Talk:Norman conquest of England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Norman conquest of England article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Good articles Norman conquest of England has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Norman conquest of England as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Russian language Wikipedia.


Contents

[edit] old talk

"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)

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)
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)
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)

Well that's why I didn't edit the page...but it is a tiny remnant of the division.... kind of a historical curio, one of those things that makes history interesting. Pollinator 00:51, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I very much doubt this. My father says on-velope i say en-velope. I think it has more to do with our respective upbringings than our ancestry ---Revolver66 31/12/06

[edit] Title

"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)

[edit] recent edits by anon user

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)

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)

[edit] Saxon apology

Ive moved (what I believe is) a Saxon Apology for why England lost to the Normans here for discussion and edits, or just historiographical interest. Some of this is good and needs to be saved, but it needs to be re-framed to be more neutral. Ive made comments:

All things considered, William with just a few thousand men (many of whom were suffering the devastating effects of gastro-enteritis after sacking Dover) would conceivably have been unable to hold even his small conquest.

This is inaccurate. He had a legitimate claim to the throne which gave him authority, this was more than just a few thousand brigands taking the country.Stbalbach

Part of William's success on the field and in being crowned king so quickly was because Norman cultural and political influence in England had built up over the years prior to 1066, and William had an arguably legitimate dynastic claim to the throne of England, which enabled him to claim enough support among the Anglo-Saxon nobility to prevent a wholly united front against his ascent of the throne.

This is almost accurate, but Williams success on the field had nothing to do with Normal political and cultural influence in England.Stbalbach

That dynastic claim, in contradiction to the decision of the witan witena gemot, had weight for another reason. This reason, one particularly favoured by English historians, was the influence of the Roman Church. Though he certainly felt strongly about it, William’s rationale for the invasion was particularly weak. For those Norman lords who agreed to the adventure, the booty was enough but William had a wider theatre of politics to consider. In a conspiracy to place the Church in power over the secular government (the church was in a momentous struggle with the Emperor Henry IV to rule itself and the secular governments), Hildebrand, the Pope’s chaplain (later Pope Gregory VII), had conspired with Lanfranc (a friend of William’s, the Prior of Bec, later the Archbishop of Canterbury) and William to declare the invasion a crusade and to reform the Church in England. Pope Alexander II, known as Anselm and a student of Lanfranc, had obliged Hildebrand, blessed the Norman invasion of England and excommunicated Harold.

This paragraph has a lot of problems. Which English historians favour this? Its also framed to sound like the witan were more authoritative then Williams claim. William had the better claim. Next, the idea that Normans went only for "booty" is just one in a long string of pejorative attacks on Normans throughout this piece. Norman Lords went because they had a chance to increase their political power, just as William did, it was part of a large European wide expansion and resettlement pattern during the high middle ages. The "Church Conspiracy" needs supporting evidence.Stbalbach

Harold, like all the English, was deeply religious. By all reports, he was a changed man after learning that he had been excommunicated. Not a few English historians have made a comparison of his demeanour before—when he defeated Harald Hardrada at Stamford Bridge—and after hearing of the excommunication—his defeatists attitude when he met the Normans and their French allies on the southern slopes of Caldbec Hill outside the small town of Hastings.

This portrayal of Harold as deeply pious, and that his excommunication broke his spirit is sweet and dear but is highly suspect of propaganda. Harold was like all kings of his age, brutal, tough and not someone to wilt under the moral strain of excommunication.Stbalbach

The extent of this influence from the Vatican was strongly felt after Harold’s death. When Harold was defeated, this shook the Bishops’ resolve to uphold the rights of Edgar (recently elected king at the witena gemot after the death of Harold), and eventually demoralised the resistance. Archbishop of Canterbury, Stigand, whose legitimacy as the Archbishop was under a cloud, played it safe, deserted the English and made peace with the invaders who came with the Pope’s blessing.

The means by which the English reached a decision was also a disadvantage it seems. The English at that time was considerably more democratic than the Normans in their decision making processes. When Harold had been elected, the witan in London that chose him did so before the word of King Edward’s death had even reached beyond the environs of London. There was dissatisfaction amongst the northern English with this rushed decision and Harold took it upon himself to go and speak to a witan in York. After making his case, he had been soundly endorsed. But the steps he had to take are telling. The people expected a say in what happened and who led them. This rather slow process of reaching consensus contrasted with the absolute tyranny represented by William the Bastard.

"..the absolute tyranny represented by William the Bastard." vs. the "Democratic English" .. the real truth is somewhere in the middle.Stbalbach

The traditions and atitudes of the English in matters of war also contrasted with the Normans—the English did not engage in war making nearly so readily. Invasions and petty conflicts in Normandy were common. The knights existed merely for the sake of combat, fighting for any reason on any occasion. So ready were they to fight that the church had declared the Truce of God in Normandy in 1042 and set aside Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays for combat. The peasants would work the fields Thursday through Saturday, rest on Sunday and hide till Thursday. William had managed to suppress these private wars but he had turned this warlike temperament onto the surrounding provinces. Not so in England where King Edward even had difficulty getting his soldiers to engage in civil conflict. The contrast is further illustrated by the fact that Normandy was a primary resources for campaigners in the crusades and the knights themselves sold their services as mercenaries in many wars outside of Normandy, including Spain and Sicily.

More attacks on the Normans, we should think they spent 3 days a week killing peasants for sport and fun! The better way to describe this situation is the anarchy and chaos present on the Continent compared to a historically peaceful period in England meant more fighting men and spirit were available to the Normans. Normans and Saxons were equally brutal at different periods in history. Stbalbach

This was all complicated by yet another aspect—superstition. Earlier in the year there had been a comet (probably Halley’s Comet) which was believed to have foretold doom. A second and evidently more prevalent event was this, on his deathbed, the previous ruler, King Edward, had related a dream in which he was told that England would suffer for its wickedness and that God would curse the country for a year and a day. Since the messengers in the dream were two deceased ecclesiastics the king had met years before in Normandy, this made the foretelling all the more credible.

As the Norman army laid waste to a growing number of villages, the country was unable to act quickly and immersed in a deep depression. There were many still capable of meeting and defeating what was but a few thousand marauding mercenaries effectively cut off from any additional support from Normandy. But resistance, which continued for years, was never sufficiently organised and William was nothing if not competent to establish his rule and maintain it.

Not sure how a country (it was not) immerses into a collective deep depression. This is most telling of the POV here: "..William was nothing if not competent to establish his rule and maintain it." Obviously, William had no redeeming qualifications!Stbalbach

[edit] the Norman versus English account

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)

When I have time of course. However, the whole account will take a lot of time. This additon was to convey some of the leading theories out there which were not in the original article (the one I addressed).

Balanced. No such animal. The objective is to place the ideas out there and be transparent. That is really all we can do. Everyone has their story. E.g. President Grant just got a rewrite. Everytime I turn around there is another Theory of the War in South East Asia--I was in Hanoi when McNamara's autobiography came out--what a shock.. The theory of the Vatican conspiracy could go on for 100s of pages. Euope was in the middel of a huge row over secular control of the church. Alexander was the first Pope in yonks to be elected by the canons. Hidelbrande's famous confrontation with the Emperor came a few years later but he was in the thick of it when William was trying to sell his story to the Norman lords (Howarth is a readable and accessible source). William used that conflict and took it with him to England (issuing anathemas was normal back then so what was another one--especially if it gave the Gregorians a new power base.) and the Archibishop of Canterbury at that time was in trouble over the canonical issue of his appointment. To go into detail on this page would be misplaced.

PS. To my knowledge, I have joined the Wikipedia. I signed up for something.

Thom Simmons, Kapiti Coast, NZ User:Malangthon 12:14, 11 May 2005 South Pacific

[edit] Response to Specific Comments

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)

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.

RESPONSE-Not necessarily killing peasants but yes, the Truce of God is no secret. Big reason the Crusades were called (Cambridge History of the Crusades) was to get the lords and knights from knocking each other off. Strayer and Bloch also give good accounts of life in that era. [stop]

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)

RESPONSE-Neutrality? Insisting that one and only one person had a better claim than another as the sole perspective of the article’s current look is not neutrality. [stop]

Part of William's success on the field and in being crowned king so quickly was because Norman cultural and political influence in England had built up over the years prior to 1066, and William had an arguably legitimate dynastic claim to the throne of England, which enabled him to claim enough support among the Anglo-Saxon nobility to prevent a wholly united front against his ascent of the throne.

This is almost accurate, but Williams success on the field had nothing to do with Normal political and cultural influence inEngland.Stbalbach

RESPONSE-I did not write that. It was already there and I am loathe to step on toes [stop]

Ive moved (what I believe is) a Saxon Apology for why England lost to the Normans here for discussion and edits, or just historiographical interest. Some of this is good and needs to be saved, but it needs to be re-framed to be more neutral. Ive made comments:

RESPONSE-This is a current apology being made by living English historians. [stop]

All things considered, William with just a few thousand men (many of whom were suffering the devastating effects of gastro-enteritis after sacking Dover) would conceivably have been unable to hold even his small conquest.

This is inaccurate. He had a legitimate claim to the throne which gave him authority, this was more than just a few thousand brigands taking the country.Stbalbach


RESPONSE-Really? Some one here was actually there and knows this beyond a shadow of a doubt? Not, by any stretch of the imagination is William's claim the only and wholly iron-clad theory. The legitimacy of the claim is also called into question by the fact that Lanfranc and Hildebrand got involved. And yes, they were brigands. Brigands with castles and armour and men-at-arms, but brigands all the same—the Truce of God imposed in Normandy in 1042 says it all. There is an article here on Wiki about it I think. Check it out. [stop]

That dynastic claim, in contradiction to the decision of the witan witena gemot, had weight for another reason. This reason, one particularly favoured by English historians, was the influence of the Roman Church. Though he certainly felt strongly about it, William’s rationale for the invasion was particularly weak. For those Norman lords who agreed to the adventure, the booty was enough but William had a wider theatre of politics to consider. In a conspiracy to place the Church in power over the secular government (the church was in a momentous struggle with the Emperor Henry IV to rule itself and the secular governments), Hildebrand, the Pope’s chaplain (later Pope Gregory VII), had conspired with Lanfranc (a friend of William’s, the Prior of Bec, later the Archbishop of Canterbury) and William to declare the invasion a crusade and to reform the Church in England. Pope Alexander II, known as Anselm and a student of Lanfranc, had obliged Hildebrand, blessed the Norman invasion of England and excommunicated Harold.

This paragraph has a lot of problems. Which English historians favour this? Its also framed to sound like the witan were more authoritative then Williams claim. William had the better claim. Next, the idea that Normans went only for "booty" is just one in a long string of pejorative attacks on Normans throughout this piece. Norman Lords went because they had a chance to increase their political power, just as William did, it was part of a large European wide expansion and resettlement pattern during the high middle ages. The "Church Conspiracy" needs supporting evidence.Stbalbach

RESPONSE- Which English historians say that without equivocation William’s claim was so solid that the folks welcomed him with open arms? The objection to this view commits the infraction of the very blatant bias it protests. Context Note: This is medieval Europe we are talking about here. I very fairly and without malice or subtrafuge of forethought framed that passage and the subsequent passages as view points. Unlike the assertion that William’s claim was beyond doubt. The view that the witan had authority is just that, a view and William had another—but that is history.

Church conspiracy needs supporting evidence? Here is a quick one, The Pope Encyclopedia in which the author thanks, among others, The Most Reverend John P. Foley, President of the Pontifical Commission for Social Communications and a couple of guys from the Vatican Library—the Roman Catholic Church says there was one. You can get that at Barnes and Nobles.

Lanfranc, Anselms’s teacher and Williams chaplain, was dead in the middle of the Gregorian Reform (wrest control from the Emperor and the aristocracy and wield control over them in return) and was rewarded by William with the Archbishoperic of Canterbury. University text here—A History of Christianity: Volume 1, Beginnings to 1500. K. S. Latourette.

This stuff is accessible.

[stop]

Harold, like all the English, was deeply religious. By all reports, he was a changed man after learning that he had been excommunicated. Not a few English historians have made a comparison of his demeanour before—when he defeated Harald Hardrada at Stamford Bridge—and after hearing of the excommunication—his defeatists attitude when he met the Normans and their French allies on the southern slopes of Caldbec Hill outside the small town of Hastings.

This portrayal of Harold as deeply pious, and that his excommunication broke his spirit is sweet and dear but is highly suspect of propaganda. Harold was like all kings of his age, brutal, tough and not someone to wilt under the moral strain ofexcommunication.Stbalbach

REPONSE- ‘is sweet and dear.’ (give me a break) LOL. My perspective--Comments indicate a serious personal conflict. OK--How is this, ever seen a battle hardened, grown man break down and weep at the death of a loved one? Is that what you mean by sweet and dear? Clearly i am addressing someone who has deep personal issues. For the good of the Wikipedia, pleeeze leave them at home. We are fast going from Open Source to Stbalbach Source here.

Oh. Yea. When there are spiritual conflicts, big boys can go from absolute carnage to utter desolation. Next. [stop]

"..the absolute tyranny represented by William the Bastard." vs. the "Democratic English" .. the real truth is somewhere in themiddle.Stbalbach

REPONSE-Excellent. I will buy the book when it comes out. Meantime, this is what is out there now. And, do go back and read the text as it was posted. It has deliberately been misread again. Meanwhile, the statement here shows this massive deletion and subsequent verbiage is more about wishful thinking and personal issues, not viable historical record and interpretation. [stop]

More attacks on the Normans, we should think they spent 3 days a week killing peasants for sport and fun! The better way to describe this situation is the anarchy and chaos present on the Continent compared to a historically peaceful period in England meant more fighting men and spirit were available to the Normans. Normans and Saxons were equally brutal at different periods in history. Stbalbach

RESPONSE-Another misreading and another utter disregard for well documented events and issues. By the way, the market for Norman Mercenaries is legendary. And the period of time on topic is the period around the events of the Norman Conquest. Not the Fall of the Roman Empire and retreat from Britain.

The utter desolation that resulted from Norman rule was a BBC History on-line article by Michael Wood in 2001. Good reference point and does explain the need for historical context in the WIki article..

The remainder of the comments by Stbalbach did not offer any new perspective. I have offered the perspectives of authors of note and credibility. They are not my assertions or conclusions. Shall we go for arbitration here?

I am in the process of writing additional text for the article and I need to know if this is being arbitrarily censured by the unknowing and presumptuously singleminded author of these rather simplistic comments.

Thom Simmons Kapiti Coast, New Zealand User:Malangthon

This was repeated in error

[edit] Response to Thom re: the Saxon View

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)

Not a problem. I can do that. I will get on it later today. A subtitle change can be helpful. The view there now also needs to be identified for what it is, one of many theories.. User:Malangthon 11, May, 2005 9:52 SPT

[edit] The Vatican's role in the Norman Conquest--check wikipedia articles

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)

[edit] Last invasion of England?

"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)

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)

The fact that it is Henry VII of England is exactly why it was not an invasion. Henry VII was English (even if he was in exile in Brittany) and thus he simply usrped the throne rather than in vaded the country.

I think that most people who fought at Bosworth would dispute the idea that Henry VII "simply usurped the throne" Rjm at sleepers 15:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

William the third has a slightly stronger case, but was more invited in than actually 'invading'- there was no real military contest when he came over (James II just ran), although naturally there were the Jacobite battles (like the Boyne) in Ireland and the like. 172.214.164.27 23:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The statement is the sort of romantic nonsense that should be found in a Ladybird book rather than an encyclopedia. Rjm at sleepers 15:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The following were all successful military invasions.

Louis VII in 1216 Henry IV in 1399 Henry VI in 1470 Edward IV in 1471 Henry VII in 1485 William II in 1688 Rjm at sleepers 16:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anglo-Saxon vs English

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)

[edit] Norman conquest of England

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)

[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations

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)

[edit] Norman conquest of England

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)

[edit] End of the conquest

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)

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)
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)
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)

[edit] Errors

Harald Hardrada had no relation to the "Anglo-Saxon family"...and the Norman Conquest was not the last successful military invasion of England, see Glorious Revolution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.17.193.107 (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

Fixed the Harald claim. It says "last successful military conquest", not invasion. It took the Normans nearly a generation to conquest England. -- Stbalbach 20:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has refuted the idea that Henry VII and William III staged successful military conquests. I would also argue for Louis VII, Henry VI and Edward IV. My edit simply drew the reader's attention to the fact that the claim that 1066 was the last successful military conquest is not universally accepted. Rjm at sleepers 16:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I think saying "it is not universally accepted" opens a can of worms that goes beyond the scope of this article, we can't really say that without backing it up and explaining what we mean. If you want, start a new article called Invasions and conquests of England (if there is not something like it already) and list all the events, along with the names and works of historians who support various views, and we can link to it from this article. -- Stbalbach 23:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The ODNB article on William III is explicit that it was a foreign invasion. The battles of the Boyne, Preston and Culloden marked the conquest. Thus there are reliable secondary sources that demonstrate that the assertion that it "remains the last successful military conquest of England" is not true. I would like to see the sentence deleted but how about "is popularly believed to be the last successful military conquest of England"? Rjm at sleepers 10:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you provide some sources that I can verify, such as on Google Books, Internet Archive or Amazon.Com's "Look Inside" - or on the web - or transcribed here - that says England was successfully "Conquered" in the 17th century? This is news to me, but I admit my history of the period is not as good as it could be. If this is a standard view, it should be no problem showing so from mainstream scholarly sources. -- Stbalbach 03:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The ODNB article is on-line. It is a subscription site, but many UK libraries have arranged access using your library card number. If you are outside the UK, you should be able to consult the printed copy at any major library and I suspect many universities have on-line access. I'm not sure what it is you want to verify. I'm not aware of any historical dispute about the events. William III was a foreigner from a country against whom England had fought three wars in the previous forty years. He had no hereditary claim to the throne. He landed in England at the head of a foreign army. After he was crowned, supporters of James II continued to oppose him and his successors - in Ireland, Scotland and to a small extent in England. The three main battles against the Jacobites were the Boyne, Preston and Culloden. The only "problem" is the name that has been given to the events - "the glorius revolution". But if that is what is bothering you, there are references that say it was neither glorious nor a revolution. (Incidentaly, the wikipedia article calls it the last successful invasion and gives a source, although not the one I would have chosen.) Rjm at sleepers 07:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This article in the Independent may be useful - addresses the issue head on, and claims that, "British historiography cloaks William's invasion of 1688 as 'the Glorious Revolution'."MAIS-talk-contr 14:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

btw, I can verify that the ODNB describes William III's intervention as and "invasion".MAIS-talk-contr 14:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"Invasion" and "conquest" are pretty different. One is a short term gain, the other is a complete and total control for the long term. William I invaded England, won Hastings.. but he did not Conquer England for another Generation at least. Invasion is one thing, even a successful invasion, but conquering .. I'm not aware of historians who label anything post-Norman as a Conquest of England. -- Stbalbach 02:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is much difference between a successful invasion and a conquest. However, I've never seen any suggestion that William III and his sucessors did not achieve "complete and total control for the long term". The battles of the Boyne and Culloden established the defeat of Jacobitism. Incidentally, although it is not an acceptable source, a wikipedia article - Paul Barillon - says explicitly "conquest". If you would like a more academic reference: Ina Baghdiantz McCabe, Trading Diaspora, State Building and the Idea of National Interest. Interactions: Regional Studies, Global Processes, and Historical Analysis. 28-March 3 Feb. 2001. Library of Congress, Washington D.C., 25 Mar. 2007 <http://www.historycooperative.org/proceedings/interactions/mccabe.html>. Rjm at sleepers 08:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess we can debate what conquest vs invasion means, and if the GR was comparable with the Anglo Saxon and Norman conquests of England in terms of their language, cultural and population changes. But its all just our opinions. How about instead we consider this is an encyclopedia for a general audience, and per the WP:LEAD Lead Section guidelines, the lead section should provide a basic broad summary overview of the article contents for someone who has no experience on the topic - reading the rest of this article in more detail, under the Legacy section, it already discusses the issue with the Glorious Revolution in more detail, in case someone wants to learn more about that aspect. -- Stbalbach 00:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The important, undeniable (and therefore encylopedic) point is that 1066 has become part of the popular psyche as the last successful invasion / conquest - whether or not the historical revisionists are correct. Surely it is that which should appear in the introduction. How about something like "It has a secure place in the English national identity as the last successful military conquest of England" or "It is populary remembered as the last successful military conquest of England" or even "It has an iconic role as the last successful military conquest of England. Rjm at sleepers 07:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok good suggestions, I think the iconic wording should satisfy the experienced and general reader. -- Stbalbach 23:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Absenteeism

I added this part in the "control England part". I also put a source and a quotation. This royal absenteeism is important enough to be mentioned in the government part since it's probably the most striking contrast between Norman (and Angevin) kings and previous and latter kings. I don't even understand how this point (not even a detail) was missing. Matthieu 08:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguating the footballer

I notice there isn't a link to Norman Conquest (footballer) from either this page or Norman Conquest. Which would be the best way to do this? If the conquest is not normally referred to as "Norman Conquest" (two words, both capitalised) then I suggest change it from a redirect to a disambig between Norman conquest of England and Norman Conquest (footballer). Otherwise, add a disambig header to the top of this article. Any other ideas? -- Chuq 23:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

So if the Normans had left on time and arrived at England before the Vikings, the Normans would have probably lost and the Vikings would have come upon a weakened English army and probably won?Cameron Nedland 14:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/o/r/Talk%7ENorman_conquest_of_England_d9a0.html"