The Normans

In an attempt to stop Viking raids on his territory in northern France, King Charles the Simple gave some land to a group of these northern invaders in 911.  Their new home was called Normandy ( the land of the northmen) and their leader Rollo became its first duke.  The Vikings fought on foot but the Normans as they became known, copied the French use of mounted knights and became formidable fighters.  When King Edward the Confessor of England died in 1066 his cousin Duke William of Normandy claimed he had been promised the English throne.  So he invaded with an army.  He defeated the new king, Harold, in battle near Hastings and brought knights castles and the feudal system to England.  At about the same time Norman adventures invaded parts of southern Italy and Sicily.

Image via Wikipedia

Making a knight

At about age seven a boy of noble birth was usually sent away to be fostered at a nobleman’s household, often that of his uncle or a great lord. He became a page and learned how to behave and ride.  At 14 years of age he became a knights apprentice and served as a squire. He was taught how to handle weapons and how to look after his master’s armor and horses.  He even went into battle with the knight helping him to put on his armor and assisting him if he was hurt or unhorsed.  He learned how to shoot a bow and carve meat at the dinner table.  Successful squires were knighted when they were around 21 years old.<iframe src=”http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=hubp0e225-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=0756630037&ref=tf_til&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr” style=”width:120px;height:240px;” scrolling=”no” marginwidth=”0″ marginheight=”0″ frameborder=”0″></iframe>

The duel, from the Latin duellum, meaning combat between two was always prearranged, in the days when it was considered the thing to do to regain one’s honour. This always took the form of combat with deadly weapons, the two persons involved obeying formal arrangements, in the presence of witnesses, called seconds.

It was usual for such extreme measure to be implemented when one person found themselves affronted or offended by another, though or mutual ill-feeling often played a part. The person called upon to accept the challenge had the right to name time, place, and weaponry to be used.

Traditionally, duels were conducted using swords or pistols, almost always fought early mornings at relatively secluded locations where disturbances were unlikely. Not that duelling was an ancient tradition by any means, old world single combats generally only happening in the course of war

The more familiar duel was conceived in arose the early Middle Ages, in Teutonic lands at first, judicial combat, legal of course, used to decide guilt for crimes and disputed land ownership, first legalized in AD501 by king of the Bourguignons Gundobad. The custom spread to France, prevalent, from the 10th to 12th centuries, and even sanctioned by the church when it involved church property. 11th century Normans brought the duel to England, and even as late as 1817, a case of murder was ordered settled by judicial combat by an English court.

Nonetheless, duelling as a matter of honour never did get legalized, history instead marked by laws banning it. Indeed, the practice in France caused so many deaths that, in 1602 ,King Henry IV declared duelling an offence punishable by death. In England during the reign of George III, 91 deaths happened because of 172 duels.

17th and 18th century attempts at banning it were ineffective, mainly because, though English common law held a duel killing to be murder, juries rarely convicted. The custom fell out of favour during Queen Victoria’s time, and in 1844 participation in army duels made the combatants subject to general court-martial, though it was 1928 before duelling was outlawed in Germany.

American duels were commonplace from 1621 onwards, frequently occurring during the 18th and 19th centuries and usually fatal. American patriot Button Gwinnett died in a 1777 duel, and statesman Alexander Hamilton was killed by political rival Aaron Burr in an 1804 duel. Duelling was outlawed in 1839 in one US state, becoming nationwide by the start of the 20th century, at which time it was almost universally prohibited by law as a criminal offense.

The main reason that duelling fell from grace was the simple fact of the the decline of the aristocracy, since the custom always had been the preserve of the upper classes. Realistically speaking, the combat indulged in had never, at first, been intended to be to the death, but as this became usual than simple injury, the attraction slowly started to wane. It may all have been done in the guise of settling a matter of honour, but there was rarely anything honourable about it.

Academics at the University of Dundee in Scotland have managed to re-create the face of a Viking woman, whose skeleton was discovered in York 30 years ago.

Facial reconstruction was possible with laser technology that created a 3D digital model.

Digital Eyes have been working with hair and a cap to complete the image.

The project was just one part of a £ 150,000 investment made Vinking Center in York.

Janice Aitken, researcher at Dundee University, explained how the woman’s face could be achieved. ” I used a program similar to those used to produce 3D animated films. We are glad that our work at the university will be seen by thousands of visitors to the museum Jorvi k, “said Aitken.

Vikings and Normans were traders, explorers and warriors Scandinavians who, in the period 800-1050, dominated the northern half of Europe.According to some historical sources, the Vikings would have even reached the coast of North America. Their courage and cruelty in battle are well known, but it should be noted that the Vikings were peaceful and occupations such as trade and building settlements (settlement).

Initially, the Vikings were settled as farmers in coastal regions. Later, using their superior art building and sailing ships, begin to practice piracy along the coasts seas, climbing and course of rivers, and were called “Vikings”, between 793 and 1066.

Because of their audacity, the Vikings were fierce opponents, who by their actions prey fear and panic spread among the native populations.

Find interesting articles like this one and other cool things for all the category’s written with a lot of professionalism here. 

Vesh The Halfwit – You Need A History Lesson Mate

Now and again I will get idiot comments to my articles. Normally I do not care, but one person recently has made comments that warrant a response.

I recently wrote an article about the Einstein qualities of the EDL – a grubby little racist movement in England. Think of Nazi’s with skinheads wearing tracksuits and you will get a pretty good idea of how murky the gene pool is where these knuckle draggers crawled out of.

Vesh – an alias and no picture. Most sub humans are pretty brave behind anonymity. Anyway this “Vesh” character left a few comment – one was a rant about Islamic terrorist and the other was a post of racists joke – I deleted that one because apart from being offensive, the jokes were crap.

I suspect that this “Vesh” seems to favour the sentiment of the EDL or believes that I am a Muslim. Doesn’t matter what I am, a person’s colour is irrelevant when responding to the inbred fascists.

I will use England rather than the UK for “Vesh’s” history lesson.

The EDL and “Vesh” keep banging on about Englishness and how we should stop the immigration into our country – There is no such thing a pure Englishness – it is a myth.

I will keep this simple “Vesh” that way you can print it of and show it to like minded friends, I am sure you will find someone who can read.

Modern England.

Due to the large numbers of people in this country whom refuse to work – life being much better on benefits, give you more time to breed and make future scroungers – There is a need for immigrant workers. You will find that they will be employed in the unskilled sector.

In the 1950’s migrant workers were invited to come to England with their families to fill holes in the employment market. Owing to war and the deaths it caused we had a shortage of adult males to fill positions. People from former British colonies were invited to settle here. Also, because the men were at war, the women were left to run the country in place of the men in factories, on farms and in shops. Women hoping to train to be nurses were unable to do so – We needed foreign nurses after to the war to cover the shortage new nurses that should have done their training.

Industrial England.

All you history fans should know that Britain is the birth place of the Industrial Revolution – A boom in technology and production. Industry exploded in a very short time, there weren’t enough people to be workers. Once again immigrant workers came to our aid.

1066.

A very famous date in English history, the last time we were beaten in a war. The Normans (French) kicked our arses and took over this green and pleasant land. We had Norman Lords take over large chunks of land. Descendants of those Lords are today, very powerful and rich “Englishmen”

English culture has so many French influences, our language has thousands of old French words.

The English of the time had to integrate themselves into the Norman culture.

34AD.

Before the Normans, the Romans took over our country – we were enslaved by them. They took over the country on a much bigger scale than the Normans – we became part of the Roman empire. They even brought Christianity to this country, we were Pagans before that, even the religion isn’t ours

Lets not forget the Vikings.

Even before the Romans, the Viking would invade on a fairly regular basis. It was like a holiday – Raping, pillaging and getting a few souvenirs.

The dawn of Human evolution.

It is now strongly believed that all human life started in Africa a few million years ago – that makes the rest of the World migrants.

So, it is safe to bet that most English people have either a bit of African, Viking, Roman or Norman in them.

So “Vesh” and the EDL – What does Englishness mean?

Just for you, because you liked it so much I have added the clip of the idiot again.

Notice the phrase “Muslamic Infidel”.

Apart from Muslamic – how funny is that?

An Infidel is one that does not believe or worship Allah

The phrase is just stupid!

Oh before I forget – The English flag is the worst flag in the world – lacks imagination. No wonder we use the Union Flag instead　

- Share 90% of site revenue

In the year 1189, Richard I became the English King, he quickly announced his plan to join the crusades, the military campaign in the Middle East, this announcement began a series of anti-Jewish resentments, including one rumour that the king had given the order that English Jews were to be attacked. In the city of York tension turned into violence the next year. Richard de Malbis, owed money to a powerful Jewish merchant named Aaron of Lincoln. Malbis using a recent house fire as reason managed to incite a mob to then attack the home of the family of  one of Aaron’s employees that had only just passed away.

The leader of the Jewish community in York led all the Jewish families into the royal castle for protection. They were then housed in the wooden keep of Clifford’s Tower. A mob soon surrounded the castle and the constable left to discuss the situation with the sheriff. Once he had left the castle the Jews refused to allow him back inside fearing that if they opened the gate the mob would make their way inside or they would all be before the sheriff. The sheriff then called his own men to surround the castle and lay siege.

The siege continued until the 16th of March and the religious leader, Rabbi Yomtob proposed that they collectively commit suicide to avoid being subjected to the mob. The castle was set on fire to prevent their bodies being mutilated after they had perished. Many of those trapped inside the tower died in the flames and the majority killed themselves rather than face the mob outside the walls. A few of those inside surrendered and gave a promise that they would convert to chrisianity, they did not have a chance to convert, the angry mob killed them anyway. An estimated 150 died in the massacre, the keep was soon rebuilt, once more in wood only this time with higher walls.

The Celts

When:    1000 BC

Where:  Central and Western Europe (

Why:

The Romans

When:   43-410 AD

Where: Rome

Why:     Conquer

Vikings

When:  400-600 AD

Where: Modern Germany

Why:     Conquer / Settlement

Normans

When:  789-1104 AD

Where: Scandinavia

Why:    Conquer & then afterwards settlement

Jews

When:  1066-1290 & 1881-1914 & 1933-1939

Where: Many places

Why:     Immigration & settlement

Gypsies

When:   1500-1562

Where:  Egypt

Why:      Immigration

Palatines

When:   1693-1709

Where:  German Palitinate

Why:     

Africans

When:    1555-1833

Where:   Africa

Why:       Slaves

Indians & Chinese

When:    1700 onwards

Where:   Asia

Why:       Immigration

Germans & Italians

When:    1700 onwards

Where:   Europe

Why:       Immigration

Poles

When:    1931 onwards

Where:  Poland

Why:      Asylum seekers (WW2)

 Edward the Confessor, King of England, died in January 1066 without leaving an obvious heir.  The throne was immediately claimed by Harold Godwinson, son of the Earl Godwin, one of Edward’s most powerful nobles.  He was not of the royal line, but was accepted as many believed (or chose to believe) that the Confessor had selected him as his heir. 

William, Duke of Normandy, begged to differ.  Unlike Harold, he was a relative of Edward’s (his grandfather’s sister had been Edward’s mother) and he also claimed that the old king had bequeathed the throne to him.  It is true that Harold made a journey to Normandy in the years leading up to Edward’s death.  If the Bayeux Tapestry is to be believed, he swore an oath to William that he would support him when the time came to claim the crown.

Image via Wikipedia

Regardless of whether or not Harold did swear, and whether or not he was compelled to swear, when William was informed of Harold’s coronation he took this as a declaration of war.  He began to make preparations for an invasion.

The Events of 1066

 Harold certainly cannot claim total ignorance of William’s claim to the throne.  The invasion was anticipated and September 1066 saw the new king camped with his army in the south of England watching the channel for Norman ships.

It was at this point that family infighting returned to haunt Harold and seriously undermined his chances of beating William.  Harold’s older brother Tostig had formerly been Earl of Northumberland.  His behaviour in the north had so outraged the local barons that they had complained to Harold.  He had intervened in the conflict and to Tostig’s disgust had taken the part of the barons and expelled his brother from his position.

Tostig was bent on revenge and persuaded the Norwegian king Harold Hardrada, to invade England in search of the crown.  Yet again a justification was felt necessary, and the invaders claimed that the Confessor had in fact promised the throne to Hardrada’s predecessor.  They landed in the north of England in September 1066 and advanced on York.  Harold received the news and immediately led his army north to meet the Vikings.

Image via Wikipedia

They met at Stamford Bridge, just outside York and fought a battle.  Hardrada and Tostig were killed and the invaders convincingly beaten.  The battle had taken its toll on Harold’s army, too.  They were tired from their march up the country, battle worn and in need of rest.  Harold was still celebrating the victory in York when he received the news that William had landed on the south coast.  He gathered the remains of his weary forces and headed south with all speed.

The Saxon army covered the 175 mile journey in just six days and met William’s army at Senlac Hill, Hastings.  The battle took place on 14th October 1066.  For a long time, it was a stalemate.  The Normans broke themselves against Harold’s impenetrable shield wall.  William was in the forefront of the battle.  Rumours spread that he was dead when his horse was killed underneath him.  William (presumably having found another horse), threw back his helmet to show his men that he was alive and fighting still.  This seemed to inspire the Norman fighters and they battled on.

What happened next is open to dispute, but the consensus seems to be that the Normans tried an old tactic.  They pretended to retreat.  Many of the Saxon huskarls (Harold’s personal bodyguard) followed only to be mown down in an ambush.  According to the Bayeux Tapestry the battle was decided when Harold himself was killed with an arrow in his eye.  Normans surrounded him to finish him off and the bulk of the Saxon army melted away.

Image via Wikipedia

Aftermath

William, the battle won, still was not King of England.  He had to get himself and his army to London and persuade the English to crown him.  Upon the death of Harold, Edgar the Atheling (great-nephew of Edward the Confessor) had been proclaimed king.  He was only around fifteen and had been deemed too young to succeed when the alternative had been Harold.  However as the strongest claimant to the throne apart from William, he was now the Saxon royal line’s best hope of defeating the invaders.

William was determined to overwhelm the forces of the uncrowned Edgar and proceeded to cut a swathe between Hastings and London.  He burned, pillaged and looted the land into submission.  Edgar’s military response was no match for the co-ordinated Norman forces and he had no option but to formally submit to William in London late in 1066.

William was crowned on Christmas day in 1066 in Edward the Confessor’s new abbey of Westminster.  He continued to rule England by the sword, using a combination of Norman soldiery and imposing castles to subdue the Saxon population until his death in 1087.

Perhaps it’s time to rectify that situation.

The Defenders

The common misconception is that, before the Normans arrived in England, the English were Nordic barbarians. This is simply not true. The English of the early eleventh century were a cultured people, particularly the nobility. Extravagant dress was the order of the day at the court of King Edward the Confessor (AD 1042-1066). The Normans are even on record as thinking the English fashion “effeminate.”

Many in the English upper classes could read and write, and literature was prized. As a society, the English were pious, although the English Church was not necessarily orthodox, as its isolation provided some freedom from canonical rigidity. Of all the “crimes” of which the Normans accused the English nation, only religious unorthodoxy, really “different-ness,” held any weight, and even this claim was largely a matter of semantics. At this time, the English language was very closely related to German, and is commonly called “Old English,” and most English people were of Germanic descent.

In the English army, cavalry was nonexistent, and the chief defensive tactic involved the construction of a shield wall. The entire army would form a massive line, about eight men deep, every soldier overlapping his shield with that of the man to his left. This tactic provided excellent protection from an advancing enemy, but at the cost of maneuverability.

Finally, the English government was quite unlike that of any other European nation. The real power in England rested in the hands of seven earls. The kingship did not necessarily pass from father to son, and neither was the king all-powerful. The successor-who had to be descended from Alfred the Great (9th century AD)-would be a man of standing in the nation, and had to be approved by the witan. The witan were essentially a “proto-parliament,” a council that advised the king. In theory, any freeman could serve on the council, though in practice such suffrage as it permitted was generally reserved for the nobility. There were, however, also various local assemblies where peasants served in greater numbers.

The Invaders

The invading Normans, as most historians describe them, were barbaric by comparison. The flamboyant clothing of the English nobility was shunned in favor of more practical dress that served for hunting and sports as well as for battle. By and large, the Norman court was illiterate-William the Conqueror never learned to read or write. Poetry and literature were scorned as “priestly” pastimes, and religion served a political purpose. William the Conqueror deliberately used the church to discredit King Harold. Although Catholic historians often mention the duke as having been a friend of the church, his aggressiveness suggests that he was far from a saint. Understandably, being strongly connected with the mainstream church, the Catholics of Normandy were extremely devout-in word if not in deed.

Two hundred years earlier, a group of Norsemen (Vikings) had conquered the territory of Normandy, giving their name to the land. By the time of William the Conqueror, these Norsemen had become Normans, but their language, although ostensibly a dialect of French, still contained much of the old Scandinavian speech, and the Normans were as warlike as their fathers had been. Before William conquered England, he had conquered several parts of France and even ravaged Sicily.

The Norman army had one of the more modern cavalry armies of Europe. Chivalry, the great knightly code, was still in its infancy at this time, but William’s most important troops were already his knights. Chivalry was merely another excuse to make war-which is essentially what it remained throughout the Middle Ages. At Hastings, only two thousand Norman cavalrymen destroyed an eight-thousand-man English shield wall.

Finally, Normandy was an utter autocracy. There were no advisory councils, and barons were expected to give their undying support to the duke, whether they agreed with him or not. This was a thoroughly feudalistic society-and a relatively brutal one.

The Results

Out of the joining of these two very different nations came the England and the English culture we know today. It is impossible to guess what England might have been had things gone differently, because the last nine hundred years of English history are the result of William’s victory.

We can, however, study what happened after his conquest. There can be little doubt that the initial effects of the Norman victory were catastrophic. Villages were razed, thousands of peasants were mercilessly slaughtered, and most common people were soon living in a kind of poverty heretofore unknown. No longer could a peasant take his complaint to a council, but must instead face a lord who didn’t speak that peasant’s language.

In fact, some the more lasting effects of the Norman invasion can be seen and heard every moment of the day. The conquest certainly brought England out of isolation and into contact with mainland Europe and its ideas, yet it also permanently stratified English society and political structure along class lines, and it “re-sanctified” the legitimacy of the hereditary nobility that endures in English custom even to this day. Moreover, the very fact that you are reading this article in a language called “English” is testament to the lasting impact of the conquest. Previously, Old English was a predominantly Germanic tongue. After the Normans arrived, Old English began to absorb words from Norman- and High French, as well as from Latin. The mish-mash that resulted is the language we now speak.

As famous as 1066 and Harold’s last battle is the Bayeux Tapestry, a Norman work of art that immortalized events and the final moments of Harold’s life. For centuries, the version of history taught as fact is that depicted in the Tapestry; Harold, so the Norman story goes, was hit in the eye with an arrow at the height of the battle. With the death of their King, the English army was defeated. However, the events received as fact for hundreds of years are, in fact, wrong.

It is certainly true that Harold and William brought their armies to Hastings and there met in battle. However, the story related in the Bayeux Tapestry was conceived over a century later by French nuns who had only fragmentary accounts of events on which to base their tapestry. To understand what really happened on that day in 1066, one must be in possession of certain facts that the originators of the tapestry were ignorant.

First, it is necessary to understand that a group of nuns living in a convent in France had little or no contact with the outside world; while they had correct knowledge of the arms and armor used by both sides at Hastings, they were utterly devoid of any military experience; they lived in an age of total female repression where women were utterly excluded from military matters.

Second, it must be understood that the eyeslit of an English helm was little more than an inch (about 3cm) across. While Norman helmets were visorless and sported only a nose guard to protect the wearer’s face, English helms at that time were based on the Anglo-Saxon design, featuring a half-face visor that left only the wearer’s mouth and jaw exposed. Even at close range, with an unimpeded aim and no distraction, only a highly proficient archer would be capable of hitting such a minute target. At Hastings, as at every other battle of the era, the archers were positioned at the farthest limits of bowshot, well back from the savage melee of swords, axes and spears that constituted the center of the fight. The method of archery used under such circumstances was not to loose specific shots at individual targets, but to shoot upwards, over the heads of one’s own infantry, to pour arrows down like rain on the enemy. To prove this it is necessary only to glance again at the helmets worn by fighting men at the time; both Norman and English helms were conical, specifically designed to deflect arrows and weapons falling from above.

Third, Harold’s army was constituted according to the Anglo-Saxon method, which derived from the older tribal formations of the Celts and the Saxons; the elite nobility of Harold’s army, the thegnes (sometimes rendered “thanes”), fought as a single unit massed around the king. In England at the time, tartan was used to denote rank; the king wore seven-colored tartan, his thegnes and nobility wore five or six colors. Beyond the immediate ranks of the king and his retinue, the peasant infantry and archers then formed the main body of the army. A similar arrangement was used by the Normans; the king at the centre of the cavalry, mainly consisting armored knights, with vast numbers of spearmen and archers in support.

Picture the scene; Harold and his thegnes, a mass of men in identical armor, the king distinguished only by a single additional color in his tartan, swept up in the heart of the battle while archers on both sides rained down arrows. At the maximum range of a Norman bow, it would be impossible to distinguish the king of either side from the battling men around him. While it is not impossible to think that, given the sheer number of arrows fired, a number of shots might find their marks by chance in the eyeslits of English helms, the odds of actually hitting Harold himself are inconceivable.

So what happened? Let us move the camera closer; zoom in to the melee and focus on Harold himself in the thick of battle. An arrow strikes, by chance, in the eye of a thegne fighting close at his side. The thegne falls and a cry goes up among the Norman knights; “The English King is dead!”; they are mistaken, but the same mathematics that apply to the archers also apply to Harold’s own men; the vast majority of the English army are far from their king, cannot see or hear him, and in any case have never met the man himself. The cry is taken up, first by the French and then the English; Harold’s army begins to crumble, morale shattered by the presumed death of their king.

It is a matter of historical fact that Harold died at the Battle of Hastings, but the evidence thus far leads us to theorize so; to prevent a rout, Harold sweeps off his helm and declares himself to be alive. His thegnes are immediately emboldened, but the Norman knights close enough to hear the king’s voice immediately hack him apart.

To prove the theory, let us return to historical fact; before the Norman invasion, it was a saying in England “that man is a coward who leaves his king on the field in death“; with Harold’s fall, his thegnes stood their ground and fought to the last man. The rest of Harold’s army, peasant levies all, routed and fled, leaving the military commanders of the country to die with their king. Consequently, the Battle of Hastings was decisive simply because following it, there was no one left alive to rally another army to throw back the invaders and England was conquered at a stroke.

But what of Harold? Remember that the Bayeux Tapestry was fashioned long after the events themselves, by women who were not there. However, Norman records following the battle attest that Harold’s body was recovered from the battlefield. As was the style among the English nobility at the time, Harold was heavily tattooed; the body presented to William was in pieces, recognizable only by the tattoos on his arms and torso. The same Norman records mention no arrow wounds; Harold was hacked to death by Norman swords, exactly as illustrated above. The story of King Harold dying from an arrow in the eye is a total fabrication, born of a rumour on the battlefield and cemented in history by the fanciful account drawn up long years after his death.