and Danes to fight the Normans.After the mixed force had captured York i feel they could of sued for a independent state but allas it wasnt to be and Williams Normans payed off the Danes and Edgar fled (Again) to the Scots.

Its after this that the Normans commited the Genocide,they had allready won controll of the region there was no need to kill all the inhabitants.The people who escaped the sword were not spared,why kill all livestock,burn all crops and buildings?it sounds like revenge to me,punishing the people for so-called crimes of there masters.

William the Conqueror (spit) the man was a dog, im glad he burst open at his funeral, i hope he stunk!

 

 

the language policy of the Normans was to use French/Norman in the court as well as much of middle-class business; from this there were many terms which diffused into English, but no true language take-over.

 

Indeed,Edward III was the first Norman King to speak English as his first language.The Norman rulers were raised speaking French but would often learn English from the servants,this meant there English was erm..a bit course to say the least,plenty of swear words .

 

Longbow.

[Gaius Octavius]

Longbow, not to be too picky, but wasn't the Varangian guard composed of those Vikings who came from Kiev to visit Constantinople on occasion?

[longbow]

Yeah originally,but over the century's other peoples joined the guard. When Harold Hardrada (King of Norway) was a striping youngster he and his men joined the Unit,he ended up in command.

 

A quote from Wiki regarding the English Guardsmen.

the guard began to see the inclusion of Anglo-Saxons after the successful invasion of England by the Normans. At this time a large number of Anglo-Saxons and Danes immigrated to the Byzantine Empire by way of the Mediterranean. One source has more than 5,000 of them arriving in 235 ships. Those who did not enter imperial service were settled on the Black Sea, but those who did became so vital to the Varangians that it was commonly called the Englinbarrangoi from that point. In this capacity they were able to war against the Normans under Robert Guiscard in Sicily, who unsuccessfully sought to invade the lower Balkans as well.

 

David Moreno quote.

William of Normandy

Edited July 28, 2006 by longbow

[Pertinax]

Good, I knew Longbow would have the information.

Might I add, my understanding is that as the Huscarls were "hearth troops" with a bond of personal loyalty ,(in a reciprocal relationship of fidelity and reward) the death of Harald broke that relationship and they could honourably attend to the prestigious occupation of mercenary. One must remember that Senlach (Hastings) was a close fought battle and that these men were defeated but not dishonoured, their personal integrity would be best expressed by departing for gainful and honourable martial activity.

[P.Clodius]

I wonder if there isn't any good linguistic evidence that might speak to how thoroughly the Romans and Normans bothered to deal with the Brits. I seem to recall that most of the Latin influences on English date to the Norman conquest rather than the Roman one. If this is right, doesn't it suggest that the Normans treated the Brits as more equal than the Romans did? I mean, if the Romans were busier civilizing Britain than the Normans, why wasn't English latinized more during the Roman occupation?

Simple really. The Anglo-Saxon invasion ocurred post roman. Therefore there wasn't an english to influence prior to roman departure.

[Andrew Dalby]

I wonder if there isn't any good linguistic evidence that might speak to how thoroughly the Romans and Normans bothered to deal with the Brits. I seem to recall that most of the Latin influences on English date to the Norman conquest rather than the Roman one. If this is right, doesn't it suggest that the Normans treated the Brits as more equal than the Romans did? I mean, if the Romans were busier civilizing Britain than the Normans, why wasn't English latinized more during the Roman occupation?

Simple really. The Anglo-Saxon invasion ocurred post roman. Therefore there wasn't an english to influence prior to roman departure.

 

Exactly! Instead, what the Romans were doing all that time was influencing the Celtic language of Britain, which was eventually to become Welsh, Cornish and Breton. And in fact these languages do have a lot of Latin words.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Exactly! Instead, what the Romans were doing all that time was influencing the Celtic language of Britain, which was eventually to become Welsh, Cornish and Breton. And in fact these languages do have a lot of Latin words.

 

OK this clears things up quite a bit, but I'm still left wondering whether there have been quantitative studies on the amount of Roman linguistic influence versus Norman linguistic influence. Are there as many Latin-derived words in Welsh, Cornish, and Breton as there are French-derived words in English?

[WotWotius]

The bad press they receive is richly deserved in my view (there's no love for the Conqueror in Durham),the ten year Genocidal campaign in Northumberland was a diabolic act of savagery by the Normans.You have to do a fair bit of Pillaging and burning to make a Earldom the size of Northumbria uninhabitable,which one of the Doomsday books states.

 

This comes back to my original point: the Roman occupation of Britain involved vast amounts of genocide as well as oppressive military governments, however, unlike the Normans, they as still credited of the 'bringers of civilization' whereas William I and the Normans are (quite rightly) seen as butchers.

[Andrew Dalby]

Exactly! Instead, what the Romans were doing all that time was influencing the Celtic language of Britain, which was eventually to become Welsh, Cornish and Breton. And in fact these languages do have a lot of Latin words.

 

OK this clears things up quite a bit, but I'm still left wondering whether there have been quantitative studies on the amount of Roman linguistic influence versus Norman linguistic influence. Are there as many Latin-derived words in Welsh, Cornish, and Breton as there are French-derived words in English?

 

I suspect somewhat fewer. In fact it's extremely difficult to do meaningful statistics on such a point, because so much depends on the range of the dictionaries you happen to have available, whether you count dialect words, obsolete words, technical words, etc. etc. For Cornish, in particular, no dictionary was made before the language became extinct. (There are dictionaries now, but they are as thin as the surviving literature.) Even if you could do the statistics, it would be wrong to draw hasty conclusions. Here's a couple of reasons:

 

1. Welsh and Cornish both descend from dialects of British Celtic which would have been relatively uninfluenced by Latin (as compared with the dialects of the southern and eastern lowlands): so far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong) the Romans didn't settle much in either region, treating Wales rather as a military frontier.

 

2. If the few reports of Dark Age migrations are true, Breton would probably show the influence of the ancient dialects of the settled south-west (Somerset, Dorset, Gloucestershire ???) and therefore have more Latin borrowings than the other two. And I rather believe it does. But then, it would also have Latin borrowings coming from the period of settlement in Brittany -- and from contact with Latin/Old French on a continuing basis -- and it's not always easy to tell such layers of borrowings apart.

 

Anyone who wants to read more about this should look for Kenneth Hurlstone Jackson, \Language and history in early Britain\. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1953. Reprint: Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2000. A strikingly original and well-researched work.