One of the reasons the Normans wanted it was because it was so organised, had a host of laws and had a god tax system etc. also the reason the take over was fairly easy or the invaders after Hastings.
...and the Continental early feudal system could map virtually directly across onto an island already used to property divisions=political rights&responsibilites along clearly defined lines ;-) It's a tactic that has worked throughout history - the Mongols did exactly the same in Russia.
Right down at base - all that happened was that everything in the nation became reckoned on its monetary value rather than its service value; a community paid or contributed to scutage as the basic building block of seudalism...as opposed to the compulsiory periodic service (militay) of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom.
After the terrible manpower losses to the Anglo-Saxon "nation" in 1066, working to pay for someone else to go off to war might just have been seen as preferable to having to go yourself
If the Anlo Saxons hadn't fallen for the Norman ruse and chased the 'fleeing' Normans and had kept the shield wall firm it would probably been an entirely different outcome. How would things have progressed then I wonder.
If the Anglo-Saxons hadn't been stuck with the problem of no remaining "depth" of strength to muster after Hastings as a result of Stamford Bridge, and been able to conduct a decent cohesive campaign afterwards...
...and the Continental early feudal system could map virtually directly across onto an island already used to property divisions=political rights&responsibilites along clearly defined lines ;-) It's a tactic that has worked throughout history - the Mongols did exactly the same in Russia.
If the Anglo-Saxons hadn't been stuck with the problem of no remaining "depth" of strength to muster after Hastings as a result of Stamford Bridge, and been able to conduct a decent cohesive campaign afterwards...
Yeah Stamford Bridge gets forgotten, Another of the what ifs of history
History as written by decent historians always has - at the top of their game they're rubbing up against equally learned and literate historians ;-)
Think of it this way - the more criticism, the more attention his peers are paying to him
Well indeed but I've read some reputable historians and found their stuff to be of little merit. I (as one must) try to keep any potential political or ideological agendas in mind when reading history. For example, I recently read a chapter from Robert Service's book on Stalin, dealing with his role in WWII, and found it to be pretty rubbish. Lots of sensationalised language but very little in terms of good historical fact. And he's a highly regarded historian.
Well indeed but I've read some reputable historians and found their stuff to be of little merit. I (as one must) try to keep any potential political or ideological agendas in mind when reading history. For example, I recently read a chapter from Robert Service's book on Stalin, dealing with his role in WWII, and found it to be pretty rubbish. Lots of sensationalised language but very little in terms of good historical fact. And he's a highly regarded historian.
If you thought that of Service....try C.P. Snow from an earlier generation of suck-asses!
Talking of Henry VIII, I am fascinated by Cardinal Wolsey who hailed from my home town of Ipswich. Ever since learning about him in history at school I had thoroughly despised him for his apparent pomposity and self-centredness. But having recently read a book on his rise and fall by Peter Gwyn it now appears that he was not the dastardly figure he has often been portrayed as, and actually did a great deal for the underprivileged. Peter writes that Wolsey was in fact 'set up' in this way, allegedly by Anne Boleyn, known as the 'night crow', because of his inability to get Henry a divorce. So Wolsey's now gone from zero to hero for me.
Talking of Henry VIII, I am fascinated by Cardinal Wolsey who hailed from my home town of Ipswich. Ever since learning about him in history at school I had thoroughly despised him for his apparent pomposity and self-centredness. But having recently read a book on his rise and fall by Peter Gwyn it now appears that he was not the dastardly figure he has often been portrayed as, and actually did a great deal for the underprivileged. Peter writes that Wolsey was in fact 'set up' in this way, allegedly by Anne Boleyn, known as the 'night crow', because of his inability to get Henry a divorce. So Wolsey's now gone from zero to hero for me.
Check out The Statesman and the Fanatic. In a time of absolute bastards Wolsey was not the worst by any means.
Don't worry; time and events have concluded that he's not really worth the effort...except as an indicator of exactly how much whitewash it's possible to use in any given volume!
I do quite like a bit of historiography quibbling. One tutor in particular encourages us to get stuck in to some respected figures and their work - it's quite cathartic in a way.
Da Vinci is very interesting. He realised that you can tell the relative age of rock layers, in different areas, by examining the fossils found in them.
The fossils he examined came from the Alps, the remains of sea creatures. There were two ideas that were prevalent, about how they got up the mountains. One was that they had grown in the rock; the other that they had been put there by the Biblical flood. He rejected both of these ideas and suggested that the mountains had once been under water, and had somehow grown to their present size.
Unfortunately, he wrote all this down in code, using mirrored handwriting, in his diaries that he never showed to anyone. They weren't decoded until recently, otherwise he could have invented modern geology 200 years before anyone else.
Yeah Stamford Bridge gets forgotten, Another of the what ifs of history
I always thought Stamford Bridge and the march back to Hastings was a remarkable achievement not to mention Harold and his army still kept the Normans at bay for hours, at Hastings and according to some historians could have won the day, it really was an achievement and I think in my humble opinion the best man and army lost, although I'm no military tactician, the Normans weren't doing so well until some of the Anglo Saxons left the hill.
I always thought Stamford Bridge and the march back to Hastings was a remarkable achievement not to mention Harold and his army still kept the Normans at bay for hours, at Hastings and according to some historians could have won the day, it really was an achievement and I think in my humble opinion the best man and army lost, although I'm no military tactician, the Normans weren't doing so well until some of the Anglo Saxons left the hill.
I agree. I think William the Bastard was a right bastard.
Things would have been very different, Not just that William himself changed things but so much of the warfare trying to take France was tied up in that. Not to say there wouldn't have been wars with France but England didn't try and conquer Spain in the same way.
I've just finished reading 'The Plantagenets' by Dan Jones, its a potted history of the kings from Henry II through to Richard II. It was a very good read for someone wanting a basic understanding of those times and the build up to the Wars of the Roses.
It changes a lot but right now it's the 1800s after watching a programme about the launch of Scotland Yard. It would be very interesting to go back and see how they spoke back then and how differently they acted.
I always thought Stamford Bridge and the march back to Hastings was a remarkable achievement not to mention Harold and his army still kept the Normans at bay for hours, at Hastings and according to some historians could have won the day, it really was an achievement and I think in my humble opinion the best man and army lost, although I'm no military tactician, the Normans weren't doing so well until some of the Anglo Saxons left the hill.
...until the Normans drew them off the hill ;-) It was a lastminute and very fortunate change of tactic, the Normans were right at the end of their tether by then after a day of repeated attacks on the shield wall.
Hastings is a turning point for so many things; it changed the nature of warfare in England/the UK....and in parallel drew England out of the Scandanavian orbit it had been in for nearly 600 years and firmly into that of feudal Europe. There have not been that many days in history that have been quite so epoch-changing for us.
Republican Rome between 112BC and 78BC is very interesting.
I'm under no illusions about how tough life was for the majority , same for most centuries really. Slavery and serfdom was the foundation of society for many centuries. I have no romantic notions
Those are 3 big books.......I read them one after the other straight through......:o
I did History at University but in later life I've read more about the ancient history that we didn't cover in college........ancient history appears to be reserved for Classics students
So.......Greece, Rome, Byzantium
Particularly the Roman period
Of more modern history I find the Stuart Age the most interesting
In Europe the French Revolution and 19th century France
The Great War. The anniversaries now being remembered are really good for me. I've spent two holidays on the Somme and one in Ypres and am fascinated by the period, especially on the Western Front.
Just bumping this to let the other history (and particularly Tudor nerds - and there appear to be a lot of us ), that at 19:30 tonight on BBC2 we have The Last Days of Anne Boleyn,
Hope to see some of you in the UK TV programmes section where I will create a thread if there isn't already one
Comments
...and the Continental early feudal system could map virtually directly across onto an island already used to property divisions=political rights&responsibilites along clearly defined lines ;-) It's a tactic that has worked throughout history - the Mongols did exactly the same in Russia.
Right down at base - all that happened was that everything in the nation became reckoned on its monetary value rather than its service value; a community paid or contributed to scutage as the basic building block of seudalism...as opposed to the compulsiory periodic service (militay) of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom.
After the terrible manpower losses to the Anglo-Saxon "nation" in 1066, working to pay for someone else to go off to war might just have been seen as preferable to having to go yourself
If the Anglo-Saxons hadn't been stuck with the problem of no remaining "depth" of strength to muster after Hastings as a result of Stamford Bridge, and been able to conduct a decent cohesive campaign afterwards...
Well indeed but I've read some reputable historians and found their stuff to be of little merit. I (as one must) try to keep any potential political or ideological agendas in mind when reading history. For example, I recently read a chapter from Robert Service's book on Stalin, dealing with his role in WWII, and found it to be pretty rubbish. Lots of sensationalised language but very little in terms of good historical fact. And he's a highly regarded historian.
If you thought that of Service....try C.P. Snow from an earlier generation of suck-asses!
Studied Snow briefly about a year ago but I must admit that I've not retained much of it...
"Snow White" really lived up to his nickname.
The fossils he examined came from the Alps, the remains of sea creatures. There were two ideas that were prevalent, about how they got up the mountains. One was that they had grown in the rock; the other that they had been put there by the Biblical flood. He rejected both of these ideas and suggested that the mountains had once been under water, and had somehow grown to their present size.
Unfortunately, he wrote all this down in code, using mirrored handwriting, in his diaries that he never showed to anyone. They weren't decoded until recently, otherwise he could have invented modern geology 200 years before anyone else.
I always thought Stamford Bridge and the march back to Hastings was a remarkable achievement not to mention Harold and his army still kept the Normans at bay for hours, at Hastings and according to some historians could have won the day, it really was an achievement and I think in my humble opinion the best man and army lost, although I'm no military tactician, the Normans weren't doing so well until some of the Anglo Saxons left the hill.
Things would have been very different, Not just that William himself changed things but so much of the warfare trying to take France was tied up in that. Not to say there wouldn't have been wars with France but England didn't try and conquer Spain in the same way.
Republican Rome between 112BC and 78BC is very interesting.
...until the Normans drew them off the hill ;-) It was a lastminute and very fortunate change of tactic, the Normans were right at the end of their tether by then after a day of repeated attacks on the shield wall.
Hastings is a turning point for so many things; it changed the nature of warfare in England/the UK....and in parallel drew England out of the Scandanavian orbit it had been in for nearly 600 years and firmly into that of feudal Europe. There have not been that many days in history that have been quite so epoch-changing for us.
I'm under no illusions about how tough life was for the majority , same for most centuries really. Slavery and serfdom was the foundation of society for many centuries. I have no romantic notions
Those are 3 big books.......I read them one after the other straight through......:o
I did History at University but in later life I've read more about the ancient history that we didn't cover in college........ancient history appears to be reserved for Classics students
So.......Greece, Rome, Byzantium
Particularly the Roman period
Of more modern history I find the Stuart Age the most interesting
In Europe the French Revolution and 19th century France
More recent history.......the Spanish Civil War
I'm drawn to revolutions and civil wars.......:)
Hope to see some of you in the UK TV programmes section where I will create a thread if there isn't already one