Which Historical Figure(s) does Pop Culture do the least credit?

[Hengwulf]

The Normans have always had bad press not really because of Hastings which could have gone either way but  being responsible for ending Anglo-Saxon culture and way of life which most people have an overly romantic view of. If you look at Anglo-Saxon jewelry and design which is regarded as beautiful then add Beowulf and numerous general cultural influences right up to Lord of the Rings, it's seen as more romantically the British identity. Norman design and culture in comparison is viewed as big, militaristic and a bit boring, I've seen literally dozens of TV programmes on the Anglo-Saxons over the years and only remember one ever being done on the Normans (by Robert Bartlett) which was great, but it's for those reasons, they're always seen as dull compared to Anglo-Saxons, killing half the population of Northern England didn't help their case but that aside their achievements elsewhere always get overlooked and they inevitably end up as the bad guys.

thx for that tip!

 

[Mad Vader]

If that's formatted as a poem, it needs rhymes.

Like this:

It actually depends on the time frame,
the heyday of Scandinavian art and fury
spans from the Vendel period and up to the 8th century.

Whereas by the 11th century, there wasn't any real difference between
Normans, Saxons and Vikings, at least during the battle of 1066.
that's probably why there is a lot of confusion when game designers
work on projects such as War of the Vikings and others in the mix.

Btw, I didn't know you could speak, good job!

 

[matmohair1]

thanks!

 

[nads]

it actually depends on the time frame,
the heyday of Scandinavian art and style
spans from the vendel period and up to the 8th century

隐藏

whereas by the 11th century, there wasn't any real difference between
Normans, Saxons and vikings, at-least during the battle of 1066.
that's probably why there is a lot of confusion when game designers
work on projects such as war of the vikings and others.

隐藏

Yes, in terms of gear etc you're right, but the Normans didn't really do jewelry and art as such which is where the romance comes in. They did fantastic militaristic architecture which on it's own is impressive but people get all dewy eyed about the whole lost world thing of Anglo-Saxons in small wooden structures making lovely things and writing poetry so that's what you get in the media time and time again... apart from the one series on the Normans as previously mentioned.

 

[Bohemond Chesne]

Yes, in terms of gear etc you're right, but the Normans didn't really do jewelry and art as such which is where the romance comes in. They did fantastic militaristic architecture which on it's own is impressive but people get all dewy eyed about the whole lost world thing of Anglo-Saxons in small wooden structures making lovely things and writing poetry so that's what you get in the media time and time again... apart from the one series on the Normans as previously mentioned.

The Normans 'did' pleanty of art and jewelry.
The main problem is that the Anglo-Norman period is only 69 years (1066-1135) as opposed to circa 666 years (400-1066). Of course there are more artifiacts with more distinctive styles in the relatively massive earlier period.
The Anglo-Norman era did however see a lot of art in various medium including, illuminated manuscripts, military and religious archetecture, ceramics (particularly tiles), literature, & jewelry. This is often obfuscated by the artificial void in finds you will notice from 1066 to 1200. This is mostly because transitional styles are often rounded by amateurs (or those with general knowledge but no sepcific experience with early medieval finds) into either "Dark Age" or "High Medieval" groups.

It's worth noting that while there are not a great wealth of 'norman' documentaries, most documentary series covering the Medieval period have at least one episode focus upon the Anglo-Normans, especially those series which focus upon English Royalty. Indeed one of my biggest complaints against Medieval documentaries is they will frequently jump period from Anglo-Norman to Tudor and back with no signposting, leading to confusion for the educated and a very false understanding of medieval life for the cassual viewer.

 

[matmohair1]

you can even grasp what looks more like a monarchist agenda
in some recent British documentaries, even king Charles I is
beginning to be portrayed as an innocent victim!

 

[Anarion]

Historians nearly always have an agenda. I'm writing (well, should be writing) an essay about the Russian Revolution and o'boy do people have something to prove when they consider its causes. Even professional historians' views are coloured by their personal convictions.

 

[Jhessail]

Which is why good historians lay their bias out in the open, instead of bringing it out subtly between the lines.

 

[nads]

The Normans 'did' pleanty of art and jewelry.
The main problem is that the Anglo-Norman period is only 69 years (1066-1135) as opposed to circa 666 years (400-1066). Of course there are more artifiacts with more distinctive styles in the relatively massive earlier period.
The Anglo-Norman era did however see a lot of art in various medium including, illuminated manuscripts, military and religious archetecture, ceramics (particularly tiles), literature, & jewelry. This is often obfuscated by the artificial void in finds you will notice from 1066 to 1200. This is mostly because transitional styles are often rounded by amateurs (or those with general knowledge but no sepcific experience with early medieval finds) into either "Dark Age" or "High Medieval" groups.

It's worth noting that while there are not a great wealth of 'norman' documentaries, most documentary series covering the Medieval period have at least one episode focus upon the Anglo-Normans, especially those series which focus upon English Royalty. Indeed one of my biggest complaints against Medieval documentaries is they will frequently jump period from Anglo-Norman to Tudor and back with no signposting, leading to confusion for the educated and a very false understanding of medieval life for the cassual viewer.

Yes, but what I mean is most see it as in comparison try finding examples of Norman jewelry and art brings you the Bayeaux tapestry and a gold dog and little else you would call rich and I think comparison is the main problem people have with the Normans. I think their military and religious architecture is amazing not least as most of it is still standing and epic in scale but most historians seem to view it as cold and sterile which I think is part of their image problem, that it's always an Anglo-Saxon comparison, personal intricate romantic items=Saxon(nice), Big militaristic, monumental=Norman,(bad) other than that I don't know why popular portrayals in the movies and media show the Normans in such negative light, these are not the Normans I was taught about at school. Yes they do get a mention in most medieval documentaries .... fine, but they were total game changers, successful in everything they did and changed Europe, hardly just a dynasty, yet there's more docu's on the Tudors, really we need a bit more Norman love.

 

[Hengwulf]

I guess it also depends on where you live. I can imagine British people learning more about Anglo-Saxons because of patriotic history. Also as said, Normans easlily get mixed in with "normal" medieval times, rather than having their own period like the Saxons. But they deserve more credit for being badasses in Britain but also the Mediterranean.

 

[thecoolestloseryouknow]

Genghis Khan seems to be a little less famous than he should be.

 

[Almalexia]

wat are you talking about

 

[Lord Brutus]

wat are you talking about

I agree.  Genghis is quite famous. http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?action=profile;u=27133

 

[Captured Joe]

 

[F.F.C._fritz]

Gengis Khan not famous? Yeah, go tell ol' John.

隐藏

 

[Leifr Eiríksson]

I guess it also depends on where you live. I can imagine British people learning more about Anglo-Saxons because of patriotic history. Also as said, Normans easlily get mixed in with "normal" medieval times, rather than having their own period like the Saxons. But they deserve more credit for being badasses in Britain but also the Mediterranean.

You would be sorely mistaken.
Post-Roman and pre-Norman England is a wasteland in every sense for the English education system. The absolute basics are taught and then usually left at that; Romans leave, Germanic tribes arive, Normans invade, England is formed.

 

[Captured Joe]

John Wayne as Ghengis... so wrong...

 

[Skot the Sanguine]

I am going to throw it out there for discussion, but I feel the Teutonic Knights are not given enough positive credit, typically being vilified.  However, they were just like any other state of the time period in terms of brutality.  At their height they had a rather wealthy and advanced state for the time period. 

It seems like most of the bad press comes from modern (post 19th century) Slavic written or film sources and primarily due to contemporary tensions with Germanic peoples and an urge to formulate an idea that it was a chronic issue with them (the Germanic peoples).

 

[BenKenobi]

Villified? Definitely.

Still, being talked about badly is better than not being talked about at all. For example from internet discussiond one would gather that Napoleon had been defeated by the Ame Britania **** Yeah! helped by the sinister snowman living somewhere in Russia. Some may mention Prussians in regards to helping Wellington. And yeah, thats just about it.

 

[Bluehawk]

And no mention is given to the Austrians who were Napoleon's most determined enemy, even to the point of near self-destruction.