Talk:Norman Invasion of England

message: "However, over the centuries, the two racial groups merged and are no longer distinguishable."
-Almost true, but not quite....for example, say aloud the word "envelope."
Now if you said en-velope, your family was likely Celtic, or Anglo Saxon. If you said on-velope, your family may have been Norman or, because the Normans became synonomous with nobility, your people copied the Normans.
I say envelope. My wife says onvelope. I tell her she's just trying to be hifalutin.   Pollinator 15:25, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Would that really still be true today? Maybe in 1300 or so it would still be a shibboleth, but I doubt that means anything 700 years later. Adam Bishop 15:28, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I've often wondered about this myself, is the upper-class English accent really a remnant of an Norman-French accent? --kudz75 23:54, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No evidence for this. All English speakers have been influenced by the Norman language: everyone says "pocket" in the Norman manner, rather than "poshet" in the French manner. "Envelope", like "hôtel" and "garage", is a more recent import, hence the dual pronunciations. Man vyi 07:21, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

message: "Norman conquest of England" would be more accurate I believe, as there have been other Norman conquests (some mentioned in text).
: I agree!--Irishpunktom\talk 10:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: I'm concerned about the recent additions by 210.54.77.25 -- its a lengthy and detailed diversion into one theory about a church conspiracy and how the role of the church played a big part in the conquest. I had never heard this before, at least in standard mainstream accounts of the conquest. There are no attributions to which authors this comes from. Any comments from others? Stbalbach 04:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically it reads like a Saxon apology for why England succumbed to the evil Normans. England had "lapsed into depression". Harold was a god-fearing and loving man, who was sad about being excommunicated by a conspiritorial William who had entered into an unholy alliance with the Vatican. The English were Democratic and thus slow to respond to the war-mongering Normans, portrayed as killing peasants 4 days a week for sport and fun. 
There is perhaps material to be saved, an example how nuetrality can be subverted and POVs from 1000 years hence creep in. This is popular history, not serious history. Stbalbach 04:35, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent edits by anon user 

message: Let me just offer my reading of the account as it is. It has huge gaps. That is why I went to sources like Howarth, Lacey, Bloch, Strayer and Dana, Keegan, Bunson, Butler and Given-Wilson, Postan, and Kantor.
This article conveys the same problem that besets the account of the Scottish hero, William Wallace. The victors get their version but not the vanquished. The blessings of the Pope given William in the middle of the massive conflict Hildebrand master minded between the Holy See and the German Emperor--well established history, well documented. That perspective was identified. If citations are needed, that is not a problem. An accessible and easy to read version is that put out by David Howarth--1066: The Year of the Conquest. Various Roman Catholic sources also state that Alexander II did in fact excommunicate Harold, and bless this 'crusade:' This version of that account is readily available. It was old news when Howarth’s book was published in the late 70s. I heard it in high school in the 60s. Religious conflict in Britain is very old. 
A recent article in the BBC online sheds more light on what has been often been retold as a great and beneficial undertaking by what was in fact one of the most warlike cultures in the European Medieval era. 
The Tapestry and its alterations are also well documented--as a source from which to retell the events? This is a bit of a reach. 
The article as it is provides no coherent explanation of any of the current theories on why a few thousand mercenaries, cut off from any additional support from Normandy, conquered what technically should have been 40-50,000 soldiers (irregulars though they may have been). Look at the gastero-enteritis. They did not bring enough wine is one leading theory (nor could they get any more)—host of interesting aspects to that one (logistics are the most obvious but then the sheer luck William had getting his soldiers and their horses to England is a dead giveaway). 
Nothing here on the whole-sale replacement of the indigenous clergy, the immense extent of castellation, the tremendous drop in property value and tillage as illuminated in the Doomesday Inquest, the effects on their courts and their language . . . 
It offers no explanation on why the Pope got involved--if William’s claim was watertight, why the interference? Sorry. Not to put too fine a point on it but the article as is clearly biased. The view that his claim was solid is simply a retelling of popular myth and not good history. 
What about the reasons for the Normans and French with him--the whole idea was lunacy--what compelled them to go? 
What happened to the King that was elected in Harold’s place? Why was the resistance so fragmented? Why did the clergy drop out and their support fade?
What happened to the Church in England, the social backbone of this and so many other Medieval societies. That it was overwhelmed in the Gregorian Reformation that was sweeping western Europe is not in doubt. Who was the instrument of that change? What it meant and why is not even mentioned. 
The Norman Conquest did more than change the language. The various theories about the story certainly deserve an equal space.
One who believes in a balanced account and a coherent attempt at background.
:: What you say is very interesting and I would love to hear these subjects addressed in the article . Please join in Wikipedia and work to set a balanced account. Lumos3 08:24, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  the Norman versus English account 

message: The Comments
I'm concerned about the recent additions by 210.54.77.25 -- its a lengthy and detailed diversion into one theory about a church conspiracy and how the role of the church played a big part in the conquest. I had never heard this before, at least in standard mainstream accounts of the conquest. There are no attributions to which authors this comes from. Any comments from others? Stbalbach 04:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Specific Comments 

message: Thom, first off thank you for taking the time to reply, and signing up for an account. Wikipedia has a lot of anonymous users who hit and run and its often difficult to tell who is serious and who is not. As I said from the very start, there is material here that is good. The purpose of the discussion page is to avoid edit wars and arbitration committees by working out the differences and communicating.
:"..This additon was to convey some of the leading theories out there."
It was not presented as such. If we go down this road of presenting alternative to the mainstream view, they need to be properly organized and framed as such so the reader understands the historiography issues, and this doesnt become a battleground of alternative views all trying to be authoritative. It's possible to present two entirely different views in the same article.
:"..The victors get their version but not the vanquished."
Yes, this does seem to be a politically motivated issue for some authors. It's typical for the revisionist historians, those with nothing to loose perhaps to make a name for themselves or from lesser known universities outside of the mainsteam, women and minority authors, to take up the cause of the underdog, while the more conservative historians from the mainstream institutions maintain the "mainstream" views, this happens everywhere, not just the Norman Conquest. Sometimes these revisions result in a shift of the mainstream view, sometimes they remain controversial and never fully take hold.
:"..This is a current apology being made by living English historians."
Yeah, some.
:"..this is being arbitrarily censured by the unknowing and presumptuously singleminded author of these rather simplistic comments."
No need to be an ass about it, Thom, Im sure we can work together to make it a better article. 
Ass? I am sorry but the numerous assertions about the one and only theory are presumptuous. David Armine Howarth's work on this came out in 1977. He wrote quitte a bit about the history of England. His works have been out there for years. The consensus has been very positive. Marc Bloc, Joseph Strayer, M.M. Postan . . . the list is long. The Horror of the Conquest might be a better title. This is not an alternative theory. It has been in the mainstream for years. User:Malangthon 11, May, 2005 9:48 SPT
Im going to suggest the following. Add the text back in, but under a separate heading such as "Views on the Conquest" or somthing like that. It would be a place for analysis, separate from the basic narrative account so it doesnt break the narrative, and provides more detail for those readers who want to explore more. It would have citations, so the major ideas lead to the major works on those ideas. It would also tone down some of the language to be more neutral, not presenting the Normans as some kind of devil and the Saxons as saints, it was not that simple (and BTW I literally wrote the article on Peace and Truce, Im familair with the period. The Making of Europe by Robert Bartlett provides a standard analysis of the nature of migrations going on in Europe during this time). 
Stbalbach 16:26, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Thom re: the Saxon View

message: Found this in the Wikipedia article on Lanfranc, William's chaplain and co-conspirator, the Archbishop of Canterbury who  divested the English Church of English and one of the foremost proponenst of the Gregorian Reformation to subjugate all secular governments to the Pope:
"Henceforward Lanfranc exercised a perceptible influence on his master's policy. William adopted the Cluniac programme of ecclesiastical reform, and obtained the support of Rome for his English expedition by assuming the attitude of a crusader against schism and corruption. It was Alexander II, the former pupil of Lanfranc, who gave the Norman Conquest the papal benediction--a notable advantage to William at the moment, but subsequently the cause of serious embarrassments." 
There is more. lanfranc was a major political force. That excommunication also made it possible to get the blessing of the German Emperor to prohibit Harold soliciting any aid from anyone outside of England. It was, in essence Harold versus Europe and the Church.
Howarth is hardly alone. Frank McLynn (1066: The year of the three battles) gives even greater details on the actions of William and an earlier run-in between the Godwins and Vatican. McLynn cites sources that preceeded Howarth's work in the 60s and 70s.
Was there a Norman-papal conspiracy to run off the Saxons, cut them off from the Church, alienate the English Church and deprive Harold of support of the Church in England--Yes.
Credibility: Both Howarth and McLynn employ the complete list of contemporary sources.
More later, e.g. the Norman sources are far more suspect than the Saxon, the Bayeux Tapestry is a work of art--not history and on and on.
Stuff I knew in highschool 60s is being referred to as neither mainstream or known. 
Thom Simmons, Kapiti Coast, NZ User:Malangthon  May, 16, 2005, 11:33 SPT (GMT+12:00)
:Yeah that wiki article on Lanfranc you refernce is from a 1911 Britannica article, we know how NPOV the Victorian English establishment was ;) To me the whole thing smacks of Anglo-Saxon ethnographic topoi. There are kernels of truth in it, but the narrative comes across in the end as pro-English and anti-French (and anti-Vatican) -- a very convienent narrative for what must be an event that doesnt sit well with many English, being conquered. It reminds me of in America, some conservatives blame the failure in Vietnam not on bad policy, but on the US Press; they have elaborate explanations of how it was a failure of public perception that lost Vietnam, otherwise it was a fundamentally good and just cause and noble war. It's poltics to play sides. Do we really want to play politics with this event that happened almost 1000 years ago? There are neutral observations, the article is currently pretty neutral, I think. It doesnt blame anyone, or say one side was in the right or wrong, or demonize anyone. Stbalbach 06:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Vatican's role in the Norman Conquest--check wikipedia articles 

message: "It remains the last successful contested military invasion of England."
This is a very romantic sort of statement, but I think at least Henry VII of England and William III of England (and perhaps others) would have begged to differ – both led very successful contested invasions of England! --203.52.130.139 03:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was about to ask about that line too!  What is a "successful contested invasion" anyway, exactly? Superm401 | Talk 03:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last invasion of England? 

message: Anon user, you've spent considerable time and effort in changing "Anglo-Saxon" to "English" across dozens of articles. This is obviously a minority POV, these articles have stood the test of time and editors and academic sources; your the only one in 4 years that believes this is how it should be. I would suggest gaining consensus before continuing this campaign to avoid a lot of wasted effort on yours and others part who just revert it back. 
(note: Im posting this here since you seem to be using a dynamic IP account and have no set talk page. Stbalbach 00:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglo-Saxon vs English 

message: actually i liked the article,and since i'm writting my seminary paper on it i thought i could use it as a source but i have to name the author of the article,the number of pages...so could u please help me and tell me who wrote it,and when,thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sandrcak (talk • contribs) .
:Hi. Many editors have contributed to the article so there is no single author. Citing Wikipedia has some guidance on how to cite a Wikipedia article. -- Stbalbach 13:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norman conquest of England 

message: Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 20:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Re-Review and In-line citations 

message: I'm differentiating between "conquest" and "invasion" as they are different concepts. Historians use the term "norman conquest" to talk about not only the battle of hastings and Williams title as King of England, but the subsequent conquest of the rest of the country which took decades. An invasion - even one where the ruling king might be disposed - does not mean a country has been conquered. If we talk about invasions, there were small successful Viking invasions of England after the Norman Conquest. But certainly there is a difference between short-lived contested invasions and the total conquest of a country, such as with the Normans, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, etc.. that is the point being made. -- Stbalbach 17:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norman conquest of England 

message: Could the conquest be considered to have ended on October 14 with the Battle of Hastings and the Saxon army defeated, December 25 with the crowning of William and the casus belli fufilled, or some other date I'm not thinking of? —VolatileChemical 21:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most historians speak of the conquest as having begun with Hastings and taking a decade or two to fully repress, many more people died in the ensuing conquest than died at Hastings. The Saxons didn't just roll over because it lost one battle or temporary loss of the crown, kind of like Iraq "mission accomplished" was not over at the Battle of Baghdad (although that's a poor comparison as the Anglo-Saxons were more than an insurgency). -- Stbalbach 13:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So the conquest didn't start on September 28, when the Normans landed? In my mind, an invasion begins when the outside force gets to the location. VolatileChemical 00:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure I guess you could say it started then, or perhaps when the Norwegians landed, depending on what your trying to emphasis. -- Stbalbach 15:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of the conquest