Factual history of Britain
Rémi Moyen
First post here. I usually don't think useful to introduce myself at
length on newsgroups, but as I think my question is quite original, it
would perhaps be best for me to explain why I come to this... So, I'm a
french living now in London (hope my english isn't too bad -- and not
sounding too american!), and wanting to look a bit more at english
history. I'm, I believe, quite learned in french history (especially
middle-ages and modern times) -- more than the average french, say --
but I'm afraid that my knowledge of english history does not go further
than Henry VIII and his 5 (? 8 ?) wifes, or Cromwell and the beheading
of Charles I. Well, a bit further than that, but not so much.
So, I'm currently reading "the Oxford history of Britain", by K. O.
Morgan, which I find very intersting. But for many things it is much
more an *analysis* of british history than the *facts* of british history.
Don't get me wrong, I understand that for people having learned that at
school, it would be very boring to re-(re-re-...)read about things
deeply rooted in english culture, and that an analysis is much more
interesting than just a rerun of events. However, I'm sometimes quite
lost at various history points where the author directly goes to
analysing the consequences without recalling the course of events.
So, and here comes the reason of this post, would somebody here know a
book which would give me a quick course of events, without taking for
granted that I already know who's who and when did each battle happen?
If possible, not something to naive (ie., not something directed at
young children!)...
In fact, it could be some kind of historic dictionnary more than a
linear "story book". All I want is to be able to find easily all the
great events and (wo)men of english history in it.
Thanks!
PS: could you tell me what other british-history ng is there around? I
saw soc.history.medieval, but I'm afraid there is too much traffic for
me. Are there other ones?
--
Rémi Moyen
a.spencer3
"Rémi Moyen" <r.moye...@ukonline.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:4380e88d$0$32753$626a...@news.free.fr...
'1066 & All That'? :-))
Surreyman
Don Phillipson
news:4380e88d$0$32753$626a...@news.free.fr...
> I'm currently reading "the Oxford history of Britain", by K. O.
> Morgan, which I find very intersting. But for many things it is much
> more an *analysis* of british history than the *facts* of british history.
> . . .
> would somebody here know a
> book which would give me a quick course of events, without taking for
> granted that I already know who's who and when did each battle happen?
You really have two requirements, explicitly for a
comprehensive history and implicitly for a book so
engaging you can read it for pleasure as well. One
approach might be to take a pair of authors and compare
them. I would specifically recommend (a) the Pelican
History of England, a dozen volumes by various authors:
just pick a century that interests you most and read
that, with one eye on the writer's personality and style;
(b) Simon Schama's recent history of Britain (the
book of the multi-hour TV series.)
You would be unlikely to hit your ideal target first
time: but knowing what you do not specially like,
and being able to say why, will enrich your next
conversation with a librarian or a whole shelf of histories.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Thur
"Don Phillipson" <d.phil...@ttrryytteell.com> wrote in message
news:QRigf.4690$XR4....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
Forgive me as I am answering it via the first reply.
Remi, for one set of books to provide all the facts you
might require on such a vast subject is asking too much.
Some periods like those before about AD1300 are very
short on documents, especially before 1066.
Therefore a history of such a period is bound to contain
long tracts of analysis, since the data is so scarce and
possibly erroneous.
With regard to two eras where data is scarce :-
I would recommend Peter Salway's "Roman Britain",
which may be part of your edition.
Many people have written that Frank Stenton's Anglo-Saxon
England" is the "Bible" for the period, but I have found
a preference for Hodgkin's much earlier work "History of
the Anglo-Saxons" because (Vol I) he is so open about
the problems of scarcity of reliable data, and lays the problems
out in a readable manner.
[Of course, Scots and Welsh might object to the use of
"England" for Britain.]
I cannot comment on Vol II yet.
--
Thur
Alex Craven
If you think that the Morgan book is not narrative enough, then you
really will struggle to find a narrative to your taste. You could try
supplementing your reading with these:
Sean Lang, British History for Dumies, (John Wiley: London, 2003), ISBN:
0764570218, £14.99.
Ross Stewart, Teach Yourself the British Monarchy from Henry VIII,
(Hodder: London, 2005), ISBN: 0340889276, £8.99.
The Oxford Dictionary of British History, (OUP: Oxford, 2004, ISBN:
01986008853, £9.99.
Alan and Veronica Palmer, The Pimlico Chronology of British History,
(Pimlico: London, 1996), ISBN: 0712673318, £15.
There are also some children's enclopaedia that you might find useful.
If you live in London, just head into one of the many large shops
(Blackwell's or Foyle's in Charing Cross Road, or Waterstones in
Piccadilly Circus, for instance), to see what is in stock.
The Morgan book is a good introduction to the subject, with each section
written by a recognised specialist in the field, and it is relatively
recent. I wouldn't bother with Schama, as the TV series was so
incresibly disappointing. Ditto Starkey and "Monarchy". My advice
would be to start reading more specific books about particular
periods/people that interest you. Wander into a bookshop and just dip in.
Oh, and keep posting here, as there are precious few posters on the ng
dealing with British history.
Cheers, Alex
Spiv
"Alex Craven" <alex....@NOSPAMtesco.net> wrote in message
news:qikgf.6335$D03....@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
I find Starkey a boring pillock and in addition, the series was so biased
towards the monarchy, leaving out relevant facts that would put them in bad
light, it was pathetic. When the presenter is boring, it makes you switch
channel.
Schama wasn't that bad.
John Cartmell
But the gaps were disappointing.
--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing
Alex Craven
>>Schama wasn't that bad.
>
>
> But the gaps were disappointing.
It would have been more palatable had it been called "A History of England".
Cheers, Alex
Rémi Moyen
>> So, and here comes the reason of this post, would somebody here know a
>> book which would give me a quick course of events, without taking for
>> granted that I already know who's who and when did each battle happen?
>> If possible, not something to naive (ie., not something directed at
>> young children!)...
>>
>> In fact, it could be some kind of historic dictionnary more than a
>> linear "story book". All I want is to be able to find easily all the
>> great events and (wo)men of english history in it.
>
>
> If you think that the Morgan book is not narrative enough, then you
> really will struggle to find a narrative to your taste.
Yes, I guess so. If someone was to ask me the same thing for french
history, I would also have difficulties finding an answer... As a matter
of fact, I'm wondering whether I should look at french books: contrary
to english ones, they would obviously be focused at readers not familiar
with english history!
> You could try
> supplementing your reading with these:
Thanks, references noted. I'll have a look in a book shop. And many
thanks also for the other references cited in this thread.
> There are also some children's enclopaedia that you might find useful.
Hmm... Maybe... But I'm afraid I'll find them too naive. Anyway, I'll
take a look at these too.
> The Morgan book is a good introduction to the subject, with each section
> written by a recognised specialist in the field, and it is relatively
> recent.
Well, it is really interesting. And, thinking again, the first chapters
(roman era, saxon and middle-ages) aren't so bad for what I'm looking
after. It's when coming to Tudors and Stuart, and then especially to
XVIIIth and XIXth century that I get lost...
> My advice
> would be to start reading more specific books about particular
> periods/people that interest you. Wander into a bookshop and just dip in.
I'll also do that, for sure. But I wanted to start with some kind of
generic book, in order to get a correct background.
> Oh, and keep posting here, as there are precious few posters on the ng
> dealing with British history.
I guess I'll be asking some more bibliography questions to start with :-)
I'll be probably be looking first at either something about late
saxon/early norman (I'm quite fond of the installation of feodality in
France, so I would like to compare that with England), or the civil war
(as this is probably the most "original" period, comparing to what I know).
--
Rémi Moyen
Rémi Moyen
>>So, and here comes the reason of this post, would somebody here know a
>>book which would give me a quick course of events, without taking for
>>granted that I already know who's who and when did each battle happen?
>>If possible, not something to naive (ie., not something directed at
>>young children!)...
> '1066 & All That'? :-))
I'm probably missing the joke... Is that a real history book, or some
kind of parody ?
--
Rémi Moyen
Rémi Moyen
Thur a écrit :
> "Don Phillipson" <d.phil...@ttrryytteell.com> wrote in message
> news:QRigf.4690$XR4....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
>>You really have two requirements, explicitly for a
>>comprehensive history and implicitly for a book so
>>engaging you can read it for pleasure as well.
Right. I think the second need is more ponctual (I won't reread it very
often), while the first one is more basic (I want something I can refer
to every time I'll read something where the author didn't detail events
so basic for him, but not for me).
>>I would specifically recommend (a) the Pelican
>>History of England, a dozen volumes by various authors:
[...]
> Remi, for one set of books to provide all the facts you
> might require on such a vast subject is asking too much.
Hum, I'm not really looking for something that big! I know it's
difficult to cover 2 000 years with details in few pages, but I'll be
later going more into the details of periods I prefer: I just want
something simple and global to start with.
> I would recommend Peter Salway's "Roman Britain",
> which may be part of your edition.
Yes, it is. I was a bit quick in saying that I was lost all the time.
The first chapters, up to the early Tudors, is detailled enough for me
(altough the war of the roses is a bit messy -- but I guess that the
events were messy, anyway ;-) ). It's more from 1500 onwards that many
things are a bit light for me.
As an example, I found again a sentence summarizing my problem. In "The
Tudor Age", the author (J. Guy) says:
"The matrimonial adventures of Henry VIII are too familiar to recount
again in detail".
Hey, *I*'m not familiar with these! Tell me! :-)
Ok, this is not a so good example, as the following of the text is in
fact quite detailled about this part (and as it is not per se really
important), but I think this illustrate clearly my point.
> Many people have written that Frank Stenton's Anglo-Saxon
> England" is the "Bible" for the period, but I have found
> a preference for Hodgkin's much earlier work "History of
> the Anglo-Saxons" because (Vol I) he is so open about
> the problems of scarcity of reliable data, and lays the problems
> out in a readable manner.
Ok. Saxon history won't probably be my main focus, altough the last
century or so cover one of my favorite times in french history. I'll
taking good note of your comments.
Thanks for all your suggestions!
--
Rémi Moyen
John Cartmell
It's the only history book. Its conclusion has been much discussed on this ng
recently. ;-)
Try reading the Wikipedia entry - especially the last sentence - and note that
those of us posting here from here with any true feeling for the subject are
probably thinking of the S&Y descriptions of British History as we write our
own description...
Alex Craven
John Cannon (Ed.), The Oxford Companion to British History, (OUP:
Oxford, 2002), ISBN: 0198605145, £19.99 - a hefty hardback, which is
essentially an encyclopaedia of British history.
Norman Davies, The Isles, (Macmillan: Basingstoke, 2000), ISBN:
0333692837, £16.99 - a comprehensive history of the British Isles; not a
perfect book, but a fulsome narrative.
Cheers, Alex
Alex Craven
> recently. ;-)
> Try reading the Wikipedia entry - especially the last sentence - and note that
> those of us posting here from here with any true feeling for the subject are
> probably thinking of the S&Y descriptions of British History as we write our
> own description...
>
(Although I was discussing how Britain became "Top Nation" with my World
History group today. Sadly, I don't think any of my students got the
reference :-( Even worse, only one student understood a blatant refence
to the Monty Python Spanish Inquisition sketch a couple of weeks ago.
They are just getting too young! I'll be teaching kids born in the '90s
in a couple of years - eek!)
Cheers, Alex
Martin
"Rémi Moyen" <r.moye...@ukonline.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:4380e88d$0$32753$626a...@news.free.fr...
>
> First post here. I usually don't think useful to introduce myself at
> length on newsgroups, but as I think my question is quite original, it
> would perhaps be best for me to explain why I come to this... So, I'm a
> french living now in London (hope my english isn't too bad -- and not
> sounding too american!), and wanting to look a bit more at english
> history. I'm, I believe, quite learned in french history (especially
> middle-ages and modern times) -- more than the average french, say --
> but I'm afraid that my knowledge of english history does not go further
> than Henry VIII and his 5 (? 8 ?) wifes, or Cromwell and the beheading
> of Charles I. Well, a bit further than that, but not so much.
Sacre Bleu! Have you forgotten the Hundred Years War? :¬)
I am xposting to soc.history.medieval which will provide you with plenty of
history, and many 'lively' opinions, ideas and... well, you'll see!
> So, I'm currently reading "the Oxford history of Britain", by K. O.
> Morgan, which I find very intersting. But for many things it is much
> more an *analysis* of british history than the *facts* of british history.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I understand that for people having learned that at
> school, it would be very boring to re-(re-re-...)read about things
> deeply rooted in english culture, and that an analysis is much more
> interesting than just a rerun of events. However, I'm sometimes quite
> lost at various history points where the author directly goes to
> analysing the consequences without recalling the course of events.
It depends what you are interested in really, lists of dates and Kings are a
vital part of history of course, but so is the development of technology,
agriculture and the way social and economic structures changed. To me, the most
fascinating part is how thoughts and ideas changed, though they all hang
together in the end... which is now I suppose?
What are your particular areas of interest I wonder - the subject is so vast,
you have to 'start somewhere'?
> So, and here comes the reason of this post, would somebody here know a
> book which would give me a quick course of events, without taking for
> granted that I already know who's who and when did each battle happen?
> If possible, not something to naive (ie., not something directed at
> young children!)...
The Oxford histories are good and reliable, but somewhat dry. Best you think of
a particular area of interest perhaps, as most 'decent' books specialise on some
particular aspect or period. There is so much - my personal 'field' is the Wars
of the Roses', very narrow band in time and location, but it has led me to learn
about all sorts of fascinating things in pursuit of it. Others better read and
informed than I will hopefully make some good suggestions... where would you
like to start?
> In fact, it could be some kind of historic dictionnary more than a
> linear "story book". All I want is to be able to find easily all the
> great events and (wo)men of english history in it.
>
> Thanks!
>
> PS: could you tell me what other british-history ng is there around? I
> saw soc.history.medieval, but I'm afraid there is too much traffic for
> me. Are there other ones?
Too much merde you mean? Not always, it is a valuable resource, you just have to
be 'selective'.
Votre Anglais est parfait Rémi, in fact, better than the English of many
Englishmen!
Cheers
Martin
Martin
"Alex Craven" <alex....@NOSPAMtesco.net> wrote in message
May the Lord have mercy on thy soul!
Martin
"Rémi Moyen" <r.moye...@ukonline.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
In the meantime, I'll briefly explain 'The Wars of the Roses'.
Quite rightly, this is often described as "the most complicated period in
British history".
The quick explanation is that this is what happens when law and order break
down, and the country descends into gangsterism under local warlords. A bit like
Afghanistan is today, only with different weapons. There is more, but not on a
Tuesday night perhaps?
Cheers
Martin
Martin
"John Cartmell" <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4dcd573...@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
> In article <4381dffd$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
> Spiv <nyl...@goawayspam.com> wrote:
> > Schama wasn't that bad.
>
> But the gaps were disappointing.
I thought so too - no mention of Warwick the Kingmaker...
Eve
I found the Roy Strong book, "The Story of Britian", an easy and
entertaining introduction to English history. The companion book, "The
Spirit of of Britian" is more arts oriented, but also worthwhile.
JMHO,
Eve
a.spencer3
"Martin" <martin...@spamfuktiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4383e...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>
>> Votre Anglais est parfait Rémi, in fact, better than the English of many
> Englishmen!
>
Washamarrawiyajimmy!
Surreyman
John Cartmell
Martin <martin...@spamfuktiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> In the meantime, I'll briefly explain 'The Wars of the Roses'.
> Quite rightly, this is often described as "the most complicated period in
> British history".
> The quick explanation is that this is what happens when law and order break
> down, and the country descends into gangsterism under local warlords.
The trouble with that is that we have a French visitor. In fact the trouble
with practically the whole of English history with a Frenchman in the room is
that you have to insult their country. Regularly.
Take the ending of the Wars of the Roses. I would contend that it was brought
to a close by Richard III at his coronation, bringing together all sides in
the struggle, having dealt lightly with those that had plotted against him -
and then Henry managed to cobble together an invasion with the support of ...
.. the French king! ;-(
Of course we could always discuss the French English King that no-one
mentions. Do they include him in the French histories, Remi?
Alex Craven
> entertaining introduction to English history.
Yes, but that also illustrates the problem with the book...
Cheers, Alex
am...@hotmail.com
Eve wrote:
> I found the Roy Strong book, "The Story of Britian", an easy and
> entertaining introduction to English history. The companion book, "The
> Spirit of of Britian"
Is itabout the local distillieries? (As in "'Boston Massacre', the most
revolutionary
spirit"). :-)
am...@hotmail.com
Martin wrote:
> "Rémi Moyen" <r.moye...@ukonline.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
> news:4380e88d$0$32753$626a...@news.free.fr...
> > Hello,
> >
> > First post here. I usually don't think useful to introduce myself at
> > length on newsgroups, but as I think my question is quite original, it
> > would perhaps be best for me to explain why I come to this... So, I'm a
> > french living now in London (hope my english isn't too bad -- and not
> > sounding too american!), and wanting to look a bit more at english
> > history. I'm, I believe, quite learned in french history (especially
> > middle-ages and modern times) -- more than the average french, say --
> > but I'm afraid that my knowledge of english history does not go further
> > than Henry VIII and his 5 (? 8 ?) wifes, or Cromwell and the beheading
> > of Charles I. Well, a bit further than that, but not so much.
>
> Sacre Bleu! Have you forgotten the Hundred Years War? :¬)
He is trying to be polite. Should I remind you which posteriors had
been kicked as a
result of this war? :-)
[]
Martin
> In article <4383e...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
> Martin <martin...@spamfuktiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> > In the meantime, I'll briefly explain 'The Wars of the Roses'.
>
> > Quite rightly, this is often described as "the most complicated period in
> > British history".
> > The quick explanation is that this is what happens when law and order break
> > down, and the country descends into gangsterism under local warlords.
>
> The trouble with that is that we have a French visitor. In fact the trouble
> with practically the whole of English history with a Frenchman in the room is
> that you have to insult their country. Regularly.
It can be done politely? Besides, I have a sneaking admiration for Louis XI (the
'Universal Spider'), and our countries have always been 'close' - not only
physically..
> Take the ending of the Wars of the Roses. I would contend that it was brought
> to a close by Richard III at his coronation, bringing together all sides in
> the struggle, having dealt lightly with those that had plotted against him -
> and then Henry managed to cobble together an invasion with the support of ...
Hmmm... well, you could look at it that way, but I see the WotR as an extension
of the wars between Burgundy, Brittany and France in a way - they are
interlinked and entwined, as were the leading characters involved.
As for 'the end', that was the moment Henry Tudor won the day, was crowned on
the field by Lord Stanley, married Elizabeth of York and took the throne.
Richard died - no more Plantagents - game over!
> .. the French king! ;-(
What, that 'scum of lacky Bretons'? Richard had of course volubly pressed for
agression and hostility during his brother's abortive invasion in the 1470's.
Louis XI, being a clever fellow, bought him off without bloodshed in a
magnifcently sensible bit of diplomacy and strategy. His successor must have
seen Richard on the throne as a very serious threat indeed, and quite naturally
did his best to get rid of him - and against the odds did.
> Of course we could always discuss the French English King that no-one
> mentions. Do they include him in the French histories, Remi?
Which one is that, King Louis I? he doesn't get much mention, true. Perhaps it
is time!
Cheers
Martin
Rémi Moyen
>>>In the meantime, I'll briefly explain 'The Wars of the Roses'.
>>
>>>Quite rightly, this is often described as "the most complicated period in
>>>British history".
>>>The quick explanation is that this is what happens when law and order break
>>>down, and the country descends into gangsterism under local warlords.
Yes, I got that much. I think that, in the principles if not in the
events, it is not too different from some points of the hundred years
war, when France was effectively splitted between various territorial
dukes (during the last years of Charles VI and the first of Charles VII,
when the government was in the hands of the brothers/uncles of the
king). But I think these "local warlords" aspects fit quite good in the
generic tendency of Europe at that time, the rise of huge principalties
turning a bit later to modern states (as in Spain, Burgundy, Low
Countries -- ok, that's ultimatley the same country ;-) -- and others).
That doesn't necessarily help to get the events clear...
>>The trouble with that is that we have a French visitor. In fact the trouble
>>with practically the whole of English history with a Frenchman in the room is
>>that you have to insult their country. Regularly.
Well, the fun of the thing is that, for a good fistful of centuries,
french can do the same with England. Ah, this kind of heathen discussion
will keep us warm for the winter, at least :-)
> It can be done politely? Besides, I have a sneaking admiration for Louis XI (the
> 'Universal Spider'), and our countries have always been 'close' - not only
> physically..
A very cunning man indeed! Probably one of the sovereign to have grasped
the first the real changes in diplomacy at that time. And that's why he
got a so dark reputation: he was doing the same thing than all the kings
tried to do half a century later, but that was the exception at his time.
> As for 'the end', that was the moment Henry Tudor won the day, was crowned on
> the field by Lord Stanley, married Elizabeth of York and took the throne.
Btw, I'm I wrong in saying that Henry Tudor didn't have any more
"genealogical" claim to the crown than most part of the english
nobility? I mean, high nobles families being closely linked in all
kingdom (and even between kingdoms), I guess that, if we look solely at
genealogical relationships, there must have been scores of other nobles
as near or nearer from the crown, no?
(I'm just trying to see if I understand clearly the situation...)
>>Of course we could always discuss the French English King that no-one
>>mentions. Do they include him in the French histories, Remi?
>
> Which one is that, King Louis I?
You meant king Louis VIII the Lion, of course? ;-)
> he doesn't get much mention, true. Perhaps it
> is time!
No, I can't say that we hear much of time. As for France, he only
reigned 3 years and is between maybe the two most famous kings of the
middle-age (Philippe Auguste and Saint Louis). And as for England, well,
honnestly, I wasn't sure he even had been crowned before reading an
english book. Mostly, we consider his english expedition as, well, a
costly and not very successful thing...
Since you're speaking of this kind of things, when did the english kings
formally abandon claims on the throne of France ? I think I saw
somewhere that it was not until the XIXth, but would someone now exactly
when?
--
Rémi Moyen
William Black
"Rémi Moyen" <r.moye...@ukonline.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
> Since you're speaking of this kind of things, when did the english kings
> formally abandon claims on the throne of France ? I think I saw
> somewhere that it was not until the XIXth, but would someone now exactly
> when?
Congress of Vienna I think.
So 1815
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
John Cartmell
<r.moye...@ukonline.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> Btw, I'm I wrong in saying that Henry Tudor didn't have any more
> "genealogical" claim to the crown than most part of the english nobility?
> I mean, high nobles families being closely linked in all kingdom (and even
> between kingdoms), I guess that, if we look solely at genealogical
> relationships, there must have been scores of other nobles as near or
> nearer from the crown, no?
> (I'm just trying to see if I understand clearly the situation...)
If you do get to understand it will you please explain it to the rest of us!
;-)
Henry Tudor had no claim to the throne except by conquest. He was lower down
the list than practically everyone else as he had been specifically debarred.
Even without that he needed to get rid of a good few that stood in his way.
Rémi Moyen
>>but I'm afraid that my knowledge of english history does not go further
>>than Henry VIII and his 5 (? 8 ?) wifes, or Cromwell and the beheading
>>of Charles I. Well, a bit further than that, but not so much.
>
> Sacre Bleu! Have you forgotten the Hundred Years War? :¬)
Another poster has given you the true answer for that. :-)
Honnestly, as the war was essentially fought for french land, and on
french land, I think we get a very biased view of it (like a kind of
invasion war...). And Henry V (or was it VI ?) is usually just
mentionned "en passant", as a kind of funny sub-event of history.
> I am xposting to soc.history.medieval which will provide you with plenty of
> history, and many 'lively' opinions, ideas and... well, you'll see!
See that... I'll try to read a bit through it.
> It depends what you are interested in really, lists of dates and Kings are a
> vital part of history of course, but so is the development of technology,
> agriculture and the way social and economic structures changed. To me, the most
> fascinating part is how thoughts and ideas changed, though they all hang
> together in the end... which is now I suppose?
Yep, that's also my point of view. But, as I was sometimes thinking when
reading french books (there are sometimes fierce discussions about this
on french history ng), and as I now know for sure, you need to have a
good factual basis before going in this analysis.
I mean, you will all the time get reference to events in the course of
the study of tendances (at the least as milestones, but also as they are
the emerging point of the iceberg, revealing the deepest evolutions). If
you don't know (or at least vaguely remind) these events, you'll get the
general evolution, but with no anchor point. Impressionism can do
wonderful paintings, but Brueghel with all the small details is also
nice :-)
> What are your particular areas of interest I wonder - the subject is so vast,
> you have to 'start somewhere'?
As I said elsewhere, I first wanted to have a kind of general big
picture. Without much details, but covering all the times.
Then I'll probably be digging around the Xth-XIth century (or maybe a
bit later), because I like the changes ongoing in France at that time
with the onset of feodality, and would like to compare it with England.
Then probaly the civil war. More globally, the rise of parlementary
power: starting from political situations not so different, France and
England in one or two centuries became one a absolute monarchy, the
other a parlementary one. I'd like to see how...
And finally the XVIIIth century, but more from a diplomatical/military
point of view than a social/economic one: the changes of international
equilibrium and the violent but still subtile exchanges between Spain,
England, France, Low-Countries, Austria, Russia, ...
I'm less interested (but still could read any good book) about the
"intermediate" periods between these ones (XII to XVIth, mostly).
I'm not very interested in early britain history (maybe something simple
and short about saxons, but the chapters in the Oxford History that I
have is enough for now), nor in XIXth century -- and absolutely not in
XXth century (excepted to understand cultural references, but that's
more bare facts about various great men than real history).
And I'm globally looking for "small" books: I don't read very quick in
english and I have to keep pace with my SF, classical french (and now
english) and comics collections -- not speaking of work... :-) That
means I'm not likely to buy studies of 20 volumes, however intersting
they may be (but still I won't falter before books of a few hundreds
pages -- I'm not *that* slow to read!).
>>PS: could you tell me what other british-history ng is there around? I
>>saw soc.history.medieval, but I'm afraid there is too much traffic for
>>me. Are there other ones?
>
> Too much merde you mean? Not always, it is a valuable resource, you just have to
> be 'selective'.
Yeah, that, and when I step in a newsgroup and see more than 3000
messages, that cut down quickly my enthusiasm. I much prefer smaller
groups (more focused). Still, I'll try to browse it quickly.
> Votre Anglais est parfait Rémi, in fact, better than the English of many
> Englishmen!
Merci bien ! :-)
--
Rémi Moyen
Rémi Moyen
>>Since you're speaking of this kind of things, when did the english kings
>>formally abandon claims on the throne of France ? I think I saw
>>somewhere that it was not until the XIXth, but would someone now exactly
>>when?
>
>
> Congress of Vienna I think.
>
> So 1815
Part of the political re-arrangement of Europe, and a nice gesture for
the restored Bourbons. That makes sense, yes.
Thanks !
--
Rémi Moyen
John Cartmell
<jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4384ee90$0$1662$626a...@news.free.fr>, Rémi Moyen
> <r.moye...@ukonline.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> > Btw, I'm I wrong in saying that Henry Tudor didn't have any more
> > "genealogical" claim to the crown than most part of the english nobility?
> > I mean, high nobles families being closely linked in all kingdom (and
> > even between kingdoms), I guess that, if we look solely at genealogical
> > relationships, there must have been scores of other nobles as near or
> > nearer from the crown, no?
> > (I'm just trying to see if I understand clearly the situation...)
> If you do get to understand it will you please explain it to the rest of
> us! ;-)
> Henry Tudor had no claim to the throne except by conquest. He was lower
> down the list than practically everyone else as he had been specifically
> debarred. Even without that he needed to get rid of a good few that stood
> in his way.
If I have it right Henry was the great grandson of the illegitimate son of a
younger son of a king. Effectively nowhere and he (and H8) had to get rid of a
fair chunk of those obviously close to the crown and clearly in the line of
succession through forced marriage to supporters (and H7 himself), murder, and
execution (on flimsiest charges). Anyone who suggests that the princes
couldn't have been amongst those murdered by H7 is thinking with closed brain.
Richard's son John was executed for being suspected of having received
communication from Ireland.
Alex Craven
> power: starting from political situations not so different, France and
> England in one or two centuries became one a absolute monarchy, the
> other a parlementary one. I'd like to see how...
That's quite a nineteenth century view (not that many contemporaries
don't still hold it). A good, short study of the period is Peter
Gaunt's, The British Civil Wars 1637-1651, (Routledge: London, 1997),
ISBN: 0415129664, £9.99. Then you could finish the story with the much
more interesting (!) period of the republic: try either Austin Woolrych,
England without a King, (Routledge: London, 1983), ISBN: 0415104564,
£10.99 or Ronald Hutton, The British Republic, 2nd Ed., (Macmillan:
Basingstoke, 2000), ISBN: 0333913248, £17.50.
Frankly, there are whole forests' worth of books devoted to the
mid-seventeenth century, and it is possibly the most contentious period
of British history. I suspect that it is as controversial as the French
Revolution must be in French historiography, with the key difference
that the majority of Britons are blissfully unaware that it happened
(beyond "What? Cromwell and stuff?").
Coming back to your original point, try Nick Henshall's The Myth of
Absolutism, (Pearson: London, 1992), ISBN: 0582056179, £19.99, for an
interesting deconstruction of the idea of absolutism. He compares
XVIIth and XVIIIth century France and Britain, with the intention of
demonstrating that the idea of absolutism doesn't stand up, but
simultaneously demonstrates that the idea of British uniqueness is
equally mythical; in fact, both states were very similar. It's aimed at
A-level and first year university students (ie students aged 16-19 years
old), so it is a very accessible work.
Cheers, Alex
Martin
"Rémi Moyen" <r.moye...@ukonline.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
> Martin a écrit :
>
> >>>In the meantime, I'll briefly explain 'The Wars of the Roses'.
> >>
> >>>Quite rightly, this is often described as "the most complicated period in
> >>>British history".
> >>>The quick explanation is that this is what happens when law and order break
> >>>down, and the country descends into gangsterism under local warlords.
>
> Yes, I got that much. I think that, in the principles if not in the
> events, it is not too different from some points of the hundred years
> war, when France was effectively splitted between various territorial
> dukes (during the last years of Charles VI and the first of Charles VII,
> when the government was in the hands of the brothers/uncles of the
> king). But I think these "local warlords" aspects fit quite good in the
> generic tendency of Europe at that time, the rise of huge principalties
> turning a bit later to modern states (as in Spain, Burgundy, Low
> Countries -- ok, that's ultimatley the same country ;-) -- and others).
>
> That doesn't necessarily help to get the events clear...
Phew! The events were long and complex, with much side changing, treachery and
double-dealing. It was a sort of clan/family thing in many ways, but with
complications. Put it this way, they were all 'out on their own', and it was as
much a matter of survival as ambition and greed - many didn't want to get
involved, but had to, old family feuds going back centuries were a part of it,
and a ghastly bloodbath ensued as a result. Most of those who died were really
mercenaries, either paid to fight or obliged to do so by their local overlords.
It wasn't really a 'family' thing either, allegiance to the House of Lancaster
or York was secondary to opportunism and safety, no 'principle' was really
involved for most. In fact, most of the population seem to have avoided taking
sides if they possibly could, and many made elaborate excuses for non-attendance
at battles and even at court.
>
> >>The trouble with that is that we have a French visitor. In fact the trouble
> >>with practically the whole of English history with a Frenchman in the room
is
> >>that you have to insult their country. Regularly.
>
> Well, the fun of the thing is that, for a good fistful of centuries,
> french can do the same with England. Ah, this kind of heathen discussion
> will keep us warm for the winter, at least :-)
As it should... though not as 'warm' as it was a few centuries ago I hope! We
are inextricably locked together with France by ancient tradition, and really
should accept that by now.
> > It can be done politely? Besides, I have a sneaking admiration for Louis XI
(the
> > 'Universal Spider'), and our countries have always been 'close' - not only
> > physically..
>
> A very cunning man indeed! Probably one of the sovereign to have grasped
> the first the real changes in diplomacy at that time. And that's why he
> got a so dark reputation: he was doing the same thing than all the kings
> tried to do half a century later, but that was the exception at his time.
He was a strange fellow - ahead of his time, but very superstitious too. Not a
particularly handsome man, but I would say the cleverest monarch of the
fifteenth century without any doubt (the two seldom coincide). His crafty
handling of apparently impossible situations was absolutely amazing, and I'm
surprised he isn't more famous and admired - the French Machiavelli, and Louis
beat him to it by decades!
> > As for 'the end', that was the moment Henry Tudor won the day, was crowned
on
> > the field by Lord Stanley, married Elizabeth of York and took the throne.
>
> Btw, I'm I wrong in saying that Henry Tudor didn't have any more
> "genealogical" claim to the crown than most part of the english
> nobility? I mean, high nobles families being closely linked in all
> kingdom (and even between kingdoms), I guess that, if we look solely at
> genealogical relationships, there must have been scores of other nobles
> as near or nearer from the crown, no?
>
> (I'm just trying to see if I understand clearly the situation...)
You are right, Henry had a very tenuous and questionable claim to the throne ...
mind you, Richard III's was little better! What counts is who wins in the end,
that is the bottom line. He was the offspring of a dowager French queen mother
and a Welsh upstart, but he made it - and founded a short but mighty dynasty,
that produced (IMO) our greatest monarch of all time... so far!
> >>Of course we could always discuss the French English King that no-one
> >>mentions. Do they include him in the French histories, Remi?
> >
> > Which one is that, King Louis I?
>
> You meant king Louis VIII the Lion, of course? ;-)
Non! This was another... someone say something, I've forgotten the details!
(where is Terry Jones when you need him?)
> > he doesn't get much mention, true. Perhaps it
> > is time!
>
> No, I can't say that we hear much of time. As for France, he only
> reigned 3 years and is between maybe the two most famous kings of the
> middle-age (Philippe Auguste and Saint Louis). And as for England, well,
> honnestly, I wasn't sure he even had been crowned before reading an
> english book. Mostly, we consider his english expedition as, well, a
> costly and not very successful thing...
We haven't had a truly 'English' king since 1066 really, they have all been
'foreign' in some way shape or form... French, Dutch, German.... you name it!
> Since you're speaking of this kind of things, when did the english kings
> formally abandon claims on the throne of France ? I think I saw
> somewhere that it was not until the XIXth, but would someone now exactly
> when?
Not until surprisingly late I think - someone will know!
Cheers
Martin
Alex Craven
> mind you, Richard III's was little better! What counts is who wins in the end,
> that is the bottom line. He was the offspring of a dowager French queen mother
> and a Welsh upstart, but he made it - and founded a short but mighty dynasty,
> that produced (IMO) our greatest monarch of all time... so far!
Which one, and why?
Cheers, Alex
John Cartmell
<martin...@spamfuktiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> You are right, Henry had a very tenuous and questionable claim to the
> throne ... mind you, Richard III's was little better! What counts is who
> wins in the end, that is the bottom line. He was the offspring of a dowager
> French queen mother and a Welsh upstart, but he made it - and founded a
> short but mighty dynasty, that produced (IMO) our greatest monarch of all
> time... so far!
Nasty, mean, murderous, but, like Bill Gates & co, great at the spin.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
martin...@spamfuktiscali.co.uk (Martin) wrote:
> As for 'the end', that was the moment Henry Tudor won the day, was
> crowned on the field by Lord Stanley, married Elizabeth of York and
> took the throne.
Not in that order. Henry dated his reign from the day before
Bosworth. Also while he did marry Elizabeth, the marriage was after
his formal coronation. IIRC Elizabeth was not crowned until the
following year. Henry may have married Elizabeth to keep the remaining
Yorkists quiet, but he based his claim to the throne on his own
ancestry and the judgement of battle.
Ken Young
Martin
<ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nOqdnbS5d7hyKBje...@pipex.net...
That is why he did it. It finally united Lancaster and York.... although there
is still grumbling to this very day! Richard had to make a public statement
denying he intended to marry her after the death of his wife Anne, rumours were
abounding (v. naughty, as they were quite closely related).
Martin
"Alex Craven" <alex....@NOSPAMtesco.net> wrote in message
Queen Elizabeth I. Because she was so clever, capable, successful and overcame
the considerable disadvantage of being female.
John Cartmell
He needed to get rid of plenty of others before using his ancestry as a
claim. He did. Unlike Richard he was a murdering bastard.
In backdating his reign he was able to charge Richard's supporters with
treason at Bosworth - but Parliament refused to allow him to carry out his
intended prosecutions and executions. IIRC that was too late to stop his
confiscation of the land and property of those he had so outrageously accused.
You might like to note that one of Richard's law improvements was to get rid
of improper confiscation from the accused (rather than convicted). The Tudors
were to bring back many medieval ideas that Richard had outlawed.
And the idea that the Tudors ended the Wars of the Roses rather than Richard
is a fallacy of Tudor spin. Richard ended the Wars with compromise and
benevolence; the Tudors consolodated their position by murdering their rivals.
The Tudor red and white rose is an outrageous lie.
John Cartmell
<martin...@spamfuktiscali.co.uk> wrote:
She also refounded the school I went to. Interestingly whilst I was there for
the quattercentenary in 1967 I'm now being pestered for money to celebrate the
500th anniversary in 2009 as they seem to have finally discovered the date of
the original founding. If they rename it the King Henry (VII or VIII) Grammar
School I shall certainly refuse to contribute. ;-)
Now if only they discover a charter dating from 1484 ... ;-)
John Cartmell
<martin...@spamfuktiscali.co.uk> wrote:
Henry married Elizabeth as that gave him a figleaf of legality but stripped
his mother-in-law of her possessions and imprisoned her in a nunnery. I doubt
the domestic life of Elizabeth was a happy one.
Tron
Maybe a silly idea, but go to a flea market and get a 100 year old history
book.
First: only facts, no analysis ....
Another first: Generally quite short
The last first: Cheap, too.
Second: hence, reflective of the knowledge of the general populace.
Third: All the "traditional truths" that modern analysis strives to
overthrow,
i.e. the missing part of the dialogue.
> ....the onset of feodality.
You mustn't use the "f"-word here in this group.
T
John Cartmell
Tron <tron...@frizurf.no> wrote:
> Maybe a silly idea, but go to a flea market and get a 100 year old history
> book.
> First: only facts, no analysis ....
> Another first: Generally quite short
> The last first: Cheap, too.
> Second: hence, reflective of the knowledge of the general populace.
> Third: All the "traditional truths" that modern analysis strives to
> overthrow,
> i.e. the missing part of the dialogue.
For a Frenchman it may be instructive to read an Anglo-American account -
Churchill's The History of the English-Speaking Peoples - which has the
advantage of being readily available, represents a view that most of us hear
will recognise (even if profoundly disagreeing with it!), and being easy to
read.
Comments? ;-)
Martin
> In article <nOqdnbS5d7hyKBje...@pipex.net>,
> <ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <4384c...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
> > martin...@spamfuktiscali.co.uk (Martin) wrote:
>
> > > As for 'the end', that was the moment Henry Tudor won the day, was
> > > crowned on the field by Lord Stanley, married Elizabeth of York and took
> > > the throne.
>
> > Not in that order. Henry dated his reign from the day before Bosworth.
> > Also while he did marry Elizabeth, the marriage was after his formal
> > coronation. IIRC Elizabeth was not crowned until the following year. Henry
> > may have married Elizabeth to keep the remaining Yorkists quiet, but he
> > based his claim to the throne on his own ancestry and the judgement of
> > battle.
>
> He needed to get rid of plenty of others before using his ancestry as a
> claim. He did. Unlike Richard he was a murdering bastard.
Aww John! They were all murdering bastards - it was a qualification for the job.
Richard was just as ruthless, but not nearly so clever. Edward IV did his
share - even Henry VI did some nasty things, as did his father, and his and...
Richard II too.
> In backdating his reign he was able to charge Richard's supporters with
> treason at Bosworth - but Parliament refused to allow him to carry out his
> intended prosecutions and executions. IIRC that was too late to stop his
> confiscation of the land and property of those he had so outrageously accused.
> You might like to note that one of Richard's law improvements was to get rid
> of improper confiscation from the accused (rather than convicted). The Tudors
> were to bring back many medieval ideas that Richard had outlawed.
Richard however illegally snaffled half the Warwick inheritance, probably killed
Henry VI in person, used his northen henxmen to crush dissent, ordered a man
hung drawn and quartered for writing a mildly rude poem about him, took the
throne illegally, used a hostage to force the Stanleys to engage, and of course
there is the little matter of his nephews....
I make that robbery, theft, obdtructing justice, terrorism, murder, high
treason, two counts of infanticide and two of regicide - quite a lot in so few
years? Some might say he deserved a death sentaence for that lot!
> And the idea that the Tudors ended the Wars of the Roses rather than Richard
> is a fallacy of Tudor spin. Richard ended the Wars with compromise and
> benevolence; the Tudors consolodated their position by murdering their rivals.
> The Tudor red and white rose is an outrageous lie.
Yet it was adopted, and Henry did end the Wars of the Roses. Not by uniting the
Houses of Lancaster and York perhaps, but by craftily eliminating any opposition
by a mixture of murder, taxation and marriage. He had no noble motives of
course, but he was a better survivor than Richard, and a far better man for the
job of King of England. Ruthlessly efficient rather than just plain ruthless.
Cheers
Martin
John Cartmell
<martin...@spamfuktiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> "John Cartmell" <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4dced76...@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
> > In article <nOqdnbS5d7hyKBje...@pipex.net>,
> > <ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
> > > In article <4384c...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
> > > martin...@spamfuktiscali.co.uk (Martin) wrote:
> >
> > > > As for 'the end', that was the moment Henry Tudor won the day, was
> > > > crowned on the field by Lord Stanley, married Elizabeth of York and
> > > > took the throne.
> >
> > > Not in that order. Henry dated his reign from the day before Bosworth.
> > > Also while he did marry Elizabeth, the marriage was after his formal
> > > coronation. IIRC Elizabeth was not crowned until the following year.
> > > Henry may have married Elizabeth to keep the remaining Yorkists quiet,
> > > but he based his claim to the throne on his own ancestry and the
> > > judgement of battle.
> >
> > He needed to get rid of plenty of others before using his ancestry as a
> > claim. He did. Unlike Richard he was a murdering bastard.
> Aww John! They were all murdering bastards - it was a qualification for the
> job. Richard was just as ruthless, but not nearly so clever. Edward IV did
> his share - even Henry VI did some nasty things, as did his father, and his
> and... Richard II too.
So go on. Name Richard's murders. Then name the reforms of the previous reign
that he reversed for his own benefit. Then tell me his equivalent of Henry's
attempt to make support for their legal king treason. Then count those that
committed treason against Richard and were pardoned and compare the list with
Henry's. Then count the claimants for the throne alive in Richard's day and
murdered by Henry.
> > In backdating his reign he was able to charge Richard's supporters with
> > treason at Bosworth - but Parliament refused to allow him to carry out
> > his intended prosecutions and executions. IIRC that was too late to stop
> > his confiscation of the land and property of those he had so outrageously
> > accused. You might like to note that one of Richard's law improvements
> > was to get rid of improper confiscation from the accused (rather than
> > convicted). The Tudors were to bring back many medieval ideas that
> > Richard had outlawed.
> Richard however illegally snaffled half the Warwick inheritance, probably
> killed Henry VI in person, used his northen henxmen to crush dissent,
> ordered a man hung drawn and quartered for writing a mildly rude poem about
> him, took the throne illegally, used a hostage to force the Stanleys to
> engage, and of course there is the little matter of his nephews....
> I make that robbery, theft, obdtructing justice, terrorism, murder, high
> treason, two counts of infanticide and two of regicide - quite a lot in so
> few years? Some might say he deserved a death sentaence for that lot!
You have been reading Tudor spin again. Do you believe everything that Georg
Bush tells you? I have this bridge that you might be interested in buying ...
So start by explaining why Richard might have killed his nephews.
> > And the idea that the Tudors ended the Wars of the Roses rather than
> > Richard is a fallacy of Tudor spin. Richard ended the Wars with
> > compromise and benevolence; the Tudors consolodated their position by
> > murdering their rivals. The Tudor red and white rose is an outrageous lie.
> Yet it was adopted, and Henry did end the Wars of the Roses. Not by uniting
> the Houses of Lancaster and York perhaps, but by craftily eliminating any
> opposition by a mixture of murder, taxation and marriage. He had no noble
> motives of course, but he was a better survivor than Richard, and a far
> better man for the job of King of England. Ruthlessly efficient rather than
> just plain ruthless.
Ruthlessly efficient at murder rather than attempting an end to war by
forgiving his enemies.
Henry stole from individuals and stole the country.
Rémi Moyen
>> Then probaly the civil war. More globally, the rise of parlementary
>> power: starting from political situations not so different, France and
>> England in one or two centuries became one a absolute monarchy, the
>> other a parlementary one. I'd like to see how...
>
>
> That's quite a nineteenth century view (not that many contemporaries
> don't still hold it).
Is it ? Well, that goes to show how few I know of english history :-)
> Frankly, there are whole forests' worth of books devoted to the
> mid-seventeenth century, and it is possibly the most contentious period
> of British history. I suspect that it is as controversial as the French
> Revolution must be in French historiography, with the key difference
> that the majority of Britons are blissfully unaware that it happened
> (beyond "What? Cromwell and stuff?").
I can guess that, seeing the number of various references to it
throughout any vaguely history-oriented thing here...
Btw, the book I'm reading (Morgan's Oxford history) seems to imply that
the real consequences of the civil war and republic were much smaller
than their impact on the englich mind (which cannot be said for the
french revolution !). I found that quite surprising...
> Coming back to your original point, try Nick Henshall's The Myth of
> Absolutism, (Pearson: London, 1992)
Seems nice. Thanks for the references.
(wow, if I get only half of what was advised to me in this thread, I've
got enough to read for months! Ah, I asked for, I got it...)
--
Rémi Moyen
Rémi Moyen
>>>>Of course we could always discuss the French English King that no-one
>>>>mentions. Do they include him in the French histories, Remi?
>>>
>>>Which one is that, King Louis I?
>>
>>You meant king Louis VIII the Lion, of course? ;-)
>
>
> Non! This was another... someone say something, I've forgotten the details!
Hum... a Louis, are you sure ?
After the normand invasion, I can't see any other Louis being closely
involved with the english crown (the divorce of Louis VII with Alienor
d'Aquitaine is somehow related, but not in that way ;-) ). Unless you're
speaking of a french prince which was not king of France either ?
Oh no, wait ! Are you thinking of Louis IV d'Outremer (middle of the Xth
century) ? I never thought he might have been king, but given the
unstability of kingdoms (in England as well as in France) at that time,
that could be -- and as his nickname comes from him living in England at
the time he became king of France...
--
Rémi Moyen
Rémi Moyen
> Maybe a silly idea, but go to a flea market and get a 100 year old history
> book.
That's a very good idea! I should have thought of it.
> First: only facts, no analysis ....
> Another first: Generally quite short
> The last first: Cheap, too.
> Second: hence, reflective of the knowledge of the general populace.
> Third: All the "traditional truths" that modern analysis strives to
> overthrow,
> i.e. the missing part of the dialogue.
Yep, but I think I'm able to see through some of the obvious bias of the
time (anyway, I guess these "truths" are not so different from the ones
of the old french books, too...), and that's also probably one a the few
places where I could find all the small tales that are dismissed by
serious books but nonetheless part of common knowledge (like Nelson's
address to his sailors and that kind of things).
>>....the onset of feodality.
>
>
> You mustn't use the "f"-word here in this group.
Yes, sir. But... on which group ?
--
Rémi Moyen
John Cartmell
Louis (1187-1226) VIII of France (1223-6), Louis I of England (1215-17).
Usually omitted from English king lists and not mentioned in school histories.
Henry III's reign is backdated to draw a veil over the national shame. ;-)
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
"John Cartmell" <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4dcf0e8...@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
Chris Dickinson
>Alex Craven a écrit :
>>> Then probaly the civil war. More globally, the rise of parlementary
>>> power: starting from political situations not so different, France and
>>> England in one or two centuries became one a absolute monarchy, the
>>> other a parlementary one. I'd like to see how...
>>
>>
>> That's quite a nineteenth century view (not that many contemporaries
>> don't still hold it).
>
>Is it ? Well, that goes to show how few I know of english history :-)
Well, it's the standard twentieth century view too. A book written in 1992
isn't retrospective :-)
>> Frankly, there are whole forests' worth of books devoted to the
>> mid-seventeenth century, and it is possibly the most contentious period
>> of British history. I suspect that it is as controversial as the French
>> Revolution must be in French historiography, with the key difference that
>> the majority of Britons are blissfully unaware that it happened (beyond
>> "What? Cromwell and stuff?").
I'm not quite sure why most Britons should be expected to know more than
'What? Cromwell and stuff?' Indeed that strikes me as quite a sophisticated
response :-)
>I can guess that, seeing the number of various references to it throughout
>any vaguely history-oriented thing here...
>Btw, the book I'm reading (Morgan's Oxford history) seems to imply that the
>real consequences of the civil war and republic were much smaller than
>their impact on the englich mind (which cannot be said for the french
>revolution !). I found that quite surprising...
That's the problem of so much British general history being written from a
London perspective. I suspect that a collection of local history essays
about the civil war would give a much stronger sense of change.
In the area that I study, the changes were significant because the civil war
demolished the fortunes of the two major gentry families - and, from a
social perspective, the area became very Quaker.
However, probably more significant to the area was the opening up of Ireland
to trade and settlement. Big events like civil wars don't seem so big when
there are lots of other things going on.
The real oddity in the British sense of history is the total ignorance of
the Glorious Revolution. I doubt that more than 10% of the population have
ever heard of it!
Chris
D. Spencer Hines
Your teachers and professors don't TEACH The Glorious Revolution -- being
far more interested in the Marxist ones?
Our American Revolution is, of course, a son of your Glorious Revolution.
John Locke was the Godfather of both.
You threw out James II, while we threw out his first cousin, four times
removed, George III -- and for many of the same reasons.
If more Americans and Brits understood the ramifications of that similarity,
we'd all be better off -- and have increased Comity of Interests.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now THIS is an Intelligent Post by someone who obviously DOES have a Sense
of History.
Vide infra pro sapientia.
DSH
"Chris Dickinson" <ch...@dickinson.uk.net> wrote in message
news:dm5lot$f0v$1...@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
Alex Craven
>> mid-seventeenth century, and it is possibly the most contentious
>> period of British history. I suspect that it is as controversial as
>> the French Revolution must be in French historiography, with the key
>> difference that the majority of Britons are blissfully unaware that it
>> happened (beyond "What? Cromwell and stuff?").
>
> I can guess that, seeing the number of various references to it
> throughout any vaguely history-oriented thing here...
>
> Btw, the book I'm reading (Morgan's Oxford history) seems to imply that
> the real consequences of the civil war and republic were much smaller
> than their impact on the englich mind (which cannot be said for the
> french revolution !). I found that quite surprising...
That chapter was written by John Morrill, one of the most important
writers working on the civil war now (IMO), but also a man who has been
accused by some historians of proving how the civil war did not happen!
:-) Revisionists downplayed both the long-term causes and long-term
consequences that were so heavily emphasised by both the Whig (liberal)
and Marxist historians who had preceeded them. This has been redressed
to a certain degree, and "post-revisionism" is now actually getting long
in the tooth.
Nevertheless, I think that few would try to argue that the civil wars
had anything like the impact that the French Revolution had in France.
For a start, most Britons abhorred the events of the mid-seventeenth
century long after they had happened - even in the late nineteenth
century, the erection of a statue to Oliver Cromwell outside Parliament
was an incredibly contentious issue that evoked a great deal of
hostility. Whereas the French have Bastille Day, the English celebrated
for a long time (and a few still do) the martyrdom of Charles I (30
January) and Oak Apple Day (31 May?), which marked the Restoration of
Charles II in 1660 (and his escape from the New Model in 1651). The
English "Revolution" that was eulogised in English myth was that of
1688, which supposedly created the "perfectly" balanced constitutional
monarchy so admired by nineteenth century English historians.
Cheers, Alex
D. Spencer Hines
far worse.
DSH
"Alex Craven" <alex....@NOSPAMtesco.net> wrote in message
news:gsuhf.2827$uR...@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
Alex Craven
> London perspective. I suspect that a collection of local history essays
> about the civil war would give a much stronger sense of change.
I'm not sure how far I agree. My thesis was a study of Lancashire
during the Commonwealth. In some areas, such as the ecclesiastical
hierarchy and religious practice, there was significant change.
However, in other respects, much remained the same. Whilst the
institutions of county government were purged of suspect individuals,
the form and function of local government did not change; indeed, the
Commonwealth saw something of a reversion towards the magistracy.
Similarly, whilst individuals and their families experienced varied
fortunes, there was no real social revolution; power may have shifted
down the social ladder in many areas, but this was still a shift within
the gentry. Meanwhile, the county responded to the challenges posed by
famine, plague, and war in entirely traditional ways; certainly, the
people of Lancashire were faced with problems as a result of the wars,
but accomodating contingencies as they occur is not the same as change.
As I say above, the only tangible and lasting change in English society
caused by the mid-seventeenth century, IMO, was the emergence and
consolidation of a number of Protestant sects. Even so, these remained
insignifant in numbers - even the Quakers only numbered 60,000 in 1660.
Nevertheless, the creation of non-conformity as a group of separatist
denominations coloured English political and religious experience for a
long time to come.
> In the area that I study, the changes were significant because the civil war
> demolished the fortunes of the two major gentry families - and, from a
> social perspective, the area became very Quaker.
Where is that?
> The real oddity in the British sense of history is the total ignorance of
> the Glorious Revolution. I doubt that more than 10% of the population have
> ever heard of it!
The students that I teach seem blissfully unaware of the bulk of
history, of any nation and any period! Although this is the end of a
depressing teaching week...
Cheers, Alex
Alex Craven
>>1688, which supposedly created the "perfectly" balanced constitutional
>>monarchy so admired by nineteenth century English historians.
>
done
> far worse.
>
historians, not the revolution (or the nineteenth-century constitution,
for that matter).
I see you are still having trouble with your nouns... And cross-posting.
Cheers, Alex
D. Spencer Hines
"Too late smart."
DSH
"Alex Craven" <alex....@NOSPAMtesco.net> wrote in message
news:oPuhf.2831$uR....@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
Alex Craven
>>the Glorious Revolution. I doubt that more than 10% of the population have
>>ever heard of it!
>
>
>>The students that I teach seem blissfully unaware of the bulk of history,
>>of any nation and any period! Although this is the end of a depressing
>>teaching week...
> That's the fault of your profession -- over the past 50 years or so.
>
> "Too late smart."
I disagree - it is the fault of governments dicking about with
education, particularly since the introduction of modular A-levels. I
have friends who teach in schools, and who are equally frustrated by the
situation, but are tied by the curriculum. Add to that the desparate
drive to send everybody to university, which means that many of us
teaching at the lower end of the hierarchy are seeing more and more
students who do not have the intellectual capacity to to do a degree. I
had to explain complicated words like "colonisation" and "fortification"
to one of my students, the other day. As one frustrated colleague said
to me today, the government has levelled the playing field by removing
all of the grass.
That said, there are still some highly capable, intelligent and
motivated students even as you go down the universities. But, teaching
at both Manchester and Manchester Metropolitan, it is becoming painfully
apparent that the gap between the two is widening at a very fast rate.
The combination of top-up fees and the government's drive to have at
least 50% of school-leavers going to university will only widen that gap
further, IMO.
Cheers, Alex
D. Spencer Hines
So you need to vote out the current government and vote one in that is more
sensible.
Yes, a 50% yield to University is absurd and simply means Lowering The
Standards.
The Glorious Revolution of 1688 is one of the Great Highpoints of British
History -- and of World History -- one of Great Britain's Most Important
Gifts To The World.
If only 10% of your people know about it you are in deep codswallop indeed.
But, admit it, many academics in Britain have long viewed the Russian
Revolution as far more important than Britain's own Glorious Revolution --
and you pogues have reaped what you have sown in the minds of your students.
Teach them more Adam Smith and Edmund Burke and far less Karl Marx and the
Webbs.
DSH
"Alex Craven" <alex....@NOSPAMtesco.net> wrote in message
news:g2vhf.2547$Cj5...@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
John Cartmell
<alex....@NOSPAMtesco.net> wrote:
> But, teaching at both Manchester and Manchester Metropolitan
I do hope they timetable staff better than students. I had lectures at the Met
ending in Didsbury at 1pm and starting at the Uni at 1.15pm. Lunch in a
traffic jam. ;-(
William Black
"Chris Dickinson" <ch...@dickinson.uk.net> wrote in message
news:dm5lot$f0v$1...@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> The real oddity in the British sense of history is the total ignorance of
> the Glorious Revolution. I doubt that more than 10% of the population have
> ever heard of it!
It's interesting isn't it.
I wonder if it's because the perception is that by then 'who's gonna be the
king' didn't matter.
It's only a couple of decades after the Restoration.
In some ways, to modern eyes, it's Charles II who is seen as the anomaly
rather than Dutch William.
On the three hundredth anniversary it was interesting to note that, despite
efforts by the central government to get something started, nothing much
happened. Very unlike the various 350th anniversaries of the Civil War and
its battles where there were widespread events and things.
Perhaps because 'it didn't happen here'.
The Glorious Revolution was something that affected politicians, but nobody
died, nobody lost their home or livelihood (Except James II anyway) and so
nobody really cared.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Zednik
Nietzsche
.
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ybthf.401$eP....@eagle.america.net...
Jeff
> "there are no facts, only interpretations"
>
> Nietzsche
>
Which by his own definition is not a fact.
Jeff
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
alex....@NOSPAMtesco.net (Alex Craven) wrote:
> The
> English "Revolution" that was eulogised in English myth was that of
> 1688, which supposedly created the "perfectly" balanced
> constitutional monarchy so admired by nineteenth century English
> historians.
That myth was important historically. A lot of the resistance to
Parliamentary reform was due to reluctance to mess with the results of
1688. The attempts to reduce royal power in the 18th century were
justified by an appeal to 1688. Whether or not it was perfect the
impression that it was, was true and important politically.
Off course the growth of cabinet power was just as much down to the
fact that George I and IIRC George II could not speak English and
stopped presiding at cabinet meetings.
Ken Young
Eve
whet their appetite. Sometimes such a thing can fill a need.
Eve
D. Spencer Hines
>> the Glorious Revolution. I doubt that more than 10% of the population
>> have ever heard of it!
Is this really true?
If so, it is appalling.
Your teachers and professors don't TEACH The Glorious Revolution -- being
far more interested in the Marxist ones?
Our American Revolution is, of course, a son of your Glorious Revolution.
John Locke was the Intellectual Godfather of both.
You threw out James II, while we threw out his first cousin, four times
removed, George III -- and for many of the same reasons.
If more Americans and Brits understood the ramifications of that similarity,
we'd all be better off -- and have increased Comity of Interests.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
D. Spencer Hines
> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>
>>Your teachers and professors don't TEACH The Glorious Revolution -- being
>>far more interested in the Marxist ones?
>
> I seem to remember making a remark very like that at a teaching conference
> in West Berlin in about 1976!
<G>
> UK school courses and examinations then were very much Russian Revolution,
> Hitler and Mussolini. That's what the kids wanted to learn, so that's what
> you taught 'em. I don't know what the modern curriculum manages, but I
> don't
> suppose it's any better.
Teaching kids "what they want to learn" is a Thoroughly Bad Idea, of course.
We had some idiots in the U.S. in the 60's, 70's and 80's who were telling
us -- "the kids will tell us when they want to learn Algebra and Geometry."
> It's a long time since I've looked at a US 12th grade textbook, but it was
> certainly once the case that American students had a much better
> opportunity to learn basic political theory and practice than did English
> ones.
Our textbooks have gotten worse -- much more Dumbing Down.
>>Our American Revolution is, of course, a son of your Glorious Revolution.
>>John Locke was the Godfather of both.
>
> I'm very fortunate to have had an old-fashioned privileged education. That
> meant that I stayed on for a seventh term at school when I was 17 (1970)
> to
> prepare for an Oxbridge entry exam. In that term I read Locke and Rousseau
> (again very fortunate in being taught by a Wallace-Hadrill, brother of the
> medievalist), and I was able to apply the knowledge in the exam. But
> Locke usually gets little mention in secondary education!
>
>
> Chris
Sad....
Our Founding Fathers were strongly influenced by Locke.
Locke, Smith, Burke and John Stuart Mill are four of my Favorite Brits ----
they should be better known by all Americans -- and Brits.
Martin
> >> The real oddity in the British sense of history is the total ignorance of
> >> the Glorious Revolution. I doubt that more than 10% of the population
> >> have ever heard of it!
>
> Is this really true?
>
> If so, it is appalling.
>
> Your teachers and professors don't TEACH The Glorious Revolution -- being
> far more interested in the Marxist ones?
Utter crap, I always wanted Monmouth to win! What do you know, colonial fol!
> Our American Revolution is, of course, a son of your Glorious Revolution.
> John Locke was the Intellectual Godfather of both.
>
> You threw out James II, while we threw out his first cousin, four times
> removed, George III -- and for many of the same reasons.
Both had 'problems'.... how mean!
> If more Americans and Brits understood the ramifications of that similarity,
> we'd all be better off -- and have increased Comity of Interests.
Is this another 'bottoms' thing David? It sounds supiciously like 'commode' old
chap, we really don't want that sort of smutty talk besmirching this polite
newsgroup thank you very much!
Cheers
Martin
Martin
"John Cartmell" <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4dcf0e8...@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
> <r.moye...@ukonline.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> > Martin a écrit :
>
> > >>>>Of course we could always discuss the French English King that no-one
> > >>>>mentions. Do they include him in the French histories, Remi?
> > >>>
> > >>>Which one is that, King Louis I?
> > >>
> > >>You meant king Louis VIII the Lion, of course? ;-)
> > >
> > >
> > > Non! This was another... someone say something, I've forgotten the
> > > details!
>
> > Hum... a Louis, are you sure ?
>
> > After the normand invasion, I can't see any other Louis being closely
> > involved with the english crown (the divorce of Louis VII with Alienor
> > d'Aquitaine is somehow related, but not in that way ;-) ). Unless you're
> > speaking of a french prince which was not king of France either ?
>
> > Oh no, wait ! Are you thinking of Louis IV d'Outremer (middle of the Xth
> > century) ? I never thought he might have been king, but given the
> > unstability of kingdoms (in England as well as in France) at that time,
> > that could be -- and as his nickname comes from him living in England at
> > the time he became king of France...
>
> Louis (1187-1226) VIII of France (1223-6), Louis I of England (1215-17).
> Usually omitted from English king lists and not mentioned in school histories.
> Henry III's reign is backdated to draw a veil over the national shame. ;-)
Thank you John - that is the one. As I said, where's Terry Jones when you need
him?
Martin
> Twaddle from a twit.
Alas fot you old fruit, facts from one who knows!
Tron
"Rémi Moyen" <r.moye...@ukonline.co.uk.invalid> skrev i melding
news:438642a3$0$32759$626a...@news.free.fr...
.....
>>>....the onset of feodality.
>>
>>
>> You mustn't use the "f"-word here in this group.
>
> Yes, sir. But... on which group ?
Excusez-moi ... soc.history.medieval.
It seems there is no such thing as feudalism.
T
Rémi Moyen
>>>>>>>Of course we could always discuss the French English King that no-one
>>>>>>>mentions. Do they include him in the French histories, Remi?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Which one is that, King Louis I?
>>>>>
>>>>>You meant king Louis VIII the Lion, of course? ;-)
>>Louis (1187-1226) VIII of France (1223-6), Louis I of England (1215-17).
>>Usually omitted from English king lists and not mentioned in school histories.
>>Henry III's reign is backdated to draw a veil over the national shame. ;-)
>
>
> Thank you John - that is the one. As I said, where's Terry Jones when you need
> him?
Hey, I said him first ! ;-)
Anyway, I don't think that's it's really a big loss, either for french
of for british history, if we forget about him. Apart from being a
symbol of the "interest" of France about England at that time, his
english expedition didn't have a huge impact, I believe -- and even as a
french king, well, he reigned only for 3 years and is between two much
more active kings (Philippe Auguste and Saint Louis).
Btw, he gained his nickname of "the lion" during conquest of some parts
of Normandy (against the english, of course), I think.
--
Rémi Moyen
Rémi Moyen
>>>>....the onset of feodality.
>>>
>>>
>>>You mustn't use the "f"-word here in this group.
>>
>>Yes, sir. But... on which group ?
>
>
> Excusez-moi ... soc.history.medieval.
> It seems there is no such thing as feudalism.
Ah, I cannot let such a statement without a reaction! That's so strange
a point of view from the french side, where feudalism (not feodality ?
should check my dictionnary on that...) cannot really be contested -- at
least in nothern France, say between Poitiers and Bruxelles (I know,
it's not in France (should I add "anymore" ? ;-) ).
That may be a recurring troll here, but I'm curious about that. Is there
really a discussion about whether these notions were implanted in
England? Or is it widely accepted that the social/political structure
was totally different?
--
Rémi Moyen
Martin
"Rémi Moyen" <r.moye...@ukonline.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:4389087d$0$22390$626a...@news.free.fr...
'Tis a long running joke here Remi... there was no 'feudal system'. So some say.
There may have been during the Dark Ages perhaps, but some say there were no
Dark Ages either. How horses were harnessed under the Feudal System during the
Dark Ages is another matter, especially in Vinland, but that is a controversial
subject - best avoided!
You do raise an interestng point however - the relationship between the nobility
and 'the commoners'. It was quite different in England and France back in the
middle ages, which may be why we had a civil war, and you had a revolution. The
nature of society appears to have meant the nobility were 'closer' to the
commoners here than they were in France, where great suspicion seems to have
existed between them... for what reason, I'm not quite sure. I suspect it is due
to economics more than anything else?
Cheers
Martin
David Read
<ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:YIGdnVngxtKiiBre...@pipex.net...
>
> Off course the growth of cabinet power was just as much down to the
> fact that George I and IIRC George II could not speak English and
> stopped presiding at cabinet meetings.
>
George II could speak English, albeit with a heavy accent.
"I hate all boets and bainters".
--
cheers,
David Read
am...@hotmail.com
Rémi Moyen wrote:
> Tron a écrit :
>
> >>>>....the onset of feodality.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You mustn't use the "f"-word here in this group.
> >>
> >>Yes, sir. But... on which group ?
> >
> >
> > Excusez-moi ... soc.history.medieval.
> > It seems there is no such thing as feudalism.
>
> Ah, I cannot let such a statement without a reaction! That's so strange
> a point of view from the french side,
Ah, but after spending some time in SHM you'll easily find out that
France _actually_
did not exist and, as such, could not have neither a social system nor
a point of
view. If you need any consolation, the same applies to the rest of a
continental Europe.
:-)
[]
> That may be a recurring troll here,
More than one: didn't you notice that most of the threads on shm have
nothing to
do with the Middle Ages?
>but I'm curious about that.
You need to understand some basic things which will help you to
navigate SHM:
There were 3 main types of _medieval_ entities:
(a) real
(b) not totally real
(c) mostly unreal.
Group (a) includes England and ....well... the Mongols. Facts (as a
solid reality) can exist only in and for this group and whatever they
are, they are
too well-known to be discussed (as opposite to being listed). I'm not
going to list
them right now, just to save space.
Group (b) includes parts of Scandinavia (on a case per case basis) with
Greenland,
Vinland and Minnesotta (or at least Minnesotta Vikings), small parts of
Germany,
Switzerland, some not clearly identified pieces of Russia, and
Scotland.
Scandinavia had Vikings (see above), shieldwalls and KRS. Germany had
HRE
and Teutonic Knights. Russia existed mostly out of spite and 'to show
the bad
example'. Scotland was (a) the place where Mel Wallace (according to
another
sources, William Gibbson) made his movie, (b) the place where the 2nd
(chronologically, the 1st) Battle which Can Not Be Mentioned occured,
(c) the place of the 1st recorded appearence of the McWashwerwomen.
Actually,
all 3 or them reference to a single event. Swiss had knives, cheese,
watches and
long sticks of wood with the sharp ends.
Group (c) includes vague (and presumably legendary) entities like
'France' and 'Italy'.
'France' is mentioned quite often but mostly as a legendary area of the
English
medieval heroics. Something like Sherwood Forest but bigger and
populated
with the evil creatures who strongly remind the bad guys from the movie
'Lord
of Whatever': bellicose, cowardly, sly, numerous and not very smart.
Their main
goal of existence was to cause mischeif to their noble, brave,
bellicose, less
numerous and not very smart (well, there was some dispute on the
last item: it was claimed that Richard I _was_ smart) English
opponents.
As you understand, they always had been beaten and, in case you missed
it, the
100YW ended with 'Plantagenetian triumph'. So far, an argument that
England lost
all her posessions in France except Calais did not have any noticeable
effect. OTOH,
if territory was mostly unreal, what would it matter? 'France' is also
known due to
the fact that it was NOT invaded by the Mongols: somewhere on the way
they got
completely unglued and turned back.
'Italy' is much more obscure. It is more or less known that it had
'culture' and also there was a stated opinion that there was a medieval
state with this name engaged in war
with England.
Categories (b) and (c) had been probably invented by the Victorians.
Most of so-called
'medieval things', including right of the 1st night, chasity belt and
feudalism are
victorian fakes (making fakes was a second favorite occupation of the
Victorians).
One more important thing: DON'T MENTION HORSE HARNESS!!!!
>Is there
> really a discussion about whether these notions were implanted in
> England?
Well, these notions had been planted in England but before they had
time to
get rooted into the English soil, the McWasherwomen appeared on a
historical
scene. After this appearence, 'service for cash' became English modus
operandi.
>Or is it widely accepted that the social/political structure
> was totally different?
England being the only place that _really_ existed, what difference are
you talking
about?
:-)
Chris Dickinson
>smart.Their main goal of existence was to cause mischeif to their noble,
>brave, bellicose
<snip>
Hey, wait a minute, aren't you describing (first category) almost any male
with an English accent in a modern Hollywood film?
Chris
am...@hotmail.com
Hmmmmmm..... this would also include the bad teeth and funny accent...
Hey, are
you saying that the orcs are .... well, never mind. :-)
am...@hotmail.com
Chris Dickinson wrote:
> The real oddity in the British sense of history is the total ignorance of
> the Glorious Revolution. I doubt that more than 10% of the population have
> ever heard of it!
Yes, this one is a source of my permanent confusion. Why such a name?
AFAIK,
it was neither glorious nor noticeably revolutionary.
Rémi Moyen
> Ah, but after spending some time in SHM you'll easily find out that
> France _actually_
> did not exist and, as such, could not have neither a social system nor
> a point of
> view. If you need any consolation, the same applies to the rest of a
> continental Europe.
> :-)
Ok, thanks for all these details (at least I had a good laugh) !
Well, I guess that coming from an unreal country, I will have no problem
speaking about unreal things either. Of course, the difficult part may
be that people won't easily answer an unreal person... :-)
>>That may be a recurring troll here,
>
>
> More than one: didn't you notice that most of the threads on shm have
> nothing to
> do with the Middle Ages?
*sigh* Yeah, I did.
The good point of that is that, when all these threads are removed, the
group seems much more easy and interesting to read. :-/
--
Rémi Moyen
am...@hotmail.com
Rémi Moyen wrote:
> am...@hotmail.com a écrit :
>
> > Ah, but after spending some time in SHM you'll easily find out that
> > France _actually_
> > did not exist and, as such, could not have neither a social system nor
> > a point of
> > view. If you need any consolation, the same applies to the rest of a
> > continental Europe.
> > :-)
>
> Ok, thanks for all these details (at least I had a good laugh) !
Just trying to be helpful. If you need any further explanations, just
ask. Or check in
SHM archives (especially for terminology)...
>
> Well, I guess that coming from an unreal country, I will have no problem
> speaking about unreal things either.
Being unreal having its advantages and I'm using them for years...
> Of course, the difficult part may
> be that people won't easily answer an unreal person... :-)
Being unreal does not mean that you have nothing interesting to say
and, anyway,
proof of person's being real is not in SHM chapter.
>
> >>That may be a recurring troll here,
> >
> >
> > More than one: didn't you notice that most of the threads on shm have
> > nothing to
> > do with the Middle Ages?
>
> *sigh* Yeah, I did.
>
> The good point of that is that, when all these threads are removed, the
> group seems much more easy and interesting to read. :-/
Well, just consider these threads as 'totally unreal' and ignore
them.:-)