BS: The battle for middle earth

Subject: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: Eric the Viking
Date: 19 May 09 - 05:55 PM

The battle for middle earth has just finished on UK TV channel 4. Though it had a cast of less than thousands and was reasonably historically correct with some monor details ommitted such as the involvement of Tostig at York, I watched it with sadness knowing that Angleland forever changed on 14th October 1066. We still live under the Norman yoke with Norman justice for the rich and Norman injustice for the poor. Of the 190 Norman knights who got a quarter of England betwen them much is still held by their decendants to the cost of the ordinary man. The population of course has intermingled since then and it would be really difficult to sort out, in families , who is Saxon, Viking or Norman or any other come to that except by family name. I still think of us as having been invaded and conquered.

The term "AngloSaxon" has been often banded about as an insult to the people of these islands when in truth the Normans did their best to kill or breed out the population at the time of conquest.They did not of course elliminate us all. The Scots still talk about and blame the Sasanach( a derogatory term for an Englishman )nd so Irish as well. It wasn't us...it was the Normans. My family name is much older than the conquest and is Anglo Saxon, though my father called us all Saxon, Viking (Anglo Nordic) first names.

Did anyone else watch the two night programme?

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 May 09 - 06:01 PM

I tend to agree. As I see it, the Normans were heartless, aggressive, ambitious, and cold bastards with a voracious hunger for empire. I can only think they made England a considerably worse place than it might have been.

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: Emma B
Date: 19 May 09 - 06:07 PM

The sneaky Saxons invade :)

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 19 May 09 - 06:10 PM

I've recorded it to watch at a later date, don't tell me who wins!

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: Eric the Viking
Date: 19 May 09 - 06:12 PM

Thankyou for that. I do agree. There can be a million "what if's"? But I do think that the gentler nature of the Anglo saxon Jutes and the civilising of the Vikings would have developed into a more just society. It goes without saying that in comparison with today the society and life of the time was more bloody and violent but given the time and another 1000 years to bring us up to today I wonder what we might have become?

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: GUEST,marks(on the road)
Date: 19 May 09 - 06:15 PM

Bet this story could be better told by Monty Python!

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: Eric the Viking
Date: 19 May 09 - 06:26 PM

I agree Emma, but I think it is propaganda (haha). However the Romans wern't too nice and by all accounts the recently migrated celts who came after the last ice age and whose decendents we call Scots and Welsh were always fighting between themselves. The first united peoples of England were the Anglo Saxons, though they had a rocky start of course.

The most visible British genetic marker is red hair,he added . (The he being archaeologist David Miles.) The writer Tacitus noted the Romans' surprise at how common it was when they arrived 2,000 years ago.

Cornish, Welsh, Scot or Irish mostly suffered worse under Norman conquest.

By the way Liz, can you guess who came second?

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: Eric the Viking
Date: 19 May 09 - 06:28 PM

Guest Road Marking......I point my bum in your general direction!

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: Emma B
Date: 19 May 09 - 06:32 PM

What if The Roman Empire remained at its peak (circa 70-120 AD) past the 6th century?
Perhaps there would have been no 'Dark Ages' either and we'd all be speaking Latin :)

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: Eric the Viking
Date: 19 May 09 - 06:42 PM

Is est tristis reor ut Rome postulo non have cado.

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: Eric the Viking
Date: 19 May 09 - 06:52 PM

Actually many of our words have latin bases. The Normans were heavilly invovled with the pope and latin was commonly spoken at court I believe.All religious writings and ceremonies were in latin both in England and across the channel and stayed so for a long while.Britain was catholic until Henry VIII got too lusty. (He was a bloody Norman as well !!)

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 May 09 - 07:33 PM

Sounds like an interesting program. I hope we get to see it over here sometime.

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: Emma B
Date: 19 May 09 - 07:44 PM

In the BBC version of the history of these islands 'Before Roman times 'Britain' was just a geographical entity, and had no political meaning, and no single cultural identity. Arguably this remained generally true until the 17th century, when James I of England and VI of Scotland sought to establish a pan-British monarchy.'

In fact very little is known of the first several hundred years of the 'Anglo-Saxon' era, primarily because the invaders were described as 'an illiterate people'. Earliest records of them are usually little more than highly inventive lists of rulers.

They established separate kingdoms, the Saxons settling in the south and west, the Angles in the east and north, and the Jutes on the Isle of Wight and the mainland opposite.

One history site describes the 'Dark Ages' thus -

'One of these customs was fighting everyone in sight.
A king's power was not hereditary; it depended solely on his ability to win battles and so gain land, treasure, and slaves to give his supporters. He was obliged to fight and keep fighting. If not, he would find himself out of a job or deprived of his life, or both.

Succession from father to son was never a forgone conclusion. Any relative of the old king who could muster enough support could make a bid for the throne. This helps to explain why the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms came and went so quickly. The power of any kingdom over its neighbours was only as solid as the strength of its king in battle.


'gentler nature'? - maybe not!

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 19 May 09 - 08:57 PM

Eric the Viking said, inter alia:

Henry VIII got too lusty. (He was a bloody Norman as well !!)

Forgive me if I'm all wet, but wasn't Henry about 1/4 Welsh?

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 19 May 09 - 09:03 PM

As I see it, the Normans were heartless, aggressive, ambitious, and cold bastards with a voracious hunger for empire. I can only think they made England a considerably worse place than it might have been.

Ah, but they built some marvelous flippin castles, dint they? Left Cromwell some lovely big targets fer his cannon practice, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 May 09 - 10:50 PM

very entertaining TV for an otherwise dull monday and tuesday night.
..and quite an acheivement for what must have been such a relatively small production budget.

My mrs loves this kind of extreme bloodthirsty hairy warrior battle movies,
but then, she's a celt and also gets over excitable watching rugby.

..and they certainly seemed to enjoy a good match back in 1066
before the restrictions imposed on team sizes, weaponry,
and the introduction of that totaly uneccesary ball...

amidst all the usual to be expected sneery & dismissive lazy TV critics revews..
this one in the Guardian is at least amusing...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2009/may/19/television-tv-reviews-1066-divided-andrew-castle

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 09 - 03:16 AM

I appreciated the story being told through the experience of some ordinary farmers/weaponmen and wifemen.

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 May 09 - 03:29 AM

Yes, LEJ, they built some fine castles, and they were superb organizers too...as was the British empire that followed in their footsteps.

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 20 May 09 - 03:30 AM

We still live under the Norman yoke with Norman justice for the rich and Norman injustice for the poor.

Do tell me you're not being serious, Eric - although I've met a few down the years who would agree with you... I've just read in the Radio Times that some 5% of the UK is still in the hands of Norman descendants, which is pretty impressive in terms of cultural continuity, but surely all part of the inevitable richness of these islands and a history which is already a battle lost and won. What did the Normans do for us?

Ogier died. His sons grew English. Anglo-Saxon was their name,
Till out of blossomed Normandy another pirate came;
For Duke William conquered England and divided with his men,
And our Lower River-field he gave to William of Warenne.

But the Brook (you know her habit) rose one rainy Autumn night
And tore down sodden flitches of the bank to left and right.
So, said William to his Bailiff as they rode their dripping rounds:
'Hob, what about that River-bit - the Brook's got up no bounds?'

And that aged Hobden answered: ''Tain't my business to advise,
But ye might ha' known 'twould happen from the way the valley lies.
When ye can't hold back the water you must try and save the sile.
Hev it jest as you've a-mind-to, but, if I was you, I'd spile!'

They spiled along the water-course with trunks of willow-trees
And planks of elms behind 'em and immortal oaken knees.
And when the spates of Autumn whirl the gravel-beds away
You can see their faithful fragments iron-hard in iron clay.

From The Land by Rudyard Kipling.

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: Smedley
Date: 20 May 09 - 03:40 AM

I'm all in favour of knowing your history, but the claim that the Anglo-Saxons represent some sort of 'essence' of Englishness can & often does lead to some very slippery and reprehensible political views if you go far enough down that line. I am extremely wary of what the critic Paul Gilroy calls 'ethnic absolutism'.

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 20 May 09 - 03:54 AM

I am extremely wary of what the critic Paul Gilroy calls 'ethnic absolutism'.

Wary? After the events in former Yugoslavia (etc. etc.) I'm absolutely terrified of it. A quaint sort-of regionality persists in the UK, but people are (generally) too busy getting on with their lives in the here & now to give a shit about history. I don't think anyone can come out with the sort of generalisations we've seen here with any justification other than a romantic prejudice that were it not 1000 years out of date could well be called racial stereotyping.

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: Smedley
Date: 20 May 09 - 04:02 AM

Well, 'wary' was a bit mlid, I agree !! I didn't want to sound too combative so early in the day......

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 May 09 - 04:50 AM

Yes, I watched 'The Battle for Middle Earth' and quite enjoyed it. But, apart from a few 'authentic touches', it relied on the usual cliches of standard historical dramas. The main one being that, before they were brutally conquered, the English were a bunch of peaceful, happy-clappy hippies skipping around the countryside, without a care in the world, just being 'spiritual' and having fun.

This ignores the probable truth that most of them worked the land for long hours with primitive equipment, lived in appalling squalor and often went hungry. Their society was also probably quite militaristic with a strict hierarchy. Those at the top were slave-owning feudal lords who ruled with iron fists and were always picking fights with their neighbours and expected the down-trodden serfs to do the bulk of their fighting for them. These heavily armed thugs eventually encountered another bunch of heavily armed thugs who were meaner than they were. As a result of this encounter a few thugs got carved up (literally, in Harold's case, if last night's drama is to be believed) and loads of serfs were slaughtered, raped and/or sold into slavery or died of starvation because the harvest couldn't be brought in. It's still happening in various parts of the world to this day, of course.

Of course, our species can't cope with too much reality so we mythologise such squalid events and turn them into nationalist myths - which then lead to more war and brutality - and so on.

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: Smedley
Date: 20 May 09 - 04:53 AM

Well put, Shimrod.

What's interesting, also, is why some people still feel the need to invest in those bucolic/Edenic fantasies you so aptly criticise. But I guess we all need escapism in one form or another.

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: Will Fly
Date: 20 May 09 - 08:13 AM

As I've pointed out, from time to time, in other threads, it's absolutely impossible for anyone to say "I'm a Celt" or "I'm a Saxon" or "I'm a Norman", etc., with any degree of certainty. Not only have the various threads of ancestry joined and rejoined many, many times since those days, but the actual history of those times - particularly about the displacement or otherwise of the various tribes of Mediterranean origin whose languages came under the umbrella term "Celtic" - is not fully known or, at least, disputed.

What usually happened in these islands, and certainly happened with the Norman conquest (though of course, there were blood ties between Harold and William), is that the "conquering" population assimilates and is assimilated. Melvyn Bragg's TV series and book on the rise of the English language demonstrated that fairly eloquently.

It's a wise child that knows its own parentage. If you doubt that, ask yourself these questions:

- who was my father?
- who was his father?
- who was his father?

and keep on asking it until you can't supply an answer. Then do the same for the other lines of your ancestry. Sounds obvious, doesn't it, yet few people do this before making assumptions about lineage, ancestry, heritage, etc.

Just a thought... Not bad programmes, by the way, and good if they got people thinking about history.

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: Will Fly
Date: 20 May 09 - 08:15 AM

Oh - forgot to mention - Harold had previously sworn an oath to William that, when Edward died, he (Harold) would not claim the English throne. He changed his ming and claimed it - William the Bastard was not amused... not so much empire building as taking what he thought was rightfully his in the first place...

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: manitas_at_work
Date: 20 May 09 - 11:47 AM

It was also claimed that Harold took that oath under duress and/or was deceived into swearing on holy relics and therfore felt absolved of his vows.

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 May 09 - 11:54 AM

"It's a wise child that knows its own parentage. If you doubt that, ask yourself these questions:

- who was my father?
- who was his father?
- who was his father?

and keep on asking it until you can't supply an answer. Then do the same for the other lines of your ancestry. Sounds obvious, doesn't it, yet few people do this before making assumptions about lineage, ancestry, heritage, etc."

.. and regarding our widely mixed ancesteral DNA pool..

maybe extreme British Nationalists ought be made more aware
of [easy to google] research into significant numbers of
Black African Roman Legion soldiers posted to our island
and settling and starting familys here...
circa 200/300 AD...

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: manitas_at_work
Date: 20 May 09 - 12:21 PM

Do we know that they were black? North Africa had been in the Roman Empire quite a while and had been previously settled by Greeks and Phoenicians. Even the aborginals had probably settled the area from the Levant rather than directly from sub-Saharan Africa (of course this is no guarantee that they weren't black). If Roman Legionaries had really settled in *significant numbers* then wouldn't it be more noticable in our genes (and I don't mean superficial features like hair or skin colouring)?

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: GUEST,Edthefolkie
Date: 20 May 09 - 12:26 PM

Daughter (did some Old Norse at Uni) and I watched this with a lot of interest. It was better than I expected, and daughter gave it the thumbs up too, especially as the Anglo Saxon poem "The Wanderer" featured.

Half way through part two I realised that the telly Normans seemed to have mini mailshirts whereas the ones on the Bayeux Tapestry have knee length ones. Maybe the budget ran out or perhaps Crochet Wife-Man went on strike!

Good effort in general though - and it might make a few people go and have a look at the Tapestry. An ABSOLUTE must if you're in Normandy, can't recommend it too highly. Some nice caffs in Bayeux aussi.

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: Eric the Viking
Date: 20 May 09 - 12:28 PM

Thanks for your interesting answers. I admit there was some fair degree of tongue in cheek enquiring going on. People who know me know I am much more oriented to the fact that we, us, me, you are a pure accident of birth in that we are the result of the lucky sperm reaching the egg first and then the random recombining of genetic material. Where we are born is also accidental. We only have one world and human species.(I consider myself lucky to have been born here, I could have been born anywhere else)Why then do we often seem to be so tribal about our county, or country or our religion?

By the way I don't truly believe there was ever some golden age of peace, love and harmony before the Romans came, or the Anglo Saxons or the Vikings or the Normans come to that.

"I still think of us as having been invaded and conquered". These are words borrowed from a Scot I know who still claims the English are invading Scotland and many wish we'd leave.(My problem is that I have some Irish and Scottish ancestory as well as English) Similar things are said by many all over the world including the Welsh and Irish.

To my mind it was a harmless bit of fun and a reasonably good programme that didn't require too much viewer concentration or interpretation. But...I wonder if it was put to,or will, have any bearing on the european elections.

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 20 May 09 - 12:29 PM

Teeth and toes are the tell tales.

Square ended feet and small jaws with small teeth were Saxon/Celtic traits. Romans had pointed feet and big jaws with large teeth. Interbreeding has given the British the terrible teeth (large mouth/ small teeth or small mouth/large teeth combos) and excruciating footwear.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: GUEST,Sedayne (Astray)
Date: 20 May 09 - 12:55 PM

and excruciating footwear.

By which, of course, you mean socks & sandals (or scandals as Dr Graeme Garden once had it in an episode of ISIHAC last year) which is an ancient Anglo-Saxon tradition we're still justly proud of!

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: Emma B
Date: 20 May 09 - 01:00 PM

What the Romans did for us?

They look very much like socks to me :)

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: Penny S.
Date: 20 May 09 - 02:15 PM

As for old Hobden owning the Weald, and all that respect for the longstanding workers of the place, I heard that the people of Burwash, where Kipling hung out, were not very happy abou thim as an employer. Seems what he had a mind to was not pay them enough, and to be mightily offended when the idea of astrike was mooted.

This by a chain through my mother (of Mayfield and Blackboys), her schoolfriend at Lewes Grammar (girls), living at Heathfield, and her grandparents, from Burwash.

Lovely poem, though.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: Maryrrf
Date: 20 May 09 - 02:43 PM

I hope this will be shown soon on American television. Most of these historical programs don't get it all right, but they're still interesting. I'd like to see the program.

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: Will Fly
Date: 20 May 09 - 03:08 PM

manitas at work:
It was also claimed that Harold took that oath under duress and/or was deceived into swearing on holy relics and therfore felt absolved of his vows.

Yes - Harold was rescued by the Normans and conveniently taken prisoner - which was when he took the oath. As you say, probably under duress...

Poor old sod!

I wonder if our current soldiers could do a 4-day forced march from Sussex to Stamford Bridge, defeat the Vikings, and then - after another 4-day forced march back down south - only just fail to defeat the Normans at Battle...

They must have been tough lads in them days.

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: GUEST,watcher
Date: 20 May 09 - 05:28 PM

To be accurate (ok, pedantic! ) some experts say that only about 30-40 percent of the invaders were Norman, the rest were from Brittany (bloody ex-pat cornish!) "French" under Eustace of Boulogne, and assorted mercenaries looking to grab some loot.

One of the things usually overlooked is the genocide William carried out in the North of England, of the "Danish" who had rebelled and were potential supporters of counterclaims to the throne by the kings of Norway and of Denmark.

The Norman kings ended in the 1150s, after which England was ruled by the Plantagenets from Anjou-Aquitaine

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 20 May 09 - 06:00 PM

I did. It was bloody good - bloody and good. Atmospheric and effective employment saxon poetry and riddles.

Almost as good as the short film they used to show at Sutton Hoo (please bring it back- the new one is crap).

Interesting that descendants of the 190 Normans granted land by William the Conqueror still own 20% of Britain.

What does the BNP make of that?

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 25 May 09 - 07:37 AM

Dear guest BNP

While I am all for protecting the land and forests, I would fear any group that claims they can do this by denying immigration. The two things have little to do with one another especially in this day and age.

Also, if it came down to it, would you be able to prove your lineage as pure by the BNP definition? Would you submit to tests and measurements to determine your suitability? What would happen to you and your loved ones if it was determined you and/or they were not deemed suitable?

As well, if you truly believed what you claim, you would not be afraid to post under a real identity.

Keeping you in my thoughts for a softening of your heart and mind.

Tam

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: Paul Burke
Date: 25 May 09 - 09:20 AM

I believe the Jutes were probably Black- remember how they pronounce the J over in Germany- they called themselves de Yout' and were probably Jardies. And there were certainly Iraqi sailors in South Shields, the numerus barcariorum Tigrisiensium occupied the fort of Arbeia.

And don't get carried away with the idea that the Normans enslaved the Saxons- the feudal system was well established by the time the Normans took over the running of the shop- though it's true that the Norman legal system brought an interpretation of the law much more advantageous to the lord.

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 25 May 09 - 12:04 PM

OK mod- it is good that you took out the post from guest BNP.

Would you mind removing my last (but one) now pointless post)

Don't know why I responded. Hangover from yesterday's partying.

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: Eric the Viking
Date: 25 May 09 - 03:56 PM

How come this has ended up "plitical"? It was only about the nasty normans vs the angelic sacksons.

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: Paul Burke
Date: 25 May 09 - 04:37 PM

They are not angels, but Anglicans.

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: Eric the Viking
Date: 25 May 09 - 05:45 PM

Nah they wern't. Anglicans wasn't until about 1246 when the term was recorded. "The word Anglican originates in ecclesia anglicana, a medieval Latin phrase dating to at least 1246 meaning the English Church" (According to Wikpedia)

They was for a good part sensible pagans.

Subject: RE: BS: The battle for middle earth
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 May 09 - 07:23 PM

It's a bit late in the day to get too hot under the collar about all this. History is largely made up of successive injustices.

I imagine the British at the time (otherwise known as "Welsh") were probably inclined to welcome the defeat of the Saxons by an invading force largely made up of their cousins from Brittany. "King Arthur rules OK!!" I can imagine them saying when they heard the news.