[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]

/his/ - History

Historical Discussion

Catalog

Email
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Stop trying to start shit with other boards. Next time I see someone go "HAHA LOOK AT THIS /pol/ THREAD THEY'RE SO DUMB", they're getting slapped.

Allied boards - [ Philosophy ]


File: 1451784622789.jpg (48.28 KB, 466x260, 233:130, normans.jpg)

c184ac No.34080

Was it a good thing that the Normans conquered England or did this hinder the development of England? I can imagine it being the latter but I can not provide much evidence as to why.

fd0875 No.34087

If the Normans hadn't conquered England, it would have been politically separated from mainland Europe, therefore hindering its development.


6abb1d No.34094

>>34080

At the end of the day, William's conquest of England was the first step to the British unification, which is a great thing unless you happen to be a Scot or an Irishman.

But seriously, >>34080 has a point. Britain up to then didn't have that much contact with mainland Europe save for the occasional Viking raids. With the Norman rule, they had a more or less permanent connection to France (until that stupid French peasant girl ruined everything) and thus trade flourished.

On the downside, the English-speaking peasantry never were quite sure what the nobility wanted when their lords angrily kept sputtering words that invariably ended on "-on" "-ong", "-lon" or "-don". Maybe even "-dong"


ab23a3 No.34098

So, England would be pretty much isolated from the rest of Europe had the Norman conquest not happened.

Would that make their situation somewhat similar to Japan in the East?


fd0875 No.34100

>>34098

Japanese isolation was pretty much volontary though, due to their "xenophobia" (see Sakoku).


ab23a3 No.34102

>>34100

True. But I can see Britain trying to stay isolated too, to avoid any intermarriage of Anglo-Saxon and continental nobility to prevent any foreign claims, because "xenophobia". Especially since House of Wessex was having a hard time keeping England under control even without Normans intruding.


303cee No.34106

>>34094

Unification was objectively good for the savage Irish and Scottish


63a493 No.34110

>>34094

>British unification, which is a great thing unless you happen to be a Scot or an Irishman.

>Bringing civilisation to the barbarians

>Bad


f3665d No.34111

File: 1451911748073.jpg (55.72 KB, 640x456, 80:57, image.jpg)


924f86 No.34112

File: 1451923363894.jpg (129.98 KB, 347x287, 347:287, gtfo normans 2.jpg)

>>34087

>>34094

>>34106

>>34110

NORMANS GET THE FUCK OUT

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE


d0b68e No.34180

File: 1452215501389.png (622.38 KB, 680x497, 680:497, yfw1066.png)

>>34112

>>34111

checked trips


0fad8a No.34328

The Saxon heathens stole Roman Celtic land, they then converted but still despised us all the same.

So yes, the Saxons deserved every single bit rape by Vikings and Normans.


33f186 No.34429

>>34328

booty blasted Welshman detected

>WE WUZ ROMANS N SHIEET


63a493 No.34430

File: 1453176747869.jpg (108.26 KB, 634x429, 634:429, stop ruining other people ….jpg)

>>34328

So, the British Isle history is just a long list cultural diversity.


0fad8a No.34431

>>34429

How does it feel that a Welshman had more roman than you do, Italianfag also barely even welsh and the remark isn't necessarily for you because there are several Italyfags on here

>>34430

Well not to sure about the pre roman times but there were different races there fighting eachother, then with the Viking and Norman cultural enrichments, then add the Irish immigration to England to work as wage slaves because throwing a bottle of whiskey at an Irishman to work is cheaper than a negro slave.


dd3a72 No.34543

File: 1453646659808.jpg (286.37 KB, 1010x1417, 1010:1417, asB.jpg)

>>34094

>Britain up to then didn't have that much contact with mainland Europe save for the occasional Viking raids.

You haven't read anything about Anglo-Saxon England, have you? The Anglo-Saxon nobility was widely in contact with the rest of Europe and archaeological finds reveal extensive trading with the rest of the world. In fact, even if you read about the history of the Norman period, you will find that the Normans are always trying to justify their rule with the "Laws of Edward the Confessor" and falling back on Anglo-Saxon modes.

In fact, think about the Domesday Book itself. Wow, what an achievement of William the Conqueror, right? Wrong. Domesday Book is an achievement of the extant apparatus of Anglo-Saxon England. The fact that in such a period as this there was a bureaucratic mechanism in place that was so widespread and efficient that it could produce something as organized and massive as Domesday Book suggests a great deal about the political and social construction of Anglo-Saxon England itself.

I really don't think the Normans had that much of an impact honestly, I think they really just continued things as the had been for hundreds of years. The largest impact that they had was on the language, really. Other than that, the Normans fought a lot of wars and conquered a lot of territory, but they lost most of it. And even with their conquests of Wales and Ireland, they didn't really undertake massive migrations to there.

The Normans are just a case of where the very upper crust of English society was replaced with a foreign invader that ultimately assimilated to the native populace and became indistinguishable to them. Indeed, you hardly hear of "Norman" being mentioned as distinct from "English" after the 1200s.


1da4be No.34577

>>34543

Why do those face masks look so fucking cool /his/?


d8c25b No.34630

>>34543

The domesday book was a book for taxes owed to the viking dominions in britain though


c184ac No.34983

File: 1454544992773.jpg (155.26 KB, 1526x854, 109:61, hastings ;-;.jpg)

October 14th 1066, worst day of my life.


317971 No.34988

>>34543

>>34577

that king's mask looks extremely impractical and uncomfortable, is there any evidence that it has been used in battle? cause it would seem a bit more logical to me that it was just a gravegift like king tuts mask


001750 No.36222

>>34988

As a HEMA guy, that helmet doesn't look any less practical than a sallet and bevor in the 15th century. It would protect the fact, and that rendering seems to indicate that it gave you good range of vision. Most helmets are catch-22s anyway.


87f022 No.36238

>>34988

Armor is always uncomfortable. On the other hand, if someone swings a sword at your face, you'll be stunned instead of murdered. There's tradeoffs. 'Course, having the visor look like your face is just 'cause it looks badass, a blank plate would work just as well.


5dca79 No.36265

File: 1458765854575.png (492.17 KB, 580x695, 116:139, the fuck man.png)

>>34988

Are you referring to the Sutton Hoo helmet, or to masked helmets in general? I don't know about the former, but the latter were certainly in use among Parthian and maybe Roman cataphracts, so it must be a battleworthy design.

I don't see what's "extremely impractical and uncomfortable" about the former, either.


c184ac No.36285

>>36265

I think it's about the heat inside the helmet would limit your breathing. You're going to have to have it made for you specifically as well, otherwise it's going to be uncomfortable as fuck. Then you just have the problems with helmets restricting your vision and shit like that.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]