In this video mini-series, we take a look at the Normans and the impact they had and have had on English society from various locations of significance in Normandy itself. The first documentary is from Barfleur, embarkation point of the Norman fleet before it set sail to England. I give some general information on the Duchy of Normandy's foundation and the dukes, as well as background information on England's recent history leading up to the invasion in 1066. The discussion of the aftermath, which sets up the next video on how they transformed the social order:
Next stop Bayeux, where we analyse the English social order, how it changed and how the Jews of Rouen were brought over to commit usury against the English and were placed in a higher position of power. We discuss the cathedral itself and one of its saints, Thérèse Bénédicte, alias Edith Stein, a German Jewess who converted to Roman Catholicism and petitioned the Pope to intervene in the politics of the National Socialist government on behalf of the Jews. Is her rise within the Roman Catholic Church as alleged martyr and saint further evidence of the move towards Holocaustianity?
Lastly, our series concludes with a visit to the castle of Falaise, where we take a look at Norman propaganda and the influence on today's state propaganda machine, which can be seen in films like Antoine Fuqua's 2004 box-office flop King Arthur. We also view the Norman precedent for the cancerous rigid class system to follow and what impact this has had on the ruling elites of today, as isolated from the rest of society, creating an inorganic relationship between rulers and ruled, especially when inorganic elements are brought in from outside and raised above the lower orders, just as they were by the Normans.
This is interesting. There are some things I would disagree on however. Though the Normans certainly following 1066 found it useful to use the long running conflict between Briton and Saxon for propaganda purposes, it does not follow that therefore that such conflicts were not real or long standing (even though they were embellished upon) or that it would have been considered at the time that there were not old long running land rights scores to settle. The account rests on far more than Geoffrey of Monmouth (and is a lot more interesting) and is supported by both archeological and textual evidence. The Breton link is not a spurious one, (nor is it soley Welsh, though obviously surviving textual links are strongest there.) On another point also; though the idea of 'the Norman yoke' became a long standing one it has to be remembered that in the course of history the Norman invasion over time was probably greatly beneficial to Britain and to England in the long run - leading to a fortification of the island and a Norman defence system that served it well - as well as the creation of a strong warrior class. The Normans were also, through intermarriage, well mixed with the Germanic Frankish tribes prior to 1066 (the Bructeri, saliens,etc) as well as the Gallia Belgica and also with displaced Britons in their ranks. Links to Britain had been established of course for centuries before 1066. The grandaughter of Rollo - Emma of Normandy was married to Aethelred the Unready and was the mother of Edward the Confessor. Though there were tribal differences, the conflict reads more of an intercenine family dispute. -John
"Archeological and textual evidence...." You need to provide sources for your claims, as I do, otherwise anyone can invent any story. You have made a fundamental error in your thesis in seeing the Welsh and Saxons as two separate and unified groups. The North largely still identified itself as Danish too. Welsh, Saxon and Danish leaders often helped each other in power struggles, such as when Harold Godwinson installed Bleddyn as King of Gwynedd. Again, I refer you to Orderic Vitalis, as well as Bede and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle(s).
English society changed with the Norman Conquest. I am aware of these marriages of which you speak, but that has no bearing on what I have said. The Normans were CULTURALLY different and SAW themselves as different and instituted a rigid class system. The Norman system was so beneficial that we saw our Anglo-Saxon and Danish warriors actually leave the country, usually for Constantinople. The Normans had a reputation as oppressors and not without good reason. We are in the situation we are in in part due to the Norman norms instituted in society, as I explained in the videos.
This is interesting. There are some things I would disagree on however.
ReplyDeleteThough the Normans certainly following 1066 found it useful to use the long running conflict between Briton and Saxon for propaganda purposes, it does not follow that therefore that such conflicts were not real or long standing (even though they were embellished upon) or that it would have been considered at the time that there were not old long running land rights scores to settle. The account rests on far more than Geoffrey of Monmouth (and is a lot more interesting) and is supported by both archeological and textual evidence. The Breton link is not a spurious one, (nor is it soley Welsh, though obviously surviving textual links are strongest there.)
On another point also; though the idea of 'the Norman yoke' became a long standing one it has to be remembered that in the course of history the Norman invasion over time was probably greatly beneficial to Britain and to England in the long run - leading to a fortification of the island and a Norman defence system that served it well - as well as the creation of a strong warrior class.
The Normans were also, through intermarriage, well mixed with the Germanic Frankish tribes prior to 1066 (the Bructeri, saliens,etc) as well as the Gallia Belgica and also with displaced Britons in their ranks. Links to Britain had been established of course for centuries before 1066.
The grandaughter of Rollo - Emma of Normandy was married to Aethelred the Unready and was the mother of Edward the Confessor. Though there were tribal differences, the conflict reads more of an intercenine family dispute.
-John
"Archeological and textual evidence...." You need to provide sources for your claims, as I do, otherwise anyone can invent any story. You have made a fundamental error in your thesis in seeing the Welsh and Saxons as two separate and unified groups. The North largely still identified itself as Danish too. Welsh, Saxon and Danish leaders often helped each other in power struggles, such as when Harold Godwinson installed Bleddyn as King of Gwynedd. Again, I refer you to Orderic Vitalis, as well as Bede and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle(s).
DeleteEnglish society changed with the Norman Conquest. I am aware of these marriages of which you speak, but that has no bearing on what I have said. The Normans were CULTURALLY different and SAW themselves as different and instituted a rigid class system. The Norman system was so beneficial that we saw our Anglo-Saxon and Danish warriors actually leave the country, usually for Constantinople. The Normans had a reputation as oppressors and not without good reason. We are in the situation we are in in part due to the Norman norms instituted in society, as I explained in the videos.