Mount&Blade: Warband > Brytenwalda [B]
Documental: Warriors, Viking Terror
Manu:
You're quite wrong about britanny - the local population is heavily celtic in origin. The toponimy (names of the towns and villages) show little to no nordic influence there. There was a migration during the roman empire's collapse, but they were other celts from england (aka Great Britanny - guess where french britanny names comes from), not nordics.
Also keep in mind that the viking-style politics where rather forcibly kicked down by Guillaume when he invaded, reaplcing most of the saxon lords by normans ones to implement a more centralized system similar to what had evolved on the continent with and addition of leftover roman concepts. Though I'd grant you that by 1066 the king's power was a far cry from absolute. The political system that enabled the colonial expansion (1500+) was also very different from what it had been four centuries earlier.
Spongly:
Is it worth pointing out that the "Normans" who invaded Britain were so "Norman" that the Englisc, who called Danes Danes and Norwegians Northmen, called them, guess what? French. In fact, almost everyone elese who encounters the "Normans" can't tell the difference between them and the French.
They spoke French, their culture was French, they were part of the French "kingdom" (such as it was) and their family connections were almost entirely French by the 11th century - none of the Dukes were married into Scandinavian families. Therefore basically, apart from a national origin myth which justified a certain independence from the crown, they were French. Not Vikings. At all.
aurgelmir:
--- Quote from: UnholyNighmare on January 06, 2011, 12:51:38 AM ---I'm thinking a bit deeper. Anyhow, my view is kinda biased but whatever, here goes:
Normandy was awarded to vikings by the french king. Not much later they invaded southern Italy. Even later (1066, as y'all know) they went to the british isles. England -> GB and the USA is really just a branch that broke free from GB.
--- End quote ---
I'm a bit wary of thinking of Normans as Norsemen, sure they originated from the warriors that followed Gånge Hrolf in his conquest of Normandy. But they brought with them nothing in the way of Scandinavian social order or laws, they converted to christianity, they intermarried with the local elites and took up the local dialects, even going so far as using latinized patronyms (Fitz orginating from the latin Filis = son).
--- Quote from: UnholyNighmare on January 06, 2011, 12:51:38 AM ---It might be noted that by 1066 the norman kings spoke french and that the blood might have been mixed with native normans (i'm quite sure the inhabitants of Brittany/Normandy came from southern Denmark (Juteland?) in Roman times or something like that).
--- End quote ---
Doesn't ring a bell tbh. can't think of any pre-roman population that has been suggested to come from Denmark/Jylland, some Cimbrians might have marched thru on their way south but that's pretty much it. Otherwise we have Frisians, Goths and Franks post Roman Empire but I don't think that was what you were going for.
--- Quote from: UnholyNighmare on January 06, 2011, 12:51:38 AM ---Britain would probably not have been united in some time without interference from mainland Europe and so, all the countries and conquests that they brag about can be said to have roots in the vikings' systems and politics.
--- End quote ---
Britain do have a social heritage similar to that of Scandinavian societies, but I would argue that is the result of the more pervasive influence of the Angles, Saxons, Frisians and Jutes (Jutes did come from southern Denmark) with very similar customs and organization. If anything the Norman invasion actually took them further from the Scandinavian societies by smashing old political institutions such as the Witangemot, removing the national militia (with the Fyrd having a cousin in the Leiðung system that was used by Norse Kings in their attempts to subdue England), in introducing Frankish style feudalism with all the laws and the political ideology that go with it and putting the church firmly under the rule of the Pope.
Gasket:
--- Quote from: UnholyNighmare on January 06, 2011, 12:51:38 AM ---I'm thinking a bit deeper. Anyhow, my view is kinda biased but whatever, here goes:
Normandy was awarded to vikings by the french king. Not much later they invaded southern Italy. Even later (1066, as y'all know) they went to the British isles. England -> GB and the USA is really just a branch that broke free from GB. It might be noted that by 1066 the norman kings spoke french and that the blood might have been mixed with native normans (I'm quite sure the inhabitants of Brittany/Normandy came from southern Denmark (Juteland?) in Roman times or something like that). Britain would probably not have been united in some time without interference from mainland Europe and so, all the countries and conquests that they brag about can be said to have roots in the vikings' systems and politics.
--- End quote ---
Are you truly suggesting that without Scandinavian intervention the English or as you say "British" would never have achieved an empire or conquests? Such a statement is nonsense, yes the common cause amongst English nobles concerning Viking raids led to a considerable amount of unity but the Kingdom of Wessex already had achieved dominance via trade and victory in war against other states of the Heptarchy. This would clearly lead to the unification of many kingdoms despite the circumstances. Finally the Angles were obviously Scandinavian, racially and culturally they were the same people as those we call 'Vikings' either from Denmark or Norway and so to say one party is more productive than another due to geography is bizarre.
Don't criticise British admiration of our historic accomplishments merely because your nation can't compete.
Spongly:
--- Quote from: Gasket on January 06, 2011, 09:21:05 PM ---Are you truly suggesting that without Scandinavian intervention the English or as you say "British" would never have achieved an empire or conquests? Such a statement is nonsense, yes the common cause amongst English nobles concerning Viking raids led to a considerable amount of unity but the Kingdom of Wessex already had achieved dominance via trade and victory in war against other states of the Heptarchy. This would clearly lead to the unification of many kingdoms despite the circumstances.
--- End quote ---
Their dominance at the opening of the "Viking Age" was hardly equivalent to the unification of England - it was no more likely to last than the Mercian dominance of the previous century or the Northumbrian overlordship of the century before that. What enabled England to be united probably was the opposition to a "foreign" people - the Danes. Before that there is very little idea of "Englishness" outside of the scholarly writing of Bede and a few other monks. Frequently in history we see it takes an outside threat to give people any real sense of ethnic identity - it gives them an "other" to identify themselves against. It was the Vikings that enabled the creation of "Alba" out of Pictland and Dal Riada in much the same way - by destroying rival dynasties and providing a common enemy to define yourself against.
--- Quote from: Gasket on January 06, 2011, 09:21:05 PM ---Finally the Angles were obviously Scandinavian, racially and culturally they were the same people as those we call 'Vikings' either from Denmark or Norway and so to say one party is more productive than another due to geography is bizarre.
--- End quote ---
This is highly debateable - the Angles, or more precisely by the Viking Age the "Englisc" were no more Scandinavian than the Normans of 1066 - and they certainly weren't the same people as the 'Vikings' - after all, the main feature of any ethnic identity is self identification, and they were quite clear in differentiating themselves from the Danes and the Heathens (as they called them, never Vikings).
All this said, the original post is rather bizarre - saying that the British "systems and politics" have their roots in the Vikings simply because the English kingdom came about through united opposition to the Vikings. It's a bit like saying the Americans should give all credit for their acheivements to the British, since without fighting against us they would never have had a country in the first place...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version