A decent thread on medieval history
Renia
David Friedman
wrote:
> Please, someone! Start a decent thread!
One of the things I do in the SCA is to make hardened leather armor--I
just had someone over today who I was helping to make some and learn how
to make it. The technology I use involves immersing vegetable tanned
leather in water at about 180 degrees F, waiting until it starts to go
limp and curl up, pulling out--at which point it is stretchy like thick
rubber for a few minutes, and can be easily shaped for elbow protectors
and such.
Does anyone here know of either period descriptions of that or related
technologies for hardened leather armor, or descriptions of surviving
pieces made that way?
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
_Salamander_: http://tinyurl.com/6957y7e
_How to Milk an Almond,..._ http://tinyurl.com/63xg8gx
Paul J Gans
>Please, someone! Start a decent thread!
Go right ahead. I'm out of it except for the occasional
drop-in because we are packing to move to a new home.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Brian M. Scott
wrote in <news:ivvjmu$97f$1...@speranza.aioe.org> in
soc.history.medieval:
> Please, someone! Start a decent thread!
Or an indecent one, for that matter, so long as it's
actually to do with medieval history.
Brian
Renia
> Renia<re...@otenet.gr> wrote:
>> Please, someone! Start a decent thread!
>
> Go right ahead. I'm out of it except for the occasional
> drop-in because we are packing to move to a new home.
Downsizing? Upsizing? Downstate? Upstate? (I still haven't completely
unpacked from when we moved last year. Still in Greece, though.)
ADR
Well, why don't I start one? How about the fact that the medieval
history of western Europe sets the tone in talking about medieval
history? For most of the so called "Dark Ages", western Europe was a
relative backwater where having little effect in the evolution of
history, Charlemagne notwithstanding. In the "dark ages" the major
drama was played in the East, with the 350-year war between the East
Roman Empire and the Arab Caliphate, a war that the Empire finally
won. One also has the major event of the birth of the Kievan
Principate,
Minor clashes and petty squabbles in western Europe were elevated into
world-shaping events: an example of this is Charles Martel and the
battle of Tours, where a minor victory by a Frankish army against an
Umayyad raiding party in 732 CE was celebrated as having saved Europe
from Islam. But there is little knowledge of the far larger battle
between Arabs and Europeans, that of the 2nd Arab siege of
Constantinople, an event that makes the battle of Tours appear as a
minor altercation. The 2nd Arab siege of Constantinople lasted for
two years (717-718) and involved the full forces of the Eastern Roman
Empire under Leo III Isaurian and of the Umayyad Caliphate, under
Marslama, the brother of the Caliph, the Caliph himself and the
Caliph's successor. It involved hundreds of thousands of men and
thousands of ships. The "siege" was fought on a wide front and the
Caliph himself was killed relatively early in 717 near the border,
leading another army to reinforce the siege. His successor, Umar II
took over but repeated assaults against the city walls were
unsuccessful. Bitter winters and the assault of the Bulgars against
the Arabs caused tens of thousands of casualties, forcing them to
withdraw eventually, almost fully decimated.
Leo III and his son, Constantine V also met and defeated the Umayyad
Army in the battle of Akroinon (740 CE). Again, Tours pales into
insignificance when compared to the campaign that ended in the battle
of Akroinon. Three Arab armies invaded, a number of sieges and raids
were fought, prior and after the battle (in which both Arab commanders
were killed). This battle (in fact, the whole campaign) led to a
weakness of the the Umayyad Caliphate and the Abbasid revolt soon
brought it to an end. Constantine V then led a series of successful
campaigns into Syria.
It was this series of events that essentially started with the first
siege of Constantinople (674-678) -where the Greek fire made its first
appearance, culminated with the massive conflict of the 2nd siege of
Constantinople (717-718) and ended with the battle of Akroinon (740)
that ended the Arab thread to Europe, not the minor altercation that
was fought at Tours.
John Briggs
> In article<ivvjmu$97f$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Renia<re...@otenet.gr>
> wrote:
>
>> Please, someone! Start a decent thread!
>
> One of the things I do in the SCA is to make hardened leather armor--I
> just had someone over today who I was helping to make some and learn how
> to make it. The technology I use involves immersing vegetable tanned
> leather in water at about 180 degrees F, waiting until it starts to go
> limp and curl up, pulling out--at which point it is stretchy like thick
> rubber for a few minutes, and can be easily shaped for elbow protectors
> and such.
>
> Does anyone here know of either period descriptions of that or related
> technologies for hardened leather armor, or descriptions of surviving
> pieces made that way?
There is a suspicion that cuir bouilli is just a myth.
--
John Briggs
David Friedman
John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
A suspicion based on what evidence?
William Black
> In article<4ZVUp.50366$w86....@newsfe22.ams2>,
> John Briggs<john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> On 17/07/2011 22:50, David Friedman wrote:
>>> In article<ivvjmu$97f$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Renia<re...@otenet.gr>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Please, someone! Start a decent thread!
>>>
>>> One of the things I do in the SCA is to make hardened leather armor--I
>>> just had someone over today who I was helping to make some and learn how
>>> to make it. The technology I use involves immersing vegetable tanned
>>> leather in water at about 180 degrees F, waiting until it starts to go
>>> limp and curl up, pulling out--at which point it is stretchy like thick
>>> rubber for a few minutes, and can be easily shaped for elbow protectors
>>> and such.
>>>
>>> Does anyone here know of either period descriptions of that or related
>>> technologies for hardened leather armor, or descriptions of surviving
>>> pieces made that way?
>>
>> There is a suspicion that cuir bouilli is just a myth.
>
> A suspicion based on what evidence?
>
Well, none at all, which is the point...
(I've been here before. Medieval re-enactors in the UK tend to steer
clear of the stuff for the reasons given below.)
It gets mentioned now and again (the OED says the first time in English
is in 1375, but that reference is to what may be an arming cap)
I don't think there's a historical recipe for the stuff, I've certainly
never seen one...
None of the material seems to have survived either, now very little
'munition quality' armour has survived, but there should be a piece or
two of armour somewhere....
The items shown in Jean Turner's article (
http://www.jeanturner.co.uk/static-content/tutorials/CuirBouilliTechnique.pdf
) have all been reproduced successfully without any boiling.
The other thing to be aware of is that the military 'Buff Coats' of the
seventeenth century could certainly turn a sword cut. Why bother making
the stuff rigid and brittle and uncomfortable by boiling when good
quality leather works just as well?
--
William Black
Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy a dog...
David Friedman
William Black <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
Nor have I, hence my question.
> None of the material seems to have survived either, now very little
> 'munition quality' armour has survived, but there should be a piece or
> two of armour somewhere....
There's at least one example of hardened leather lamellar excavated in
the Middle East, described in one of my books--I can probably dig up the
reference if you want. I don't know if it is clear how it was hardened.
> The items shown in Jean Turner's article (
> http://www.jeanturner.co.uk/static-content/tutorials/CuirBouilliTechnique.pdf
> ) have all been reproduced successfully without any boiling.
Judging by my experiments, boiling is usually a mistake--it works better
at a somewhat lower temperature. I've been told of a different technique
which involves baking at a low temperature, but haven't tried it.
> The other thing to be aware of is that the military 'Buff Coats' of the
> seventeenth century could certainly turn a sword cut. Why bother making
> the stuff rigid and brittle and uncomfortable by boiling when good
> quality leather works just as well?
One reason might be that something that isn't rigid isn't much
protection against blunt weapons, such as maces.
Alex
'Indecent' sounds very tempting.
John Briggs
Look up John (or Eleanor) Rykener.
--
John Briggs
Renia
I suppose we could discuss the frescoes in the brothel at Pompeii?
William Black
> In article<j01ghv$8un$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> None of the material seems to have survived either, now very little
>> 'munition quality' armour has survived, but there should be a piece or
>> two of armour somewhere....
>
> There's at least one example of hardened leather lamellar excavated in
> the Middle East, described in one of my books--I can probably dig up the
> reference if you want. I don't know if it is clear how it was hardened.
Any idea how old it is and in what context it was found in
It could be 'grave goods'.
>> The other thing to be aware of is that the military 'Buff Coats' of the
>> seventeenth century could certainly turn a sword cut. Why bother making
>> the stuff rigid and brittle and uncomfortable by boiling when good
>> quality leather works just as well?
>
> One reason might be that something that isn't rigid isn't much
> protection against blunt weapons, such as maces.
>
We don't know how brittle boiled leather was either... It may just
crack if you hit it with a mace.
Large heavy blunt weapons are a feature of fifteenth century foot
warfare, but earlier they're a badge of rank...
Alex
You are too late with your advice. :-(
ADR
Not medieval enough. But just face it, nobody wants to discuss
medieval issues!!!
Alex
Not medieval
Alex
> On 18/07/11 17:25, David Friedman wrote:
>
> >> None of the material seems to have survived either, now very little
> >> 'munition quality' armour has survived, but there should be a piece or
> >> two of armour somewhere....
>
> > There's at least one example of hardened leather lamellar excavated in
> > the Middle East, described in one of my books--I can probably dig up the
> > reference if you want. I don't know if it is clear how it was hardened.
>
> Any idea how old it is and in what context it was found in
>
> It could be 'grave goods'.
>
> >> The other thing to be aware of is that the military 'Buff Coats' of the
> >> seventeenth century could certainly turn a sword cut. Why bother making
> >> the stuff rigid and brittle and uncomfortable by boiling when good
> >> quality leather works just as well?
>
> > One reason might be that something that isn't rigid isn't much
> > protection against blunt weapons, such as maces.
>
> We don't know how brittle boiled leather was either... It may just
> crack if you hit it with a mace.
>
> Large heavy blunt weapons are a feature of fifteenth century foot
> warfare,
Perhaps in England but all over the world they were known well prior
to XV (starting from a Stone Age) and not as specifically infantry
weapons.
> but earlier they're a badge of rank...
Except Eastern Europe where they became a badge of rank AFTER being
used as the weapons. To start with the early modern Ottomans,
Russians, Poles, Ukrainians and all the way to XX century (see
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:Rydz_Smigly_Bulawa1.jpg
)
John Briggs
I didn't mean look up in person...
--
John Briggs
William Black
>
> Except Eastern Europe where they became a badge of rank AFTER being
> used as the weapons. To start with the early modern Ottomans,
> Russians, Poles, Ukrainians and all the way to XX century (see
> http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:Rydz_Smigly_Bulawa1.jpg
> )
Are you sure?
The mace is the symbol of the House of Commons because it indicates
superiority.
David Friedman
wrote:
That's pre-medieval. Aretino is post. Marie de France, perhaps?
David Friedman
William Black <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > One reason might be that something that isn't rigid isn't much
> > protection against blunt weapons, such as maces.
> >
> We don't know how brittle boiled leather was either... It may just
> crack if you hit it with a mace.
Depends how you make it. Leave it in the water long enough and it ends
up like wood--hard, but somewhat brittle. Shorter hardening and it's not
as hard, much less brittle. I fought using partly cuirboulli for a long
time in the SCA, where the weapons are blunt, and it works pretty well.
David Friedman
<c18930c5-4939-43af...@p31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > There's at least one example of hardened leather lamellar excavated in
> > > the Middle East, described in one of my books--I can probably dig up the
> > > reference if you want. I don't know if it is clear how it was hardened.
> >
> > Any idea how old it is and in what context it was found in
> >
My vague memory is c. 1100, and dug up, probably with someone in it, but
I haven't searched out the book to check.
Renia
> In article<j026bh$9q3$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Renia<re...@otenet.gr>
> wrote:
>
>> On 18/07/2011 19:35, Alex wrote:
>>> On Jul 18, 12:13 am, "Brian M. Scott"<b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 00:20:15 +0300, Renia<re...@otenet.gr>
>>>> wrote in<news:ivvjmu$97f$1...@speranza.aioe.org> in
>>>> soc.history.medieval:
>>>>
>>>>> Please, someone! Start a decent thread!
>>>>
>>>> Or an indecent one, for that matter, so long as it's
>>>> actually to do with medieval history.
>>>
>>> 'Indecent' sounds very tempting.
>>
>> I suppose we could discuss the frescoes in the brothel at Pompeii?
>
> That's pre-medieval. Aretino is post. Marie de France, perhaps?
But what did the medievals think of the frescoes in the brothel at
Pompeii? I'll have one of those, please?
David Friedman
wrote:
I don't think they saw them. Didn't they only come to light after
excavation?
Jantero
The archaeological work didn't even start until the mid-1500s. A lot of
that was done by going down in a well and then digging out laterally.
The excavation of the town was probably done a lot later.
Alex
Neither did I,
Alex
> On 18/07/11 23:57, Alex wrote:
>
>
>
> > Except Eastern Europe where they became a badge of rank AFTER being
> > used as the weapons. To start with the early modern Ottomans,
> > Russians, Poles, Ukrainians and all the way to XX century (see
> > )
>
> Are you sure?
Am I sure of what exactly? That a mace in various implementations had
been used as a sign of a dignity in an early modern world? Yes, I'm
absolutely positive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BChmielnicki.jpg - 2nd half of-XVII
century. Khmelnitsky is shown with Hetman's (supreme commander) mace.
Cossack colonels of this period also had maces as a sign of their
rank.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jan_Sobieski.jpg - Jan Sobieski -
close to the end of XVII. Shown (if I understand situation correctly)
as a Hetman. As you can see, his mace is a purely decorative.
"A traditional symbol of power, Ukrainian bulava, a wooden decorative
mace inlaid with metal or beads..." - yshyvanka.com/Handcarved-Wood/
Bulava
http://faganarms.com/acossackhetmansmacebulavac1650-1700.aspx
"Bulava - a mace, originally was used as a weapon and later became a
symbol of authority of the ataman. - http://cossackweb.narod.ru/cossacks/dict.htm
"Pernach - a mace used by the Host Atamans as a symbol of authority.
Originally it was a weapon, eventually became a regalia."
http://cossackweb.narod.ru/cossacks/dict.htm
Shestoper - "an ancient Russian weapon used for striking. A type of
mace, it is a baton with a head consisting of six metal plates (fins).
It was used from the 15th to 17th centuries. The first mention of the
weapon in written sources is found in an account from 1502 of a battle
between Russians and knights of an order. The shestoper also served as
a symbol of authority of military leaders. Shestopery decorated with
silver, gold, and precious stones are preserved in the Armory of the
Moscow Kremlin." - http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Shestoper.
http://www.arco-iris.com/George/mace_1.htm shows obviously ceremonial
shestoper.
http://www.kreml.ru/en/picture/?id=1297&lang=en is, AFAIK, from the
Kremlin Armory and, judging by his equipment, a horseman with
'bulava' (mace) is a voyevoda (military commander). Bulava is a symbol
of his rank. Probably could be used ocassionally as a weapon (but he
already has pistols) but, IIRC, at least one of the maces in the
Historical Museum of Moscow (or was it Kremlin Armory, it was too long
ago) had a mace with a crysal head; surely not for kicking anybody.
"In the XVIth-XVIIth centuries firearms became widespread in Russia.
New types of weapons having appeared, the traditional sidearms, i.e.
maces, shestopers (six-feather maces), pernates (maces with different
number of plates), berdyshes (long, broad axes) etc., lost their
military importance and became merely insignia of military authority.
The showcase 28 represents a full set of the XVIIth-century armour for
a rider."
Similarly, in the Ottoman Empire, the maces started as a weapon and
then became mostly a sign of a rank. "A mace with a ball shaped heavy
head (topuz) was a sign of military authority as well as a weapon used
by Turks from the earliest times. "
http://www.turkishculture.org/military/weapons/antique-ottoman-maces-169.htm?type=1
Look at the photos and you can easily see that some of the maces shown
are NOT weapons. To be fair, they were still used as weapons at least
in the 1st half of XVII: a huge mace was a favorite weapon of Sultan
Murad IV.
"Maces continued to be used beyond the end of the medieval era. Post-
medieval maces were usually a cavalry weapon, and often an officer’s
symbol. They were widely used by the Ottomans, Hungarians, and
throughout Indo-Persian areas. Maces were also in use in Russia,
Ukraine, India and China." http://otlichnik.tripod.com/medmace4.html
Photography I referenced in my previous post shows Marshal's mace
being given to Ridz-Smigly. You most probably know the name and event
belongs to XX century: a mace was a sign of ranks for the Marshals of
Polish Republic before WWII (can't tell about post-WWII Poland). As
you understand, by this time it was NOT often used as a weapon.
>
> The mace is the symbol of the House of Commons because it indicates
> superiority.
There are cultural differences between various places in the world but
in all cases mentioned the maces were symbol of rank or supriority.
Alex
wrote:
> In article <j026bh$9q...@speranza.aioe.org>, Renia <re...@otenet.gr>
> wrote:
>
> > On 18/07/2011 19:35, Alex wrote:
> > > On Jul 18, 12:13 am, "Brian M. Scott"<b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 00:20:15 +0300, Renia<re...@otenet.gr>
> > >> wrote in<news:ivvjmu$97f$1...@speranza.aioe.org> in
> > >> soc.history.medieval:
>
> > >>> Please, someone! Start a decent thread!
>
> > >> Or an indecent one, for that matter, so long as it's
> > >> actually to do with medieval history.
>
> > > 'Indecent' sounds very tempting.
>
> > I suppose we could discuss the frescoes in the brothel at Pompeii?
>
> That's pre-medieval. Aretino is post. Marie de France, perhaps?
>
indecency in the most unexpected places.
Alex
wrote:
> In article
> <c18930c5-4939-43af-a196-60476525a...@p31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Alex <a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > There's at least one example of hardened leather lamellar excavated in
> > > > the Middle East, described in one of my books--I can probably dig up the
> > > > reference if you want. I don't know if it is clear how it was hardened.
>
> > > Any idea how old it is and in what context it was found in
>
> My vague memory is c. 1100, and dug up, probably with someone in it, but
> I haven't searched out the book to check.
>
Not that I have any problems but I did not write a single word out of
what is quoted. :-)
Paul J Gans
>On 18/07/2011 04:16, Paul J Gans wrote:>> Go right ahead. I'm out of it except for the occasional
>> drop-in because we are packing to move to a new home.
>Downsizing? Upsizing? Downstate? Upstate? (I still haven't completely
>unpacked from when we moved last year. Still in Greece, though.)
I currently live in housing owned by NYU. As a result, when I
retire, I shall have to move out. So in anticipation, we have
purchased a cooperative apartment[1] which is about the same
side or a tad larger than our present one.
[1] Coop apartments are, for some reason, very popular in New
York. A corporation owns the building and the apartments in
it. One purchases a chunk of shares in the corporation which
entitles one to rent an apartment in the coop. The rules are
that the apartment goes with the shares, so it can be sold
fairly easily.
The corporation is run by a board elected by the shareholders
(the tenants). In practice a management firm is hired to
run the place
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>On Jul 17, 9:13 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 00:20:15 +0300, Renia <re...@otenet.gr>
>> wrote in <news:ivvjmu$97f$1...@speranza.aioe.org> in
>> soc.history.medieval:
>>
>>
>> actually to do with medieval history.
>>
>Well, why don't I start one? How about the fact that the medieval
>history of western Europe sets the tone in talking about medieval
>history? For most of the so called "Dark Ages", western Europe was a
>relative backwater where having little effect in the evolution of
>history, Charlemagne notwithstanding. In the "dark ages" the major
>drama was played in the East, with the 350-year war between the East
>Roman Empire and the Arab Caliphate, a war that the Empire finally
>won. One also has the major event of the birth of the Kievan
>Principate,
>Minor clashes and petty squabbles in western Europe were elevated into
>world-shaping events: an example of this is Charles Martel and the
>battle of Tours, where a minor victory by a Frankish army against an
>Umayyad raiding party in 732 CE was celebrated as having saved Europe
>from Islam. But there is little knowledge of the far larger battle
>between Arabs and Europeans, that of the 2nd Arab siege of
>Constantinople, an event that makes the battle of Tours appear as a
>minor altercation. The 2nd Arab siege of Constantinople lasted for
>two years (717-718) and involved the full forces of the Eastern Roman
>Empire under Leo III Isaurian and of the Umayyad Caliphate, under
>Marslama, the brother of the Caliph, the Caliph himself and the
>Caliph's successor. It involved hundreds of thousands of men and
>thousands of ships. The "siege" was fought on a wide front and the
>Caliph himself was killed relatively early in 717 near the border,
>leading another army to reinforce the siege. His successor, Umar II
>took over but repeated assaults against the city walls were
>unsuccessful. Bitter winters and the assault of the Bulgars against
>the Arabs caused tens of thousands of casualties, forcing them to
>withdraw eventually, almost fully decimated.
>Leo III and his son, Constantine V also met and defeated the Umayyad
>Army in the battle of Akroinon (740 CE). Again, Tours pales into
>insignificance when compared to the campaign that ended in the battle
>of Akroinon. Three Arab armies invaded, a number of sieges and raids
>were fought, prior and after the battle (in which both Arab commanders
>were killed). This battle (in fact, the whole campaign) led to a
>weakness of the the Umayyad Caliphate and the Abbasid revolt soon
>brought it to an end. Constantine V then led a series of successful
>campaigns into Syria.
>It was this series of events that essentially started with the first
>siege of Constantinople (674-678) -where the Greek fire made its first
>appearance, culminated with the massive conflict of the 2nd siege of
>Constantinople (717-718) and ended with the battle of Akroinon (740)
>that ended the Arab thread to Europe, not the minor altercation that
>was fought at Tours.
That's way too much for discussion.
I will say a few words about your first proposition:
"Well, why don't I start one? How about the fact that
the medieval history of western Europe sets the tone
in talking about medieval history."
That is, I think, because it was the English who first became
interested in the history of England. Until fairly recently
the French paid rather little attention to their history (other
than Charlemagne, of course.)
So what resulted was a view that was primarily England and
secondarily French.
And don't forget that most Americans (and Brits) read only
English. Thus the few books that were published in French,
German, Spanish, etc., were not much read.
The view of medieval history elsewhere is rather different
than ours, as Alex keeps pointing out.
Paul J Gans
>On 17/07/2011 22:50, David Friedman wrote:
>> In article<ivvjmu$97f$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Renia<re...@otenet.gr>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> just had someone over today who I was helping to make some and learn how
>> to make it. The technology I use involves immersing vegetable tanned
>> leather in water at about 180 degrees F, waiting until it starts to go
>> limp and curl up, pulling out--at which point it is stretchy like thick
>> rubber for a few minutes, and can be easily shaped for elbow protectors
>> and such.
>>
>> Does anyone here know of either period descriptions of that or related
>> technologies for hardened leather armor, or descriptions of surviving
>> pieces made that way?
>There is a suspicion that cuir bouilli is just a myth.
Possibly due to the fact that academic historians tended to ignore
re-enactors.
Paul J Gans
>In article <4ZVUp.50366$w86....@newsfe22.ams2>,
>> On 17/07/2011 22:50, David Friedman wrote:
>> > In article<ivvjmu$97f$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Renia<re...@otenet.gr>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Please, someone! Start a decent thread!
>> >
>> > One of the things I do in the SCA is to make hardened leather armor--I
>> > just had someone over today who I was helping to make some and learn how
>> > to make it. The technology I use involves immersing vegetable tanned
>> > leather in water at about 180 degrees F, waiting until it starts to go
>> > limp and curl up, pulling out--at which point it is stretchy like thick
>> > rubber for a few minutes, and can be easily shaped for elbow protectors
>> > and such.
>> >
>> > Does anyone here know of either period descriptions of that or related
>> > technologies for hardened leather armor, or descriptions of surviving
>> > pieces made that way?
>>
>> There is a suspicion that cuir bouilli is just a myth.
>A suspicion based on what evidence?
The fact that is isn't really mentioned in contemporary
texts. But that is, in my opinion, a mirage due to the
fact that the texts were written by the upper class for
the benefit of the upper class and the rank and file are
hardly mentioned at all -- other than the fact that they
existed.
Paul J Gans
Had they yet been dug up?
ADR
Paul, I am not sure that I agree with you. Let's not forget that a
pivotal historical text, that of Gibbon's "The decline and Fall of the
Roman Empire" was in English and it did contain the history of the
medieval Eastern Roman Empire (although in a rather derogatory
manner). In addition,Charles Martel was a Frank, not English, and the
so-called
"battle of Tours" occurred on French soil. In addition, a huge amount
of work on the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) has been made in
English-speaking academia.
The sad part is that even today, we cannot seem to put things in a
correct context? Literally thousands of titles are produced annually
on issues of the middle ages in Western Europe. I just do not recall
any pppular title on the states that really mattered in the middle
ages. Huge amounts of ink have been spilled about 1066, a rather
inconsequential squabble at far edge of Europe, and very little at far
more important events occurring at the same time such as the decline
of the Caliphate, the rise of the Seljuck Empire etc, etc. Do not get
me wrong, I enjoy all facets of history, but I am somewhat bothered by
the lack of balance.
Renia
> In article<j02ho7$mlk$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Renia<re...@otenet.gr>
> wrote:
>
>> On 19/07/2011 02:58, David Friedman wrote:
>>> In article<j026bh$9q3$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Renia<re...@otenet.gr>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 18/07/2011 19:35, Alex wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 18, 12:13 am, "Brian M. Scott"<b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 00:20:15 +0300, Renia<re...@otenet.gr>
>>>>>> wrote in<news:ivvjmu$97f$1...@speranza.aioe.org> in
>>>>>> soc.history.medieval:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please, someone! Start a decent thread!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or an indecent one, for that matter, so long as it's
>>>>>> actually to do with medieval history.
>>>>>
>>>>> 'Indecent' sounds very tempting.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose we could discuss the frescoes in the brothel at Pompeii?
>>>
>>> That's pre-medieval. Aretino is post. Marie de France, perhaps?
>>
>> But what did the medievals think of the frescoes in the brothel at
>> Pompeii? I'll have one of those, please?
>
> I don't think they saw them. Didn't they only come to light after
> excavation?
Why spoil a good story?!
Renia
Hope the move goes smoothly, Paul, and that you and yours will be very
happy in your new home.
Renia
>
> That is, I think, because it was the English who first became
> interested in the history of England. Until fairly recently
> the French paid rather little attention to their history (other
> than Charlemagne, of course.)
>
> So what resulted was a view that was primarily England and
> secondarily French.
>
> And don't forget that most Americans (and Brits) read only
> English. Thus the few books that were published in French,
> German, Spanish, etc., were not much read.
>
> The view of medieval history elsewhere is rather different
> than ours, as Alex keeps pointing out.
In Greece, from what I can make out, they've almost obliterated their
medieval history. The Turks, you know.
There is much too see and learn about Mycenae, Classical Greece and, to
some extent, about Venetian Greece. Everything else has been concreted
over and forgotten about.
William Black
> On Jul 18, 7:38 pm, William Black<blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 18/07/11 23:57, Alex wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Except Eastern Europe where they became a badge of rank AFTER being
>>> used as the weapons. To start with the early modern Ottomans,
>>> Russians, Poles, Ukrainians and all the way to XX century (see
>>> http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:Rydz_Smigly_Bul...
>>> )
>>
>> Are you sure?
>
> Am I sure of what exactly? That a mace in various implementations had
> been used as a sign of a dignity in an early modern world? Yes, I'm
> absolutely positive.
>
So am I.
No, that it became such after widespread military use...
Or am I misreading you?
Alex
> On 19/07/11 01:42, Alex wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 18, 7:38 pm, William Black<blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 18/07/11 23:57, Alex wrote:
>
> >>> Except Eastern Europe where they became a badge of rank AFTER being
> >>> used as the weapons. To start with the early modern Ottomans,
> >>> Russians, Poles, Ukrainians and all the way to XX century (see
> >>>http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:Rydz_Smigly_Bul...
> >>> )
>
> >> Are you sure?
>
> > Am I sure of what exactly? That a mace in various implementations had
> > been used as a sign of a dignity in an early modern world? Yes, I'm
> > absolutely positive.
>
> So am I.
>
> No, that it became such after widespread military use...
I thought that I made _this_ quite clear....
>
> Or am I misreading you?
I have no idea how do you read me. What I'm saying is that it was a
symbol of a military rank well AFTER it ceased to be a weapon. For
example, it was not expected from a Polish Marshal in 1939 to use his
mace against the German tanks.
Alex
Who told you THAT?
>
> So what resulted was a view that was primarily England and
> secondarily French.
>
In English-speaking places. In Germany it was primarily German view,
in France - French, etc.
> And don't forget that most Americans (and Brits) read only
> English. Thus the few books that were published in French,
> German, Spanish, etc., were not much read.
[Sight]
He was talking about the 'WESTERN' view. Not English-centric at the
expense of the French or German but 'Western' (English, German,
French, Italian, Spanish) at the expence of the Eastern-European
(Byzantian, Russian, etc.).
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Gans) wrote:
> So what resulted was a view that was primarily England and
> secondarily French.
Germans also became influential especially in military history.
Ken Young
Ddfr
> On 18/07/11 13:56,David Friedmanwrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article<4ZVUp.50366$w86.41...@newsfe22.ams2>,
> > John Briggs<john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >> On 17/07/2011 22:50,David Friedmanwrote:
> >>> In article<ivvjmu$97...@speranza.aioe.org>, Renia<re...@otenet.gr>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> Please, someone! Start a decent thread!
>
> >>> just had someone over today who I was helping to make some and learn how
> >>> to make it. The technology I use involves immersing vegetable tanned
> >>> leather in water at about 180 degrees F, waiting until it starts to go
> >>> limp and curl up, pulling out--at which point it is stretchy like thick
> >>> rubber for a few minutes, and can be easily shaped for elbow protectors
> >>> and such.
>
> >>> Does anyone here know of either period descriptions of that or related
> >>> technologies for hardened leather armor, or descriptions of surviving
> >>> pieces made that way?
>
> >> There is a suspicion that cuir bouilli is just a myth.
>
> > A suspicion based on what evidence?
>
>
> (I've been here before. Medieval re-enactors in the UK tend to steer
> clear of the stuff for the reasons given below.)
>
> It gets mentioned now and again (the OED says the first time in English
> is in 1375, but that reference is to what may be an arming cap)
That's the first example, but the OED describes the term as common in
English from the 14th to the 16th c.
Erilar
>
> I will say a few words about your first proposition:
>
> "Well, why don't I start one? How about the fact that
> the medieval history of western Europe sets the tone
> in talking about medieval history."
>
> That is, I think, because it was the English who first became
> interested in the history of England. Until fairly recently
> the French paid rather little attention to their history (other
> than Charlemagne, of course.)
>
> So what resulted was a view that was primarily England and
> secondarily French.
>
> And don't forget that most Americans (and Brits) read only
> English. Thus the few books that were published in French,
> German, Spanish, etc., were not much read.
>
> The view of medieval history elsewhere is rather different
> than ours, as Alex keeps pointing out.
If you can read German fluently, there is plenty of excellent medieval
scholarship out there, and if you have access to some libraries with good
collections of same, whether accessible physically or via ILL(UW Madison
and UW Milwaukee for me), you don't have to get them all in Germany(well,
I've done that, too). It's out there, but not too many of the people who
post here look outside the BT 8-).
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad
Paul J Gans
So you do agree with me... ;-)
1066 was not inconsequential to either the English or the French. It
certainly was to the Chinese, but nobody much in the west cared about
that.
And yes, in 1000 AD Europe was a backwater. And one of the outstanding
problems in history is how that small region, a backwater in 1000, came
to be the dominant power in the world 500 year later.
Don't get me wrong. I fully agree that western medieval historians tend
to ignore the Caliphate, the Byzantines, and what was going on in Spain.
The reason, in my thinking, is that they had little impact on France
and England. Neither Spain nor Italy or Germany threatened France or
England during the 500 years from 1000 AD to 1500 AD. So they could
be ignored.
Of course technology respected no boundary lines and that's another
interesting story, at least for some people.
Paul J Gans
I hope so too. Right now my internet time is impacted by the need
to pack...
Paul J Gans
It is only recently that France began large scale preservation. Spain
has yet to really even start.
As has been noted before, history is important to a nation only to
the extent that it can be used to justify current policy.
Look at the Greek view today of Macedonia as one example. Every
nation has lots of them.
Paul J Gans
>Who told you THAT?
>[Sight]
I believe I noted either in that or another post from the same time
that you were very avid on that very point.
You are quite right, of course.
Paul J Gans
Only to the extent that they impacted on France. Most medieval
histories written in English seem to mainly ignore Germany,
especially the Empire.
ADR
> So you do agree with me... ;-)
Why not??
> 1066 was not inconsequential to either the English or the French. It
> certainly was to the Chinese, but nobody much in the west cared about
> that.
It was inconsequential to European history overall. It simply
substituted a ruling elite with another one. Even if it did not
happen, challenges against the French monarchy may have been
launched. Overall, its historical significance is very low.
> And yes, in 1000 AD Europe was a backwater. And one of the outstanding
> problems in history is how that small region, a backwater in 1000, came
> to be the dominant power in the world 500 year later.
Well, this is another discussion. The problem is in discussing
medieval history overall. It does not really matter if one is French,
British, Italian or whatever else. In the world of Europe, the events
that dominated from 640 to 975 CE was the 300-year war between the
Eastern Roman Empire, the Caliphate and the successor Arab states.
Had the Byzantines lost that war, have no doubt, the world of western
Europe would have been affected in a major way. Far more than the
local petty squabbles that pass as world-shattering events.
> Don't get me wrong. I fully agree that western medieval historians tend
> to ignore the Caliphate, the Byzantines, and what was going on in Spain.
> The reason, in my thinking, is that they had little impact on France
> and England.
In fact, they had a major effect. We can on and on, but if the
Byzantines had lost in the 8th century, there would have been nothing
to stop the Arabs from conquering the rest of Europe. Which country
at that time could produce armies of hundreds of thousands and navies
with thousands of ships?? The success of the Byzantines also led to
the Abbasid revolt and the destruction of the Umayyad Caliphate. The
Umayyads, thus, became isolated in Spain. Furthermore, hundreds of
European nobles served in the imperial armies and the he imperial
bodyguards, disseminating in Europe not only types of armor and
weaponry but fighting techniques, etc, etc. It was John Curcuas in
the early 10th century (domesticus of the scholae under Romanus I
Lecapenus) and Nicephorus II Phocas that gave rise to the heavy
medieval knights (their crack cataphracts sported a double or triple
chain mail armor and had also had heavy horse armor). There were many
other impacts, such as the repulse of the Kievan principate move
westwards by John I Tsimiskes, the effects of the Rus in the breakup
of the Khazar Khaganate that unleashed the Magyars to Central Europe,
etc, etc.
> Of course technology respected no boundary lines and that's another
> interesting story, at least for some people.
History should be discussed in a large canvas, otherwise the
connections are poorly understood.
Alex
Paul, dear, don't get me wrong. It is just the narrow BT-based scope
of the discussions seems to be more or less exhausted while there is a
much bigger and practically untapped scope outside Triangle.
Of course, I disagree that 1066 was insignificant event but OTOH, what
serious immediate impact outside certain island had a fact that this
island got a Frenchman of a Scandinavian descend as a King instead of
a German King? In a long run, the German kings came back and, IIRC,
they are Saxons so you can say that the things went back to their
pre-1066 status. :-)
But if you look at the greater picture, 1066 (patriotic feelings
aside) had a lesser effect in the terms of a territory, cultural
impact, regional economy, etc. than establishment of the Rurik dynasty
(stable travel/trade route from Baltics to Byzantian Empire,
consolidation of much greater areas, etc.). Or, for example, impact of
Jagello being elected King of Poland (with Lithuania becoming Catholic
and not Orthodox and the following domino effects, "aftershocks"
continued until Partitions of Poland).
There were numerous interesting things happening in the Eastern and
Central Europe during the Middle Ages and many of them had a great
impact beyond their immediate region.
Renia
> On Jul 19, 10:56 am, Paul J Gans<gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> So you do agree with me... ;-)
>
> Why not??
>
>> 1066 was not inconsequential to either the English or the French. It
>> certainly was to the Chinese, but nobody much in the west cared about
>> that.
>
> It was inconsequential to European history overall. It simply
> substituted a ruling elite with another one. Even if it did not
> happen, challenges against the French monarchy may have been
> launched. Overall, its historical significance is very low.
Most of history concerns one ruling elite ejecting another.
The Norman invasion of England was significant because it brought in
Anglo-Norman rule, that is, rule by Normans who maintained the best of
English law. There was minimal ethnic cleansing and much integration
between the old Anglo-Saxon elite and the Normans and their descendants.
The Anglo-Saxon language continued to develop, easily integrating Latin
legalese and Norman French. This set the tone for the development of
England as a multi-cultural and adaptable society over the succeeding
centuries, eventually leading to English naval expansion and,
subsequently, her colonial epansion and the spread of English around the
world.
>
>> And yes, in 1000 AD Europe was a backwater. And one of the outstanding
>> problems in history is how that small region, a backwater in 1000, came
>> to be the dominant power in the world 500 year later.
>
> Well, this is another discussion. The problem is in discussing
> medieval history overall. It does not really matter if one is French,
> British, Italian or whatever else. In the world of Europe, the events
> that dominated from 640 to 975 CE was the 300-year war between the
> Eastern Roman Empire, the Caliphate and the successor Arab states.
The geographical continent of Europe is not the same thing as the
political nature of Europe. To this day, Europe is still thought of in
terms of Western Europe and Eastern Europe as if there is some
historical division between them. In some respect, Britain was (and is!)
a tiny little continent all of her own. We British still refer to
mainland Europe as "The Continent". In this respect, European history
remains concentric around Western Europe. Eastern Europe's early
medieval history belongs with that of the East.
> Had the Byzantines lost that war, have no doubt, the world of western
> Europe would have been affected in a major way. Far more than the
> local petty squabbles that pass as world-shattering events.
The goings-on in The East could just as easily be described as "local
petty squabbles".
>> Don't get me wrong. I fully agree that western medieval historians tend
>> to ignore the Caliphate, the Byzantines, and what was going on in Spain.
>> The reason, in my thinking, is that they had little impact on France
>> and England.
>
> In fact, they had a major effect. We can on and on, but if the
> Byzantines had lost in the 8th century, there would have been nothing
> to stop the Arabs from conquering the rest of Europe.
But that didn't happen.
<snip>
>
> History should be discussed in a large canvas, otherwise the
> connections are poorly understood.
History should be discussed from a perspective, be it Economic History,
Regligious History, Social History, or even the history of individual
countries or empires. It cannot be discussed in the large canvas you
suggest, because those very connections are too complex to melt down
into the soundbites necessary to make such a pan-European-Eastern
history comprehensible.
Alex
> ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> >In article <j02s2u$3e6...@reader1.panix.com>, gan...@panix.com (Paul J
> >Gans) wrote:
> >> So what resulted was a view that was primarily England and
> >> secondarily French.
> > Germans also became influential especially in military history.
>
> Only to the extent that they impacted on France.
I suspect that Ken is talking about the writers like Clausewitz,
Schliffen, Delbruck, etc.
As for France (if I guessed correctly what you mean), the problem is
in the fact that for quite a while France was either a supreme
military power in Europe or one of the leading military powers. Most
of this time England was a rather marginal military force in the
continental affairs and, as a result, it got much lesser attention
from the non-British military writers.
Of course, due to a pure geography, HRE had much more wars with France
than with England.
> Most medieval
> histories written in English seem to mainly ignore Germany,
> especially the Empire.
You are right but I remember reading an old German history (translated
into Russian well before 1917) where events of the Empire had been
dominating and England was just mentioned here and there. And I
strongly suspect that Guizot's History of France is not the only
French history which has very little volume dedicated to England or
even Germany (unless wars are involved). To think about it, most of
the histories of the Ottoman Empire that I read (even those written by
the Brits) only marginally mention England or France in the pre-modern
times. It is just a matter of a contextual relevancy.
ADR
Well, I agree with Alex (surprising but true). I actually think that
the Jagello election to the kingship of Poland was a very significant
event, considering the influence and extent of the Polish-Lithuanian
kingdom and the Jagello dynasty spread in Eastern Europe. By the
beginning of the 17th century, the Polish state covered even a
substantial part of what is now Ukraine. Its growth and significance
cannot be understated.
The creation of the Rus state was certainly one of great importance.
Of great importance, of course, is the Christianization of this state
by the Byzantines as well as the check on the westward expansion of
the Kievan state at the battle of Arcadiopolis and Dorostolon, major
engagements, far exceeding the little altercation at Hastings. Had
the Kievan state managed to firmly establish itself in the Balkans,
European history would have been far different today.
ADR
> Most of history concerns one ruling elite ejecting another.
Not really. But this is a humongous discussion
> The Norman invasion of England was significant because it brought in
> Anglo-Norman rule, that is, rule by Normans who maintained the best of
> English law. There was minimal ethnic cleansing and much integration
> between the old Anglo-Saxon elite and the Normans and their descendants.
> The Anglo-Saxon language continued to develop, easily integrating Latin
> legalese and Norman French. This set the tone for the development of
> England as a multi-cultural and adaptable society over the succeeding
> centuries, eventually leading to English naval expansion and,
> subsequently, her colonial epansion and the spread of English around the
> world.
The Norman invasion was not significant either for England and
definitely for the world. A Norman aristocracy was established in
Scotland (Robert de Bruce, dahhh) without any conquest. The English
naval expansion had absolutely nothing to do with the Normans or the
Norman conquest. I wonder where you see the connection. The English
naval primacy was seriously contested, for example, by the Dutch who
had no Norman involvement. The colonial expansion had also nothing to
do with the Normans. A variety of European nations got involved in
imperial pursuits, not just the Norman-infected English. Of course,
the Norman conquest and the imposition of a French-speaking ruling
class for a period of time did have an impact on the English society
but had no impact whatsoever in the evolution of world history. I am
sure that we can mention similar changes in various parts of Europe,
events more dramatic that you have no knowledge of. I am disturbed
that you seem to defend this parochiality.
> >> And yes, in 1000 AD Europe was a backwater. And one of the outstanding
> >> problems in history is how that small region, a backwater in 1000, came
> >> to be the dominant power in the world 500 year later.
>
> > Well, this is another discussion. The problem is in discussing
> > medieval history overall. It does not really matter if one is French,
> > British, Italian or whatever else. In the world of Europe, the events
> > that dominated from 640 to 975 CE was the 300-year war between the
> > Eastern Roman Empire, the Caliphate and the successor Arab states.
>
> The geographical continent of Europe is not the same thing as the
> political nature of Europe. To this day, Europe is still thought of in
> terms of Western Europe and Eastern Europe as if there is some
> historical division between them.
Well, there is!!!
> In some respect, Britain was (and is!)
> a tiny little continent all of her own. We British still refer to
> mainland Europe as "The Continent". In this respect, European history
> remains concentric around Western Europe. Eastern Europe's early
> medieval history belongs with that of the East.
Having lived in the UK, I fully understand what you are talking about,
although I cannot really excuse it. I personally do not regard
European history as centered on Western Europe, anything but. I think
that this line of thinking is dangerously nationalistic. Neither Rome
nor Athens are located in western Europe, nor is Florence or Venice,
all of them far more influential than anything in the UK. If the
confluence of European affairs assisted the rise of the UK for a
period of time (now no longer the case), nothing really much has
changed. Britain and Ireland are off-shore islands, highly depended
on the "continent". In fact, you can see some of the grand movements
in European history originating either in the European south of center
(and many in the East) and having pale reflections in England and
associated areas. I do not want to be dismissive, but a very Anglo-
centric view harms the English first and foremost. Of course, there
were important contributions to the European civilization by the
English, but the Norman conquest was not one of these. And one should
try to put things in a proper perspective, rather than inflate one's
own importance.
> > Had the Byzantines lost that war, have no doubt, the world of western
> > Europe would have been affected in a major way. Far more than the
> > local petty squabbles that pass as world-shattering events.
>
> The goings-on in The East could just as easily be described as "local
> petty squabbles".
Well, in this context, the Persian wars, the battle of Salamis and
Platea were also petty squabbles. So were the Punic wars. The fact
remains that the fate of Europe was decided in the battles fought
between the Caliphate and the Eastern Roman Empire between 640 to 740
CE. And these battles were as important as the ones fought in the
Persian wars in classical antiquity. On the other hand, the only
thing in stake in the battle of Hastings were the riches and lands of
a few nobles.
> >> Don't get me wrong. I fully agree that western medieval historians tend
> >> to ignore the Caliphate, the Byzantines, and what was going on in Spain.
> >> The reason, in my thinking, is that they had little impact on France
> >> and England.
>
> > In fact, they had a major effect. We can on and on, but if the
> > Byzantines had lost in the 8th century, there would have been nothing
> > to stop the Arabs from conquering the rest of Europe.
>
> But that didn't happen.
Yes, because they won. The same is true for the Persian wars. Should
we declare them non-important because the Greeks won?
> > History should be discussed in a large canvas, otherwise the
> > connections are poorly understood.
>
> History should be discussed from a perspective, be it Economic History,
> Regligious History, Social History, or even the history of individual
> countries or empires. It cannot be discussed in the large canvas you
> suggest, because those very connections are too complex to melt down
> into the soundbites necessary to make such a pan-European-Eastern
> history comprehensible.
I disagree. One should not lose the forest for the trees. There were
world-wide important affairs in British history, and the battle of
Hastings was not one of them. Trying to elevate these minor events
into significant ones obscures the reading of history. There have
been texts recently starting a good effort to present history on a
unified level. This trend would and should continue and parochiality
should be put in its place. There is nothing wrong in examining the
history of the Norman conquest, 1066 and all that, but one should not
pretend that these events were of major importance.
If you are looking for a conflict that had European -wide (and
possibly more) impact and played out at about the same time as the
Norman conquest, this was the conflict of the German Salian kings with
the Papacy. This conflict resulted in the breakup of the unitary
German state with repercussions in Europe (including Britain) that
echo to this very day. However, I am not certain that even 1 in
100,000 British is even aware of this. Which is the reason why
parochialism should not be promoted.
Renia
They were to the English and the French.
> If you are looking for a conflict that had European -wide (and
Personally, I'm not. I'm more of a social historian than a military one.
> possibly more) impact and played out at about the same time as the
> Norman conquest, this was the conflict of the German Salian kings with
> the Papacy. This conflict resulted in the breakup of the unitary
> German state with repercussions in Europe (including Britain) that
> echo to this very day. However, I am not certain that even 1 in
> 100,000 British is even aware of this. Which is the reason why
> parochialism should not be promoted.
Being interested in the history of one's own country does not make one
"parochial". No one has space in their mind or the time in their lives
to learn every last bit of history from every last country, ex-country
or potential future country in Europe and the Near East.
If you look at those latest satellite pictures of lights and Twitter
messages around the world, you can see that Western Europe is far more
populated than anywhere else. This means that the history of Western
Europe pertains to more people than anywhere else. That is, Eastern
Europe and the Near East is less populated so has fewer people to learn
their histories. Further, Western Europe became so over-populated, that
its peoples migrated to the USA, Canada, South Africa, Australia and
elsewhere, and those peoples are a secondary batch of followers of
Western European history.
Just because YOU are interested in Eastern European and near-Eastern
history, does not mean that everyone else should be.
Alex
Arguably, the most important effect of this event was that, due to the
fact that Catholicism became an official religion of the Great Dukedom
of Lithuania, it lost a chance to become an alternative center of a
consolidated Russia even if it kept holding substantial Orthodox
territories until mid XVIII. Balance of positive and negative effects
in this case is quite interesting.
> By the
> beginning of the 17th century, the Polish state covered even a
> substantial part of what is now Ukraine. Its growth and significance
> cannot be understated.
>
> The creation of the Rus state was certainly one of great importance.
> Of great importance, of course, is the Christianization of this state
> by the Byzantines as well as the check on the westward expansion
Rather Southward.
>of
> the Kievan state at the battle of Arcadiopolis and Dorostolon, major
> engagements, far exceeding the little altercation at Hastings. Had
> the Kievan state managed to firmly establish itself in the Balkans,
Actually, Svyatoslav's activities in Bulgaria were somewhat outside
the scope of what passed for 'Kievan state'. There are opinions that
he wanted to establish a new state of his own where he would be
independent of the Kievan aristocracy. Only his personal _druzina_
participated in this adventure.
> European history would have been far different today.
Questionable. 'Rurikid Empire' very soon had been divided and
subdivided into numerous principalities. So there would be a
peripheral Princedom of <whatever> or more probably a dozen of the
smaller quarelling Russian princedoms in Bulgaria. Most probably they
would be picked up one by one by the Byzantians, Bulgars or some other
regional power. Pretty much as happened with Galitz Rus or the
princedoms of the White Rus,
Renia
>> On 19/07/2011 23:44, ADR wrote:
>>
>
>> Most of history concerns one ruling elite ejecting another.
>
> Not really. But this is a humongous discussion
>
>> The Norman invasion of England was significant because it brought in
>> Anglo-Norman rule, that is, rule by Normans who maintained the best of
>> English law. There was minimal ethnic cleansing and much integration
>> between the old Anglo-Saxon elite and the Normans and their descendants.
>> The Anglo-Saxon language continued to develop, easily integrating Latin
>> legalese and Norman French. This set the tone for the development of
>> England as a multi-cultural and adaptable society over the succeeding
>> centuries, eventually leading to English naval expansion and,
>> subsequently, her colonial epansion and the spread of English around the
>> world.
>
> The Norman invasion was not significant either for England and
> definitely for the world. A Norman aristocracy was established in
> Scotland (Robert de Bruce, dahhh) without any conquest. The English
The Bruces were a Norman family who were granted land in Yorkshire a
generation after the Norman Conquest. One family of Anglo-Norman
aristocrats in Scotland does not comprise the entire Scottish aristocracy.
> naval expansion had absolutely nothing to do with the Normans or the
> Norman conquest. I wonder where you see the connection. The English
> naval primacy was seriously contested, for example, by the Dutch who
> had no Norman involvement. The colonial expansion had also nothing to
> do with the Normans. A variety of European nations got involved in
Indeed, they did, but none was so successful as the English. I'm not
saying the Norman Conquest CAUSED later imperial expansion but was one
factor in the multi-cultural nature of England and its ability to adapt
its language and its politics to a global scale.
> imperial pursuits, not just the Norman-infected English. Of course,
> the Norman conquest and the imposition of a French-speaking ruling
> class for a period of time did have an impact on the English society
> but had no impact whatsoever in the evolution of world history. I am
It was the last time a serious invasion took place in England and had an
impact on the development of an English navy. England recognised itself
as an island race with Continental connections and territories, all of
which had to be defended and protected from further invasion.
> sure that we can mention similar changes in various parts of Europe,
> events more dramatic that you have no knowledge of. I am disturbed
> that you seem to defend this parochiality.
I'm disturbed that you see my comments as "parochial". Each of us has
our specialist subjects (or subjects we are more knowledgable about),
but that does not make us "parochial".
>>>> And yes, in 1000 AD Europe was a backwater. And one of the outstanding
>>>> problems in history is how that small region, a backwater in 1000, came
>>>> to be the dominant power in the world 500 year later.
>>
>>> Well, this is another discussion. The problem is in discussing
>>> medieval history overall. It does not really matter if one is French,
>>> British, Italian or whatever else. In the world of Europe, the events
>>> that dominated from 640 to 975 CE was the 300-year war between the
>>> Eastern Roman Empire, the Caliphate and the successor Arab states.
>>
>> The geographical continent of Europe is not the same thing as the
>> political nature of Europe. To this day, Europe is still thought of in
>> terms of Western Europe and Eastern Europe as if there is some
>> historical division between them.
>
> Well, there is!!!
I'm glad you agree with this, because that division is significant,
particularly with regard to what is taught in schools in Britain,
Western Europe and Eastern Europe.
>
>> In some respect, Britain was (and is!)
>> a tiny little continent all of her own. We British still refer to
>> mainland Europe as "The Continent". In this respect, European history
>> remains concentric around Western Europe. Eastern Europe's early
>> medieval history belongs with that of the East.
>
> Having lived in the UK, I fully understand what you are talking about,
> although I cannot really excuse it. I personally do not regard
> European history as centered on Western Europe, anything but. I think
> that this line of thinking is dangerously nationalistic. Neither Rome
> nor Athens are located in western Europe, nor is Florence or Venice,
> all of them far more influential than anything in the UK. If the
They are all in Western Europe, including Athens, and all of them have
influenced the histories of the rest of Western Europe, and the
histories of their Empires and movements are taught in Western European
schools.
> confluence of European affairs assisted the rise of the UK for a
> period of time (now no longer the case), nothing really much has
> changed. Britain and Ireland are off-shore islands, highly depended
> on the "continent". In fact, you can see some of the grand movements
England has never been dependent on the Continent. That's why her people
feel they were duped when they signed up for the Common Market in 1975.
They never signed up for what has happened since then, the precursor to
a Federal Europe. England has been more dependent on The Commonwealth,
the rump of her old Empire, which once encompassed one quarter of the
globe and comprised 700 million people, the largest Empire in history.
> in European history originating either in the European south of center
> (and many in the East) and having pale reflections in England and
> associated areas. I do not want to be dismissive, but a very Anglo-
> centric view harms the English first and foremost. Of course, there
> were important contributions to the European civilization by the
> English, but the Norman conquest was not one of these. And one should
> try to put things in a proper perspective, rather than inflate one's
> own importance.
Do you suggest I am inflating my own importance? Or that of England?
I do not know what nationality you are, but I suggest you underestimate
the importance of the Norman Conquest in England, and its effect on the
competitiveness between England and France, and the effect of that on
the rest of Europe, particularly the north.
<snip>
>
> the only
> thing in stake in the battle of Hastings were the riches and lands of
> a few nobles.
Some several thousand nobles and the several thousand Anglo-Saxon and
Celtic nobles they displaced plus the culture, language and lifestyle of
an entire nation.
Alex
> On 19/07/2011 23:44, ADR wrote:
>
> > On Jul 19, 10:56 am, Paul J Gans<gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >> So you do agree with me... ;-)
>
> > Why not??
>
> >> 1066 was not inconsequential to either the English or the French. It
> >> certainly was to the Chinese, but nobody much in the west cared about
> >> that.
>
> > It was inconsequential to European history overall. It simply
> > substituted a ruling elite with another one. Even if it did not
> > happen, challenges against the French monarchy may have been
> > launched. Overall, its historical significance is very low.
>
> Most of history concerns one ruling elite ejecting another.
But most of these events are only marginally significant beyond a
narrow regional interest.
>
> The Norman invasion of England was significant because it brought in
> Anglo-Norman rule,
Why would anybody (besides the natives) care?
> that is, rule by Normans who maintained the best of
> English law.
Which was almost completely insignificant consideration outside
England.
> There was minimal ethnic cleansing and much integration
> between the old Anglo-Saxon elite and the Normans and their descendants.
Really? Wasn't Saxon 'elite' (BTW, also the foreign conquerors) more
or less squeezed into almost complete insignificance? (just curious)
> The Anglo-Saxon language continued to develop, easily integrating Latin
> legalese and Norman French.
So, the only component different without the Norman conquest would be
an absense of the Norman French.
>This set the tone for the development of
> England as a multi-cultural and adaptable society
[splork]
> over the succeeding
> centuries, eventually leading to English naval expansion and,
> subsequently, her colonial epansion and the spread of English around the
> world.
[no splork because I'm out of coffee]
>
>
>
> >> And yes, in 1000 AD Europe was a backwater. And one of the outstanding
> >> problems in history is how that small region, a backwater in 1000, came
> >> to be the dominant power in the world 500 year later.
>
> > Well, this is another discussion. The problem is in discussing
> > medieval history overall. It does not really matter if one is French,
> > British, Italian or whatever else. In the world of Europe, the events
> > that dominated from 640 to 975 CE was the 300-year war between the
> > Eastern Roman Empire, the Caliphate and the successor Arab states.
>
> The geographical continent of Europe is not the same thing as the
> political nature of Europe. To this day, Europe is still thought of in
> terms of Western Europe and Eastern Europe
This notion is rather recent and does not make too much sense within
the framework of the medieval history. For example, Bohemia (which is
now in 'Eastern Europe') was an integral and important part of the HRE
and as such probably more 'European' than a remote spot like England.
Prior to WWII Czechoslovakia would be most probably defined as
'Central Europe' and I'm not sure how Hungary would be classified at
each specific point of her history. Even during the Napoleonic times
Poland was described either as part of the 'West' or as part of the
'East' depending on a political expediency.
> as if there is some
> historical division between them.
You simply misinformaed.
>In some respect, Britain was (and is!)
> a tiny little continent all of her own.
No, it is just as set of the islands off European shore. Australia,
OTOH, is a continent.
> We British still refer to
> mainland Europe as "The Continent".
But these local definitions are of a very little interest to anybody
but the natives.
>In this respect, European history
> remains concentric around Western Europe.
Which does not include that mini-continent and does not have clearly
defined borders either.... Not too much sense.
'European history' written in each specific country remains
'concentric around' this specific country with the rest being defined
by a wide variety of factors.
> Eastern Europe's early
> medieval history belongs with that of the East.
Taking into an account that the term 'East' is extremely vague and may
include everything from European Russia to Japan, this statement does
not make any practical sense.
[]
> > History should be discussed in a large canvas, otherwise the
> > connections are poorly understood.
>
> History should be discussed from a perspective, be it Economic History,
> Regligious History, Social History, or even the history of individual
> countries or empires. It cannot be discussed in the large canvas you
> suggest,
Actually, there was/is more than one book discussing ...er... 'a large
canvas'.
>because those very connections are too complex to melt down
> into the soundbites necessary to make such a pan-European-Eastern
> history comprehensible.
You can provide a comprehensive general picture quite easily and this
had been done more than once.
Renia
> On Jul 19, 6:20 pm, Renia<re...@otenet.gr> wrote:
>>
>> The geographical continent of Europe is not the same thing as the
>> political nature of Europe. To this day, Europe is still thought of in
>> terms of Western Europe and Eastern Europe
>
> This notion is rather recent and does not make too much sense within
> the framework of the medieval history. For example, Bohemia (which is
> now in 'Eastern Europe') was an integral and important part of the HRE
> and as such probably more 'European' than a remote spot like England.
> Prior to WWII Czechoslovakia would be most probably defined as
> 'Central Europe' and I'm not sure how Hungary would be classified at
> each specific point of her history. Even during the Napoleonic times
> Poland was described either as part of the 'West' or as part of the
> 'East' depending on a political expediency.
My father was Polish. His grandfather was Bohemian. His other immediate
ancestors were Galician. He thought his grandmother was Hungarian, but
that was an error. His family see and saw themselves as East European
with quite different cultural attitudes to Western Europeans. Poland has
always been an anomaly, in that she has always aspired to Western
European culture, but been hemmed in by Russia, Austria and Prussia.
>
>
>> as if there is some
>> historical division between them.
>
> You simply misinformaed.
I hardly think it is misinformation. It is something I grew up with.
>> In some respect, Britain was (and is!)
>> a tiny little continent all of her own.
>
> No, it is just as set of the islands off European shore. Australia,
> OTOH, is a continent.
No, it isn't. It is part of a larger continent called Australasia, with
(rather large) offshore islands of its own.
English cultural attitudes have always been quite apart and different to
those of mainland Europe, notwithstanding the two-way cultural
influences between England and Europe.
>> We British still refer to
>> mainland Europe as "The Continent".
>
> But these local definitions are of a very little interest to anybody
> but the natives.
The same applies to much of localised history and culture but it is all
part of the wider body of knowledge. We cannot dismiss things simply
because we don't know much about it. Much better to admit we don't know
much about it than to say it is insignificant.
>> In this respect, European history
>> remains concentric around Western Europe.
>
> Which does not include that mini-continent and does not have clearly
> defined borders either.... Not too much sense.
What does not have clearly-defined borders?
> 'European history' written in each specific country remains
> 'concentric around' this specific country with the rest being defined
> by a wide variety of factors.
>
>> Eastern Europe's early
>> medieval history belongs with that of the East.
>
> Taking into an account that the term 'East' is extremely vague and may
> include everything from European Russia to Japan, this statement does
> not make any practical sense.
I should have said Near-East.
>
> []
>
>>> History should be discussed in a large canvas, otherwise the
>>> connections are poorly understood.
>>
>> History should be discussed from a perspective, be it Economic History,
>> Regligious History, Social History, or even the history of individual
>> countries or empires. It cannot be discussed in the large canvas you
>> suggest,
>
> Actually, there was/is more than one book discussing ...er... 'a large
> canvas'.
>
>> because those very connections are too complex to melt down
>> into the soundbites necessary to make such a pan-European-Eastern
>> history comprehensible.
>
> You can provide a comprehensive general picture quite easily and this
> had been done more than once.
To give value to such a wide and diverse subject as the History of
Europe (including its spats with western Asia) would take several
volumes to do justice to the histories of the countries concerned.
Brian M. Scott
<aret...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<news:02a3a3a8-6755-4986...@y16g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
in soc.history.medieval:
[...]
> The Norman invasion was not significant either for England
> and definitely for the world. [...]
The first of these assertions is obvious nonsense: just
consider how much of Western European history is tied up in
the resulting complex relationship between England and
France.
Brian
Brian M. Scott
wrote in <news:j05003$en3$1...@speranza.aioe.org> in
soc.history.medieval:
[...]
> The Norman invasion of England was significant because it
> brought in Anglo-Norman rule, that is, rule by Normans
> who maintained the best of English law. There was
> minimal ethnic cleansing and much integration between
> the old Anglo-Saxon elite and the Normans and their
> descendants.
These are ways in which the invasion did *not* greatly
change matters, so they don't support your position.
> The Anglo-Saxon language continued to develop,
That's what languages do: they change.
> easily integrating Latin legalese and Norman French.
Integrating? No. They borrowed a bit here and there. The
massive borrowings from French came a good deal later and
had nothing to do with the Conquest, but rather reflected
the cultural supremacy of the French at the time. (And they
were from Central French, not Northern French.)
> This set the tone for the development of England
> as a multi-cultural and adaptable society over the
> succeeding centuries, eventually leading to English
> naval expansion and, subsequently, her colonial epansion
> and the spread of English around the world.
Meaningless historical mysticism.
ADR's claim that the Norman invasion was not significant for
England or anyone else is patent nonsense, but so is what
you've written, if it's supposed to be a refutation.
Brian
Brian M. Scott
wrote in <news:j05aaj$325$1...@speranza.aioe.org> in
soc.history.medieval:
> On 20/07/2011 04:01, Alex wrote:
>> On Jul 19, 6:20 pm, Renia<re...@otenet.gr> wrote:
[...]
>>> In some respect, Britain was (and is!)
>>> a tiny little continent all of her own.
>> No, it is just as set of the islands off European shore.
>> Australia, OTOH, is a continent.
> No, it isn't. It is part of a larger continent called
> Australasia, with (rather large) offshore islands of its
> own.
The continent in question is variously known as Australia,
Sahul, Meganesia, Australinea, and Australia-New Guinea; it
includes Tasmania, New Guinea, and the Aru and Raja Ampat
islands; it does not include New Zealand. The name
'Australasia' *used* to be used in that sense, though even
then (and certainly now) it generally refers to a region
that includes New Zealand and so is not confined to a single
continent.
[...]
Brian
David Friedman
<000fbb10-d93d-4dc7...@p14g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > The geographical continent of Europe is not the same thing as the
> > political nature of Europe. To this day, Europe is still thought of in
> > terms of Western Europe and Eastern Europe
>
> This notion is rather recent and does not make too much sense within
> the framework of the medieval history. For example, Bohemia (which is
> now in 'Eastern Europe') was an integral and important part of the HRE
> and as such probably more 'European' than a remote spot like England.
> Prior to WWII Czechoslovakia would be most probably defined as
> 'Central Europe' and I'm not sure how Hungary would be classified at
> each specific point of her history. Even during the Napoleonic times
> Poland was described either as part of the 'West' or as part of the
> 'East' depending on a political expediency.
And consider al-Andalus--western or middle-eastern?
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
_Salamander_: http://tinyurl.com/6957y7e
_How to Milk an Almond,..._ http://tinyurl.com/63xg8gx
ADR
> > in European history originating either in the European south of center
> > (and many in the East) and having pale reflections in England and
> > associated areas. I do not want to be dismissive, but a very Anglo-
> > centric view harms the English first and foremost. Of course, there
> > were important contributions to the European civilization by the
> > English, but the Norman conquest was not one of these. And one should
> > try to put things in a proper perspective, rather than inflate one's
> > own importance.
>
> Do you suggest I am inflating my own importance? Or that of England?
>
> I do not know what nationality you are, but I suggest you underestimate
> the importance of the Norman Conquest in England, and its effect on the
> competitiveness between England and France, and the effect of that on
> the rest of Europe, particularly the north.
Just to see how parochial this is, I have mentioned two events that
were happening at the same time: The Norman conquest and
consolidation in England and the conflict of the Salian emperors with
the Papacy. In fact, you have mentioned nothing of the second,
although its impact on European and world history is momentous. Do
you even know anything about it?? Maybe not. But I guess that you
know all the minutiae of the battle of Hastings. I am not against
knowing the minutiae of English history at all, but it is important
not to elevate them in importance.
In all my years living in Britain, I was always entertained by the
sheer and unashamed chauvinism of the English. There was a striding
belief that the British was so...superior to the inhabitants of the
continent who were not smart enough to resist lawnmower noise
legislation!!! Even you seem to use the term "the Continent", as if
those living at the other side side of the Channel are somehow all the
same. In fact, the differences among European countries are
substantial, whatever body of water is around!!! Britain has always
been dependent on the totality of Europe and this is why it has tried
very much to interject itself in all European alliances and wars. The
only period of detachment was the middle Victorian period, a period
that ended in a shock due to the rise of Imperial Germany.
So, let's have some balance. The key events in the 11th century is
the final disappearance of the Bulgarian kingdom and (most important)
the conflict of the Papacy with the Salian dynasty and the resulting
breakup of the unitary German state. If you are looking for a
momentous military event, then the capture of Toledo by Castile
(1085?) is it. Toledo's library of Arab texts became available to
much of Europe, starting an awareness of learning that had a
substantial effect throughout Europe.
The Horny Goat
>My father was Polish. His grandfather was Bohemian. His other immediate
>ancestors were Galician. He thought his grandmother was Hungarian, but
>that was an error. His family see and saw themselves as East European
>with quite different cultural attitudes to Western Europeans. Poland has
>always been an anomaly, in that she has always aspired to Western
>European culture, but been hemmed in by Russia, Austria and Prussia.
My inlaws are Polish but from different corners of the country. My
father-in-law's family is on the border just west of Bialystok and
very definitely thought of themselves as eastern Europeans. My
mother-in-laws family (originally from Kielce south of Warsaw)
definitely though of themselves as 'western'.
Obviously anecdotal but make of that what you will. I speak no Polish
but I could definitely tell who was from which side of the family. If
they sounded vaguely Slavic when speaking Polish well - on the other
hand if they sounded vaguely French... and I could close my eyes and
distinguish (as I did at my sister in law's wedding when I saw folks I
hadn't seen since my own wedding) very clearly.
>English cultural attitudes have always been quite apart and different to
>those of mainland Europe, notwithstanding the two-way cultural
>influences between England and Europe.
I would argue the main impact of 1066 was to turn the orientation of
England (and thus Scotland and to a lesser extent Ireland) primarily
from Scandanavia to France. By the time this changed England was a
major power which it wasn't in 1066.
>>> We British still refer to
>>> mainland Europe as "The Continent".
>What does not have clearly-defined borders?
>
>> 'European history' written in each specific country remains
>> 'concentric around' this specific country with the rest being defined
>> by a wide variety of factors.
And this is surprising because?
I once had a retiring city councillor (who was holding court at a
friend's house after his last council meeting - he emigrated from
Austria to Canada shortly after WW2) say to me completely out of the
blue 'Lyle you're interested in history - what was the primary
long-term result of the 30 Years' War?'
After confirming he meant 1618-48 I said 'the fact that there is today
a country named Germany - before that there were a gazillion feudal
principalities but nothing resembling a German national consciousness.
After the Austrians and Swedes and French and Lord knows who else had
marched and looted their way across Germany the survivors still saw
themselves as Swabians, Prussians, Rhinelanders etc but ...'
While he was satisfied with the answer I'm not sure that's necessarily
true - Luther, Bach and Frederick had as much to do with it as well.
And of course Napoleon Bonaparte who forced consolidation of the
hundreds of principalities into a couple of dozen.
>>> Eastern Europe's early
>>> medieval history belongs with that of the East.
>>
>> Taking into an account that the term 'East' is extremely vague and may
>> include everything from European Russia to Japan, this statement does
>> not make any practical sense.
>
>I should have said Near-East.
In modern times 'Near East' tends to refer to the Arabic states of
North Africa - Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia notably.
>To give value to such a wide and diverse subject as the History of
>Europe (including its spats with western Asia) would take several
>volumes to do justice to the histories of the countries concerned.
Western Asia - would that be modern day Turkey - which was originally
a major center of Christendom before the 6th-10th century, or 'the
Middle East' - home of the Crusades or what?
Terminology is king and the devil is in the details (evil grin)
David Friedman
The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
> In modern times 'Near East' tends to refer to the Arabic states of
> North Africa - Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia notably.
I would take it as possibly including the Maghreb, but also Egypt,
Lebanon, Syria, et. It's true that the same places get labeled
"middle-east," but then labeling isn't all that consistent.
Renia
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 01:20:24 +0300, Renia<re...@otenet.gr>
> wrote in<news:j05003$en3$1...@speranza.aioe.org> in
> soc.history.medieval:
>
> [...]
>
>> The Norman invasion of England was significant because it
>> brought in Anglo-Norman rule, that is, rule by Normans
>> who maintained the best of English law. There was
>> minimal ethnic cleansing and much integration between
>> the old Anglo-Saxon elite and the Normans and their
>> descendants.
>
> These are ways in which the invasion did *not* greatly
> change matters, so they don't support your position.
>
>> The Anglo-Saxon language continued to develop,
>
> That's what languages do: they change.
Indeed they do. See below.
>> easily integrating Latin legalese and Norman French.
>
> Integrating? No. They borrowed a bit here and there. The
> massive borrowings from French came a good deal later and
> had nothing to do with the Conquest, but rather reflected
> the cultural supremacy of the French at the time. (And they
> were from Central French, not Northern French.)
English has borrowed (and kept) much from many languages. In that
respect, it has intigrated words from many languages. Perhaps this is
one reason why it is so easy for foreigners to learn. Had there been no
Norman invasion, it is doubtful so much Norman (as in, not modern)
French would have made its way into English.
>> This set the tone for the development of England
>> as a multi-cultural and adaptable society over the
>> succeeding centuries, eventually leading to English
>> naval expansion and, subsequently, her colonial epansion
>> and the spread of English around the world.
>
> Meaningless historical mysticism.
>
> ADR's claim that the Norman invasion was not significant for
> England or anyone else is patent nonsense, but so is what
> you've written, if it's supposed to be a refutation.
Had there been no Norman invasion, England might well have remained an
insignificant backwater.
Renia
No, the opposite. Not that the countries on The Continent are all the
same, but that Britain is different, because it is an island, which,
until the Norman invasion, had little to do with The Continent.
> In fact, the differences among European countries are
> substantial, whatever body of water is around!!! Britain has always
> been dependent on the totality of Europe and this is why it has tried
> very much to interject itself in all European alliances and wars. The
> only period of detachment was the middle Victorian period, a period
> that ended in a shock due to the rise of Imperial Germany.
Of course, the differences among European countries are substantial.
Now, who was it, recently, among my Continental Facebook friends who had
no interest in travelling around Europe, because "everywhere is the
same"? Ah, yes, it was one of my Greek friends.
If you want unashamed chauvinism, try the Greeks. It is just half a
notch up from a third world country, but they live as if they still
possess the importance of the 5thC BC.
> So, let's have some balance. The key events in the 11th century is
> the final disappearance of the Bulgarian kingdom and (most important)
> the conflict of the Papacy with the Salian dynasty and the resulting
> breakup of the unitary German state. If you are looking for a
> momentous military event, then the capture of Toledo by Castile
> (1085?) is it. Toledo's library of Arab texts became available to
> much of Europe, starting an awareness of learning that had a
> substantial effect throughout Europe.
Did I say that any of those events is insignificant or less significant
than the Norman invasion?
The Bulgarian kingdom, of which you speak, was short-lived, from the
7th-11th centuries. More significant than its break-up, was the growth
and power of the Ottoman Empire.
As Voltaire said: "this agglomeration which was called and which still
calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an
empire." Germany is still looking for an Empire.
It would take an age, and a lot of discussion, to come up with a list of
Significant Battles of Europe. The capture of Toledo is one of them. The
Battle of Hastings another. Und zo weiter.
Surreyman
Yep, I still pine for the once-discussed Commonwealth Union!
SolomonW
>> It was inconsequential to European history overall. It simply
>> substituted a ruling elite with another one. Even if it did not
>> happen, challenges against the French monarchy may have been
>> launched. Overall, its historical significance is very low.
>
> Most of history concerns one ruling elite ejecting another.
>
> The Norman invasion of England was significant because it brought in
> Anglo-Norman rule, that is, rule by Normans who maintained the best of
> English law.
I like that expression used "best of English law".
> There was minimal ethnic cleansing and much integration
> between the old Anglo-Saxon elite and the Normans and their descendants.
I also like the expression minimal!!!
> The Anglo-Saxon language continued to develop, easily integrating Latin
> legalese and Norman French.
This is minor?
> This set the tone for the development of
> England as a multi-cultural and adaptable society over the succeeding
> centuries,
I think this is true only well into the modern era, long after but hold
that thought.
> eventually leading to English naval expansion and,
> subsequently, her colonial epansion and the spread of English around the
> world.
Did not Spain expand and while doing so it was certainly not what one could
call a multi-cultural and adaptable society?
To me, the surprising details in 1066, is how quickly and easily Saxon
England died after 500 years of history. It is not the only time English
history displays such as quick changes. The reformation is another example
of how Catholic England after about 1000 years of history died.
William Black
> To me, the surprising details in 1066, is how quickly and easily Saxon
> England died after 500 years of history.
England as a nation hadn't existed for very long by 1066 and was pretty
fragmented even then.
It's doubtful if the locals even considered themselves 'English' in any
meaningful sense.
The evolution of the nation state as 'something to be part of' is later.
--
William Black
Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy a dog...
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
<000fbb10-d93d-4dc7...@p14g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote:
> But most of these events are only marginally significant beyond a
> narrow regional interest.
Previous to the Norman invasion the main focus of English interest had
been the North including Scandinavia. The Norman conquest can claimed to
be responsible for the Hundred Years War, the intervention of the Black
Prince in Iberia and the export of unemployed mercenary companies to
Italy. Normans from Normandy and Sicily also formed a large part of the
First Crusade.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
<02a3a3a8-6755-4986...@y16g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
aret...@yahoo.com (ADR) wrote:
> The Norman invasion was not significant either for England and
> definitely for the world.
Normans had a worldwide influence. The Normans took over Sicily and one
Norman spent years fight for and then against the Byzantine Empire. The
composition of the Varagarian Guard changed after 1066 with a lot of
dispossessed Anglo-Saxons ending up in it.
> A Norman aristocracy was established in
> Scotland (Robert de Bruce, dahhh) without any conquest.
Some Norman Aristocrats were invited by Scottish Kings in an attempt to
improve the situation of the Crown versus the Highland Clan Lords and
the Lord of the Isles. These married into Scottish Aristocracy. However
this was well before Robert the Bruce four or five generations. When the
line of Scottish Kings became extinct with the Death of the Maid of
Norway the claimants all traced their Ancestry to David of Huntingdon a
MacAlpine through different female lines. From a legal point of view
Baliol probably did have the best claim.
Ken Young
SolomonW
> On 20/07/11 11:00, SolomonW wrote:
>
>> To me, the surprising details in 1066, is how quickly and easily Saxon
>> England died after 500 years of history.
>
> England as a nation hadn't existed for very long by 1066 and was pretty
> fragmented even then.
>
> It's doubtful if the locals even considered themselves 'English' in any
> meaningful sense.
>
> The evolution of the nation state as 'something to be part of' is later.
Germany, was not united until recently but people there still considered
themselves Germans similarly so did the Italians feel Italian. The same is
true for much of its history in China and the Arab world today, etc.
William Black
But England was a number of distinct kingdoms until relatively shortly
before 1066.
Canute was king of England, but he wasn't English...
And 'English Nationalism' is a relatively weak political force even
today. Wales and Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own
assemblies, when asked, years ago, England rejected the idea of
regional assemblies.
SolomonW
> And 'English Nationalism' is a relatively weak political force even
> today.
Which is my point.
ADR
> > In all my years living in Britain, I was always entertained by the
> > sheer and unashamed chauvinism of the English. There was a striding
> > belief that the British was so...superior to the inhabitants of the
> > continent who were not smart enough to resist lawnmower noise
> > legislation!!! Even you seem to use the term "the Continent", as if
> > those living at the other side side of the Channel are somehow all the
> > same.
>
> No, the opposite. Not that the countries on The Continent are all the
> same, but that Britain is different, because it is an island, which,
> until the Norman invasion, had little to do with The Continent.
Do you actually know any British history??? Britain had little to do
with the "Continent"??? In which historical text is that? The Middle
Kingdom's??? We are talking about a country which its Angevin kings
did not even like living in (they lived in their "continental"
possessions), a country that has participated in virtually all
"continental" system of alliances and got involved in all European
wars....Maybe you should re-examine your assumptions!
> > In fact, the differences among European countries are
> > substantial, whatever body of water is around!!! Britain has always
> > been dependent on the totality of Europe and this is why it has tried
> > very much to interject itself in all European alliances and wars. The
> > only period of detachment was the middle Victorian period, a period
> > that ended in a shock due to the rise of Imperial Germany.
>
> Of course, the differences among European countries are substantial.
> Now, who was it, recently, among my Continental Facebook friends who had
> no interest in travelling around Europe, because "everywhere is the
> same"? Ah, yes, it was one of my Greek friends.
Weird, but I cannot account for everybody. What does this have to do
with you claiming some kind of English exceptionalism???
> If you want unashamed chauvinism, try the Greeks. It is just half a
> notch up from a third world country, but they live as if they still
> possess the importance of the 5thC BC.
This is not my impression. Unfortunately, the Usenet is excellent in
amplifying idiotic statements. However, one does not have more to do
than to read the British tabloids to see British chauvinism in full
flight. I was traveling in Britain during the bombing raids against
Serbia for Kosovo. I was astounded to see the coverage in British
dailies. One could have gotten the impression that it was Britain
that was doing the bombing, although Brits participated in something
like 3% of raids!!!
> > So, let's have some balance. The key events in the 11th century is
> > the final disappearance of the Bulgarian kingdom and (most important)
> > the conflict of the Papacy with the Salian dynasty and the resulting
> > breakup of the unitary German state. If you are looking for a
> > momentous military event, then the capture of Toledo by Castile
> > (1085?) is it. Toledo's library of Arab texts became available to
> > much of Europe, starting an awareness of learning that had a
> > substantial effect throughout Europe.
>
> Did I say that any of those events is insignificant or less significant
> than the Norman invasion?
No, I said that the Norman invasion is really insignificant compared
to these events. I still do not believe that you have an idea as to
pan-European and world repercussions of the Papacy's assault on the
Salian Emperors, do you? Listen, I fully understand being interested
in your country's history. This is not the problem. The only issue is
trying to elevate elements of this history to greater importance than
they actually were.
> The Bulgarian kingdom, of which you speak, was short-lived, from the
> 7th-11th centuries. More significant than its break-up, was the growth
> and power of the Ottoman Empire.
I suggest that you are do not know what I am referring about here.
Let's drop this subject
> As Voltaire said: "this agglomeration which was called and which still
> calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an
> empire." Germany is still looking for an Empire.
What does this suppose to mean???
> It would take an age, and a lot of discussion, to come up with a list of
> Significant Battles of Europe. The capture of Toledo is one of them. The
> Battle of Hastings another. Und zo weiter.
Really?? Hastings is one of the "significant battles" of Europe???
In that context, all battles for the capture of the English crown
become "significant battles of Europe"!!!! And there are dozens of
them!! Now we are fully enmeshed into parochiality. And why leave
France out of it? All battles for the French crown are "significant
battles of Europe". Why not? How about the battles for the crown of
Castille and Aragon? Are those important too??? (we can mention a
dozen others)
Renia
> On Jul 20, 12:52 am, Renia<re...@otenet.gr> wrote:
>
>>> In all my years living in Britain, I was always entertained by the
>>> sheer and unashamed chauvinism of the English. There was a striding
>>> belief that the British was so...superior to the inhabitants of the
>>> continent who were not smart enough to resist lawnmower noise
>>> legislation!!! Even you seem to use the term "the Continent", as if
>>> those living at the other side side of the Channel are somehow all the
>>> same.
>>
>> No, the opposite. Not that the countries on The Continent are all the
>> same, but that Britain is different, because it is an island, which,
>> until the Norman invasion, had little to do with The Continent.
>
> Do you actually know any British history??? Britain had little to do
> with the "Continent"??? In which historical text is that? The Middle
> Kingdom's??? We are talking about a country which its Angevin kings
> did not even like living in (they lived in their "continental"
> possessions), a country that has participated in virtually all
> "continental" system of alliances and got involved in all European
> wars....Maybe you should re-examine your assumptions!
Oh dear. Please read my words again, which I will repeat for you: "it is
an island, which, until the Norman invasion, had little to do with The
Continent".
Just to clarify, the Angevin kings came later.
>>> In fact, the differences among European countries are
>>> substantial, whatever body of water is around!!! Britain has always
>>> been dependent on the totality of Europe and this is why it has tried
>>> very much to interject itself in all European alliances and wars. The
>>> only period of detachment was the middle Victorian period, a period
>>> that ended in a shock due to the rise of Imperial Germany.
>>
>> Of course, the differences among European countries are substantial.
>> Now, who was it, recently, among my Continental Facebook friends who had
>> no interest in travelling around Europe, because "everywhere is the
>> same"? Ah, yes, it was one of my Greek friends.
>
> Weird, but I cannot account for everybody. What does this have to do
> with you claiming some kind of English exceptionalism???
I have not claimed some kind of English exceptionalism. This is your
interpretation of what I've been saying. Because of that, I've
illustrated some of the parochialism of modern Greeks.
>
>> If you want unashamed chauvinism, try the Greeks. It is just half a
>> notch up from a third world country, but they live as if they still
>> possess the importance of the 5thC BC.
>
> This is not my impression.
I live in Greece. It's all they talk about. That, and how Papandraeou
too American and can hardly speek Greek.
> Unfortunately, the Usenet is excellent in
> amplifying idiotic statements. However, one does not have more to do
> than to read the British tabloids to see British chauvinism in full
> flight. I was traveling in Britain during the bombing raids against
> Serbia for Kosovo. I was astounded to see the coverage in British
> dailies. One could have gotten the impression that it was Britain
> that was doing the bombing, although Brits participated in something
> like 3% of raids!!!
It's a bit like the USA during one of the Olympics which I watched on
CNN in Athens in the early 1990s. The Americans reported where their
athletes had come, but did not mention who received the gold and silver
medals, if it was not their team. Most nations have national pride. And
why not?
>
>>> So, let's have some balance. The key events in the 11th century is
>>> the final disappearance of the Bulgarian kingdom and (most important)
>>> the conflict of the Papacy with the Salian dynasty and the resulting
>>> breakup of the unitary German state. If you are looking for a
>>> momentous military event, then the capture of Toledo by Castile
>>> (1085?) is it. Toledo's library of Arab texts became available to
>>> much of Europe, starting an awareness of learning that had a
>>> substantial effect throughout Europe.
>>
>> Did I say that any of those events is insignificant or less significant
>> than the Norman invasion?
>
> No, I said that the Norman invasion is really insignificant compared
> to these events.
According to you.
> I still do not believe that you have an idea as to
> pan-European and world repercussions of the Papacy's assault on the
> Salian Emperors, do you?
It wasn't lasting, though, was it?
> Listen, I fully understand being interested
> in your country's history. This is not the problem. The only issue is
> trying to elevate elements of this history to greater importance than
> they actually were.
>
>> The Bulgarian kingdom, of which you speak, was short-lived, from the
>> 7th-11th centuries. More significant than its break-up, was the growth
>> and power of the Ottoman Empire.
>
> I suggest that you are do not know what I am referring about here.
> Let's drop this subject
You raised the subject. I disagreed with you.
>> As Voltaire said: "this agglomeration which was called and which still
>> calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an
>> empire." Germany is still looking for an Empire.
>
> What does this suppose to mean???
That the HRE was not Holy. Or Roman. Or an Empire.
>> It would take an age, and a lot of discussion, to come up with a list of
>> Significant Battles of Europe. The capture of Toledo is one of them. The
>> Battle of Hastings another. Und zo weiter.
>
> Really?? Hastings is one of the "significant battles" of Europe???
> In that context, all battles for the capture of the English crown
> become "significant battles of Europe"!!!! And there are dozens of
> them!!
Name all the battles for the capture of the English crown.
> Now we are fully enmeshed into parochiality. And why leave
> France out of it?
I didn't. I mentioned France earlier. The 1,000-year tug of love between
France and England has been significant.
> All battles for the French crown are "significant
> battles of Europe". Why not? How about the battles for the crown of
> Castille and Aragon? Are those important too??? (we can mention a
> dozen others)
You are getting hysterical. I do not understand why.
David Friedman
<454a08ac-7ad4-4dfa...@e20g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
ADR <aret...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > No, the opposite. Not that the countries on The Continent are all the
> > same, but that Britain is different, because it is an island, which,
> > until the Norman invasion, had little to do with The Continent.
>
> Do you actually know any British history??? Britain had little to do
> with the "Continent"??? In which historical text is that? The Middle
> Kingdom's??? We are talking about a country which its Angevin kings
> did not even like living in (they lived in their "continental"
> possessions), a country that has participated in virtually all
> "continental" system of alliances and got involved in all European
> wars....Maybe you should re-examine your assumptions!
>
Or maybe you should read posts before replying to them. What part of
"until the Norman invasion" do you have difficulty understanding? What
Angevin kings did England have prior to the Norman invasion?
And what European wars was England involved in prior to the Norman
invasion? Were you thinking of the involvement of Roman legions from
England in some of the empire's internal conflicts?
Alex
> On 20/07/2011 04:01, Alex wrote:
>
> > On Jul 19, 6:20 pm, Renia<re...@otenet.gr> wrote:
>
> >> The geographical continent of Europe is not the same thing as the
> >> political nature of Europe. To this day, Europe is still thought of in
> >> terms of Western Europe and Eastern Europe
>
> > This notion is rather recent and does not make too much sense within
> > the framework of the medieval history. For example, Bohemia (which is
> > now in 'Eastern Europe') was an integral and important part of the HRE
> > and as such probably more 'European' than a remote spot like England.
> > Prior to WWII Czechoslovakia would be most probably defined as
> > 'Central Europe' and I'm not sure how Hungary would be classified at
> > each specific point of her history. Even during the Napoleonic times
> > Poland was described either as part of the 'West' or as part of the
> > 'East' depending on a political expediency.
>
> My father was Polish. His grandfather was Bohemian. His other immediate
> ancestors were Galician. He thought his grandmother was Hungarian, but
> that was an error. His family see and saw themselves as East European
> with quite different cultural attitudes to Western Europeans.
> Poland has
> always been an anomaly, in that she has always aspired to Western
> European culture, but been hemmed in by Russia, Austria and Prussia.
You clearly don't understand what I'm talking about and your whole
quest for your 'roots' is rather irrelevant.
As far as the history of HRE is involved, Bohemia always was one of
the crucial components of it so whatever your granfather or other
members of your permanently confused family had been thinking about
themselves is totally irrelevant.
Poland was not too much of an 'anomaly' because Hungary was quite
similar. Statement that it was 'always' hemmed in by Russia, Austria
and Prussia is a total rubbishm, historically, because this <whatever>
did not happen until well into XVIII by which time Russia also
'aspired' to <whatever> approximately to the same degree as Poland.
>
>
>
> >> as if there is some
> >> historical division between them.
>
> > You simply misinformaed.
>
> I hardly think it is misinformation. It is something I grew up with.
Quite a few people grew up with the wrong notions so this is hardly an
argument.
>
> >> In some respect, Britain was (and is!)
> >> a tiny little continent all of her own.
>
> > No, it is just as set of the islands off European shore. Australia,
> > OTOH, is a continent.
>
> No, it isn't. It is part of a larger continent called Australasia, with
> (rather large) offshore islands of its own.
Just as in the case of the 'historical divisions' in Europe, you are
misinformed:
"A continent is one of several large landmasses on Earth. They are
generally identified by convention rather than any strict criteria,
with seven regions commonly regarded as continents—they are (from
largest in size to smallest): Asia, Africa, North America, South
America, Antarctica, Europe, and Australia." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent
As you may notice, neither Britain nor Australisia are present in this
list.
>
> English cultural attitudes have always been quite apart and different to
> those of mainland Europe,
This does not make it a continent any more of a continent than Russia
or China.
> notwithstanding the two-way cultural
> influences between England and Europe.
So in your own definition England is not a part of Europe and its
history should not be a part of the Western-european history or
european history in general.
>
> >> We British still refer to
> >> mainland Europe as "The Continent".
>
> > But these local definitions are of a very little interest to anybody
> > but the natives.
>
> The same applies to much of localised history and culture but it is all
> part of the wider body of knowledge.
If you start talking about a wider <whatever>, then what you said
earlier about Eastern Europe is irreelevant because surely it is a
part of this 'wider' body.
> We cannot dismiss things simply
> because we don't know much about it.
You mean 'we' do noty know much about England?
> Much better to admit we don't know
> much about it than to say it is insignificant.
See your comments about eastern Europe.
>
> >> In this respect, European history
> >> remains concentric around Western Europe.
>
> > Which does not include that mini-continent and does not have clearly
> > defined borders either.... Not too much sense.
>
> What does not have clearly-defined borders?
>
What you were trying to define (so far) as "Western Europe".
> > 'European history' written in each specific country remains
> > 'concentric around' this specific country with the rest being defined
> > by a wide variety of factors.
>
> >> Eastern Europe's early
> >> medieval history belongs with that of the East.
>
> > Taking into an account that the term 'East' is extremely vague and may
> > include everything from European Russia to Japan, this statement does
> > not make any practical sense.
>
> I should have said Near-East.
>
No, you should not because it is not applicable to most of the
discussed territories:
"The Near East (French, Proche-Orient) is a geographical term that
covers different countries for archeologists and historians, on the
one hand, and for political scientists, economists, and journalists,
on the other. The term originally applied to the maximum extent of the
Ottoman Empire, which had been settled to the north by the Great
Turkish War of the late 17th century, ending with the Treaty of
Karlowitz, June 26, 1699. This war determined that Austria, Hungary
and the Ukraine would not be in the Ottoman Empire and therefore
ultimately would not be Near Eastern." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_East
As you may notice, Russia and Poland (not to mention Bohemia) are not
even on the list of the potential candidates'.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > []
>
> >>> History should be discussed in a large canvas, otherwise the
> >>> connections are poorly understood.
>
> >> History should be discussed from a perspective, be it Economic History,
> >> Regligious History, Social History, or even the history of individual
> >> countries or empires. It cannot be discussed in the large canvas you
> >> suggest,
>
> > Actually, there was/is more than one book discussing ...er... 'a large
> > canvas'.
>
> >> because those very connections are too complex to melt down
> >> into the soundbites necessary to make such a pan-European-Eastern
> >> history comprehensible.
>
> > You can provide a comprehensive general picture quite easily and this
> > had been done more than once.
>
> To give value to such a wide and diverse subject as the History of
> Europe (including its spats with western Asia) would take several
> volumes to do justice to the histories of the countries concerned.
Putting aside single-volume books (like "Europe" by Norman Davies),
are you saying that writing a multi-volume history of <whatever> is an
impossibility? Or at least something rare?
Alex
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 04:16:41 +0300, Renia <re...@otenet.gr> wrote:
> >My father was Polish. His grandfather was Bohemian. His other immediate
> >ancestors were Galician. He thought his grandmother was Hungarian, but
> >that was an error. His family see and saw themselves as East European
> >with quite different cultural attitudes to Western Europeans. Poland has
> >always been an anomaly, in that she has always aspired to Western
> >European culture, but been hemmed in by Russia, Austria and Prussia.
>
> My inlaws are Polish but from different corners of the country. My
> father-in-law's family is on the border just west of Bialystok and
> very definitely thought of themselves as eastern Europeans. My
> mother-in-laws family (originally from Kielce south of Warsaw)
> definitely though of themselves as 'western'.
>
> Obviously anecdotal but make of that what you will. I speak no Polish
> but I could definitely tell who was from which side of the family. If
> they sounded vaguely Slavic when speaking Polish well - on the other
> hand if they sounded vaguely French... and I could close my eyes and
> distinguish (as I did at my sister in law's wedding when I saw folks I
> hadn't seen since my own wedding) very clearly.
>
Putting Poland (and not only Poland) in a single historical or
cultural group is a hazardous task. During the Middle Ages there was a
noticeable immigration from Germany so many major cities had a
significant German-speaking population (which probably qualifies them
as 'Western'). Later, a big part of the ruling class was under
significant Western (especially French) influence and even later,
during the partitions, many cities became quite 'German' or
'Austrian'. OTOH, the rural areas and especially 'Ruthenian' areas
remained much more 'eastern-european'.
> >English cultural attitudes have always been quite apart and different to
> >those of mainland Europe, notwithstanding the two-way cultural
> >influences between England and Europe.
>
> I would argue the main impact of 1066 was to turn the orientation of
> England (and thus Scotland and to a lesser extent Ireland) primarily
> from Scandanavia to France. By the time this changed England was a
> major power which it wasn't in 1066.
IMO, this would happen even without Norman conquest: time of the
Vikings was more or less over and France was a closest neighbour.
IIRC, William was even appointed as a legal heir so this was more or
less an issue of which of ruling elite would keep power.
OTL events just provided an opportunity for a memorable military
confrontation and easy to remember date.
>
> >>> We British still refer to
> >>> mainland Europe as "The Continent".
> >What does not have clearly-defined borders?
>
> >> 'European history' written in each specific country remains
> >> 'concentric around' this specific country with the rest being defined
> >> by a wide variety of factors.
>
> And this is surprising because?
It is not surprising at all because it is how it should be. Renia is
seemingly having problem with this idea.
>
> I once had a retiring city councillor (who was holding court at a
> friend's house after his last council meeting - he emigrated from
> Austria to Canada shortly after WW2) say to me completely out of the
> blue 'Lyle you're interested in history - what was the primary
> long-term result of the 30 Years' War?'
>
> After confirming he meant 1618-48 I said 'the fact that there is today
> a country named Germany - before that there were a gazillion feudal
> principalities but nothing resembling a German national consciousness.
> After the Austrians
IIRC, there was not too many real Austrians involved.
>and Swedes and French and Lord knows who else
Much more 'Spaniards' (many of whom actually were Italians) than
French. And the French did not do too much marching 'across
Germany'. :-)
With all these people being listed, most of the marching and looting
had been done by the Germans themselves.
> had
> marched and looted their way across Germany the survivors still saw
> themselves as Swabians, Prussians, Rhinelanders etc but ...'
>
Not too sure about the greater notion of a national unity. If
anything, a notion of the unified Germany was clearly proved to be
unpopular and not implementable at this time.
> While he was satisfied with the answer I'm not sure that's necessarily
> true - Luther, Bach and Frederick had as much to do with it as well.
>
IIRC, the Old Frtiz was strictly Prussian thing.
> And of course Napoleon Bonaparte who forced consolidation of the
> hundreds of principalities into a couple of dozen.
For which the Germans hated his guts. :-)
David Friedman
<79814473-1d1c-4b75...@k27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I would argue the main impact of 1066 was to turn the orientation of
> > England (and thus Scotland and to a lesser extent Ireland) primarily
> > from Scandanavia to France. By the time this changed England was a
> > major power which it wasn't in 1066.
>
> IMO, this would happen even without Norman conquest: time of the
> Vikings was more or less over and France was a closest neighbour.
> IIRC, William was even appointed as a legal heir so this was more or
> less an issue of which of ruling elite would keep power.
How different would the subsequent history have been if Harald Haardrade
had won out in the three-way fight for the English crown?
David Friedman
<dc77e0e4-09bf-4a9b...@hd10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You clearly don't understand what I'm talking about and your whole
> quest for your 'roots' is rather irrelevant.
...
> > > You simply misinformaed.
> >
> > I hardly think it is misinformation. It is something I grew up with.
>
> Quite a few people grew up with the wrong notions so this is hardly an
> argument.
...
> Just as in the case of the 'historical divisions' in Europe, you are
> misinformed:
What I think started this thread was the irritation various people felt
on observing that the threads actually running weren't really about
medieval history, they were excuses for people to flame each other. It's
depressing to see the same pattern reappearing here.
Alex
Situation is far from being unique.
>Perhaps this is
> one reason why it is so easy for foreigners to learn.
Who said that it is 'so easy'?
BTW, following this logic Russian language should be easy to learn as
well.
> Had there been no Norman invasion, England might well have remained an
> insignificant backwater.
Or it may not.
Alex
wrote:
> In article
> <000fbb10-d93d-4dc7-b7ea-205627563...@p14g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Alex <a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > The geographical continent of Europe is not the same thing as the
> > > political nature of Europe. To this day, Europe is still thought of in
> > > terms of Western Europe and Eastern Europe
>
> > This notion is rather recent and does not make too much sense within
> > the framework of the medieval history. For example, Bohemia (which is
> > now in 'Eastern Europe') was an integral and important part of the HRE
> > and as such probably more 'European' than a remote spot like England.
> > Prior to WWII Czechoslovakia would be most probably defined as
> > 'Central Europe' and I'm not sure how Hungary would be classified at
> > each specific point of her history. Even during the Napoleonic times
> > Poland was described either as part of the 'West' or as part of the
> > 'East' depending on a political expediency.
>
> And consider al-Andalus--western or middle-eastern?
I'm not sure that at the times it existed the notion even made too
much sense. Catholic vs. Muslim, definitely. Even Catholic vs.
Orthodox. But the 'West' had little to brag at these times in the
terms of technological or cultural superiority so why would anybody
seriously bother with these definitions?
Alex
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 01:20:24 +0300, Renia <re...@otenet.gr>
> wrote in <news:j05003$en3$1...@speranza.aioe.org> in
> soc.history.medieval:
>
> [...]
>
> > The Norman invasion of England was significant because it
> > brought in Anglo-Norman rule, that is, rule by Normans
> > who maintained the best of English law. There was
> > minimal ethnic cleansing and much integration between
> > the old Anglo-Saxon elite and the Normans and their
> > descendants.
>
> These are ways in which the invasion did *not* greatly
> change matters, so they don't support your position.
>
> > The Anglo-Saxon language continued to develop,
>
> That's what languages do: they change.
>
> > easily integrating Latin legalese and Norman French.
>
> Integrating? No. They borrowed a bit here and there. The
> massive borrowings from French came a good deal later and
> had nothing to do with the Conquest, but rather reflected
> the cultural supremacy of the French at the time. (And they
> were from Central French, not Northern French.)
>
and modern Russian includes alarming number of the (often
mispronounced) americanisms. None of the above are results (AFAIK) of
a conquest.
> > This set the tone for the development of England
> > as a multi-cultural and adaptable society over the
> > succeeding centuries, eventually leading to English
> > naval expansion and, subsequently, her colonial epansion
> > and the spread of English around the world.
>
> Meaningless historical mysticism.
>
> ADR's claim that the Norman invasion was not significant for
> England or anyone else is patent nonsense, but so is what
> you've written, if it's supposed to be a refutation.
>
> Brian
Brilliant summary of the situation. :-)
Alex
wrote:
> In article
> <79814473-1d1c-4b75-973e-5b4646d9d...@k27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Alex <a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > I would argue the main impact of 1066 was to turn the orientation of
> > > England (and thus Scotland and to a lesser extent Ireland) primarily
> > > from Scandanavia to France. By the time this changed England was a
> > > major power which it wasn't in 1066.
>
> > IMO, this would happen even without Norman conquest: time of the
> > Vikings was more or less over and France was a closest neighbour.
> > IIRC, William was even appointed as a legal heir so this was more or
> > less an issue of which of ruling elite would keep power.
>
> How different would the subsequent history have been if Harald Haardrade
> had won out in the three-way fight for the English crown?
>
We can only guess but the chances are that his extended kingdom would
not be much more stable than one of Canute the Great.
Alex
wrote:
> In article
> <dc77e0e4-09bf-4a9b-9e3d-009525efd...@hd10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Alex <a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > You clearly don't understand what I'm talking about and your whole
> > quest for your 'roots' is rather irrelevant.
>
> ...
>
> > > > You simply misinformaed.
>
> > > I hardly think it is misinformation. It is something I grew up with.
>
> > Quite a few people grew up with the wrong notions so this is hardly an
> > argument.
>
> ...
>
> > Just as in the case of the 'historical divisions' in Europe, you are
> > misinformed:
>
> What I think started this thread was the irritation various people felt
> on observing that the threads actually running weren't really about
> medieval history, they were excuses for people to flame each other. It's
> depressing to see the same pattern reappearing here.
Well, Renia _is_ misinformed on more than one issue so there is
nothing personal in my pointing to this fact. Especially when I'm
supporting what I'm saying with the appropriate quotations. Not to
mention that most of her ...er.... text on the historical barriers,
etc. does not make a slightest sense within a medieval context (to
which I pointed more than once without any visible impact).
Alex
wrote:
> In article
> <454a08ac-7ad4-4dfa-8372-4d80285d5...@e20g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > No, the opposite. Not that the countries on The Continent are all the
> > > same, but that Britain is different, because it is an island, which,
> > > until the Norman invasion, had little to do with The Continent.
>
> > Do you actually know any British history??? Britain had little to do
> > with the "Continent"??? In which historical text is that? The Middle
> > Kingdom's??? We are talking about a country which its Angevin kings
> > did not even like living in (they lived in their "continental"
> > possessions), a country that has participated in virtually all
> > "continental" system of alliances and got involved in all European
> > wars....Maybe you should re-examine your assumptions!
>
> Or maybe you should read posts before replying to them. What part of
> "until the Norman invasion" do you have difficulty understanding? What
> Angevin kings did England have prior to the Norman invasion?
>
> And what European wars was England involved in prior to the Norman
> invasion? Were you thinking of the involvement of Roman legions from
> England in some of the empire's internal conflicts?
>
in wars with the Germans (Saxons) and then Danes (and at least one
Norwegian). All of them were "Europeans" and even a part of the
'Continent' so, strictly speaking, these were 'European wars'. :-)
As far as the Angevian kings are involved, you are right about their
non-existence prior to 1066 (and for quite a while after) but I
suspect that he was talking about the times _after_ and about the
general attitude of at least Richard to his English domains (not sure
how much plural is applicable in this context).
Brian M. Scott
wrote in <news:j061h9$f4b$1...@speranza.aioe.org> in
soc.history.medieval:
[...]
> No, the opposite. Not that the countries on The Continent
> are all the same, but that Britain is different, because
> it is an island, which, until the Norman invasion, had
> little to do with The Continent.
For sufficiently generous values of 'little'. Contact with
the rest of Europe was actually fairly extensive before the
Conquest, if not so extensive as after it.
[...]
Brian
Alex
Hmmmm, as far as the colonies are involved it was arguably pretty much
so. Look at the results: in the Latin America (and situation was the
same for Portugal vs. Brazil), the Spaniards were a distinctive
minority so there was a lot of intermarriages and clutural mixing with
the resulting unique cultures that reflect both Spanish (or Portugese)
and local Indian heritage (and, like in Brazil, a lot of African as
well). OTOH, British colonization of the Northern America and
Australia included squeezing the natives out and replicating the
English culture in the colonies. Situation was different in Africa and
India but I have doubts about too much 'mixing' taking place.
Brian M. Scott
wrote in <news:j05u55$7nk$1...@speranza.aioe.org> in
soc.history.medieval:
[...]
> English has borrowed (and kept) much from many languages.
> In that respect, it has intigrated words from many
> languages.
It is hardly unique in this.
> Perhaps this is one reason why it is so easy for
> foreigners to learn.
It's not clear that it is substantially easier than many
other languages for foreigners to learn.
> Had there been no Norman invasion, it is doubtful so much
> Norman (as in, not modern) French would have made its
> way into English.
Most of the Old and Middle French that was borrowed into
English was *not* Norman French.
[...]
Brian
ADR
> > Do you actually know any British history??? Britain had little to do
> > with the "Continent"??? In which historical text is that? The Middle
> > Kingdom's??? We are talking about a country which its Angevin kings
> > did not even like living in (they lived in their "continental"
> > possessions), a country that has participated in virtually all
> > "continental" system of alliances and got involved in all European
> > wars....Maybe you should re-examine your assumptions!
>
> Oh dear. Please read my words again, which I will repeat for you: "it is
> an island, which, until the Norman invasion, had little to do with The
> Continent".
OK, you were referring to "before the Norman Conquest". Hmmmm, are we
talking about the same Britain that I know? A Britain that got a huge
influx of Saxons and Angles? A Britain that got a substantial influx
of Irish (in Scotland), the Britain that got a huge influx of Norse
and Danes? The last time that I checked, the Angles, Saxons, Norse
and Danes all came from the continent. You are also not talking about
a Britain that was ruled by Scandinavian dynasties, are you? In fact,
the only reason that the Norman conquest happened is because the Anglo-
Saxon royalty just got too involved with affairs in the continent (I
must be thinking about another Britain, I guess). In fact, all
serious influxes of populations to Britain occured ****before the
Norman conquest****
> > Weird, but I cannot account for everybody. What does this have to do
> > with you claiming some kind of English exceptionalism???
>
> I have not claimed some kind of English exceptionalism. This is your
> interpretation of what I've been saying. Because of that, I've
> illustrated some of the parochialism of modern Greeks.
Should one excuse the other?
> > amplifying idiotic statements. However, one does not have more to do
> > than to read the British tabloids to see British chauvinism in full
> > flight. I was traveling in Britain during the bombing raids against
> > Serbia for Kosovo. I was astounded to see the coverage in British
> > dailies. One could have gotten the impression that it was Britain
> > that was doing the bombing, although Brits participated in something
> > like 3% of raids!!!
>
> It's a bit like the USA during one of the Olympics which I watched on
> CNN in Athens in the early 1990s. The Americans reported where their
> athletes had come, but did not mention who received the gold and silver
> medals, if it was not their team. Most nations have national pride. And
> why not?
There is a thin line between patriotism and chauvinism. I think that
it is crossed very often in the case of Britain. As for the very "US-
centered" reporting of athletic events in US mass media, yes, I
agree. In fact, it has been a point of criticism here.
> > I still do not believe that you have an idea as to
> > pan-European and world repercussions of the Papacy's assault on the
> > Salian Emperors, do you?
>
> It wasn't lasting, though, was it?
Oh, dear...you have no clue, do you? Well, this is a huge subject on
its own but the Papacy's assault on the Salian Emperors resulted in
the breakup of Germany from a unitary, powerful state to a vast
collection of small or medium size states, a state of affairs that
even has echoes to this very day. It was a event of vast importance
both in terms of the power of the Papacy (which played such a key role
in the evolution of Europe and beyond) but also in the role of Germany
in all affairs European and world-wide until its unification (and the
matter of its unification). Had Germany continued its development as
it was under Henry IV, prior to the beginning of the conflict with
Gregory VII and the rest of the popes on the issue of investiture,
then you would have had a major state dominating the continent,
instead of a loose aggregation of principalities and bishoprics. The
breakup of Germany, something that was initiated in mid-11th century
had an enormous impact on European and World history and to even
compare it with the installation of a Norman king in Britain is really
not intellectually sound.
> > Really?? Hastings is one of the "significant battles" of Europe???
> > In that context, all battles for the capture of the English crown
> > become "significant battles of Europe"!!!! And there are dozens of
> > them!!
>
> Name all the battles for the capture of the English crown.
There were dozens. How many battles were actually fought among the
contenders for the crown? How about the battle of Tinchebray? Should
we go into the numerous battles fought for the crown during the reign
of Steven I? Do I really need to continue?
> > All battles for the French crown are "significant
> > battles of Europe". Why not? How about the battles for the crown of
> > Castille and Aragon? Are those important too??? (we can mention a
> > dozen others)
>
> You are getting hysterical. I do not understand why.
Am I really getting hysterical? I think not. One can actually make a
good case that the battles for the crown of Castile and Aragon were of
much greater importance to European affairs than the installation of a
Norman king in London (where a previous Norse king ruled).
Alex
> In article
> <000fbb10-d93d-4dc7-b7ea-205627563...@p14g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > But most of these events are only marginally significant beyond a
> > narrow regional interest.
>
> Previous to the Norman invasion the main focus of English interest had
> been the North including Scandinavia.
I'm not sure that this was still true by 1066. Edward the Confessor
was a son of Emma of Normandy, sister of the Duke of Normandy, his
sister married count of Vexin, he got support from the Duke of
Normandy and a number of French abbots (made one of them Archbishop
of Canterbury) so the 'French connections' were already there.
>The Norman conquest
>can claimed to
> be responsible for the Hundred Years War,
Well, providing you can guarantee that none of the ATL Saxon kings
would marry French heiress, etc. :-)
How about, "without Rurik's appearence in Novgorod there would be no
Russian Revolution"? :-)
>the intervention of the Black
> Prince in Iberia
Which, AFAIK, ended up as a total fiasco. Ditto for his brother's
activities in the same area.
>and the export of unemployed mercenary companies to
> Italy.
If you are talking about Hawkwood, his appearence did not result in
the major changes of Italian political landscape.
>Normans from Normandy and Sicily also formed a large part of the
> First Crusade.
But Normans from Sicily had very little to do with conquest of England
and the Normans from Normandy also participated in the 1st crusade so
there is not too much of a difference one way or another.
ADR
wrote:
> Or maybe you should read posts before replying to them. What part of
> "until the Norman invasion" do you have difficulty understanding? What
> Angevin kings did England have prior to the Norman invasion?
True enough, I misread this part of the message
> And what European wars was England involved in prior to the Norman
> invasion? Were you thinking of the involvement of Roman legions from
> England in some of the empire's internal conflicts?
The contention was that Britain was "isolated" from the affairs of the
continent and, somehow, the Norman conquest created a more
"cosmopolitan" society. I just pointed out that between the departure
of the Roman legions and the Roman conquest, Britain got wave after
wave of peoples from the continent: Saxons, Angles, Yutes, Batavians,
Norse and Danes. In fact, prior to the Norman conquest, Britain was
much more affected than afterwards. This whole thing about being
"isolated" simply flies against the very British history.
David Friedman
<be375e87-140a-45aa...@28g2000pry.googlegroups.com>,
ADR <aret...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Since the poster was distinguishing England from the continent, I don't
think invasions of England count as European wars. I agree that there
was involvement with folk from outside of England, but it was incoming,
not outgoing.
David Friedman
<dd74d7d9-ff07-4b58...@m3g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
ADR <aret...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> There is a thin line between patriotism and chauvinism. I think that
> it is crossed very often in the case of Britain.
Can you think of any country where it isn't?
David Friedman
<537f6f8f-4a0a-46c0...@h17g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Or maybe you should read posts before replying to them. What part of
> > "until the Norman invasion" do you have difficulty understanding? What
> > Angevin kings did England have prior to the Norman invasion?
...
> As far as the Angevian kings are involved, you are right about their
> non-existence prior to 1066 (and for quite a while after) but I
> suspect that he was talking about the times _after_ and about the
> general attitude of at least Richard to his English domains (not sure
> how much plural is applicable in this context).
If the poster was referring to the times after the Norman conquest, I
don't think she would have written "until the Norman invasion." You
aren't entitled to justify your careless reading and consequent mistaken
rebuttal on the assumption that the poster was talking about something
she explicitly said she was not talking about.
Simpler simply to admit that the error was yours and move on.