|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 13, 2017 20:46:24 GMT -6
Now, now gentlemen, be nice. The Danes are fine people. I think the Anglo-Saxons would disagree...Great Heathen Army and all that I seem to remember the Anglo-Saxon's occupying an area on the North Sea which is now the Netherlands, Germany and OOOPS.... Denmark. This was before they invaded England, destroyed the Ancient Britons and went on the give us Old English. Hmmm!
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Sept 13, 2017 21:57:01 GMT -6
I think the Anglo-Saxons would disagree...Great Heathen Army and all that I seem to remember the Anglo-Saxon's occupying an area on the North Sea which is now the Netherlands, Germany and OOOPS.... Denmark. This was before they invaded England, destroyed the Ancient Britons and went on the give us Old English. Hmmm! It's a recurring theme in the history of England: people invading it, then considering themselves the true native population, and then being supplanted by someone else in turn: Ancient Britons were conquered by the Romans, Romano-British then became "Britons" after the dissolution of the Empire and were conquered by the Angles and Saxons in the 400s, who were in turn conquered by the Danes in 845 (big gap), who were halted for a time by Alfred the Great (buying off enemies is a handy tool) and the House of Wessex claimed the title "King of the English", but they were finally conquered by Cnut the Great, whose sons ruled England until the death of Harthacnut, at which point Edward the Confessor was king, then Harold Godwinson became king for a short while, and was rewarded for being the first English monarch to successfully expel a Viking Army from England by being killed by William I (aka William the Bastard, or William the Conquerer), who then took the throne for himself.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 13, 2017 22:23:40 GMT -6
I seem to remember the Anglo-Saxon's occupying an area on the North Sea which is now the Netherlands, Germany and OOOPS.... Denmark. This was before they invaded England, destroyed the Ancient Britons and went on the give us Old English. Hmmm! It's a recurring theme in the history of England: people invading it, then considering themselves the true native population, and then being supplanted by someone else in turn: Ancient Britons were conquered by the Romans, Romano-British then became "Britons" after the dissolution of the Empire and were conquered by the Angles and Saxons in the 400s, who were in turn conquered by the Danes in 845 (big gap), who were halted for a time by Alfred the Great (buying off enemies is a handy tool) and the House of Wessex claimed the title "King of the English", but they were finally conquered by Cnut the Great, whose sons ruled England until the death of Harthacnut, at which point Edward the Confessor was king, then Harold Godwinson became king for a short while, and was rewarded for being the first English monarch to successfully expel a Viking Army from England by being killed by William I (aka William the Bastard, or William the Conquerer), who then took the throne for himself. Funny it is, that Harold Godwinson was part Danish on his mothers side since she was Gytha Thorkelsdottir, sister-in-law of King Knut the Great of Denmark. So, William the Conqueror, of Viking descent since he was from Normandy, took England from another Viking. Turnabout is fair play, ain't it.
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Sept 13, 2017 22:34:50 GMT -6
My favorite story about the Normans (as being descended from Vikings) is that when the first Norman Duke(a viking) paid homage to the French King (who was significantly less important in terms of soldiers and wealth) and was told he had to kiss the king's foot, he grabbed the King by the leg and hoisted the foot up so he could kiss it, which sent the French king falling on his butt. The incredibly convoluted lineages of these families can be really fascinating, and the ramifications of these events sometimes was not felt for decades if not centuries. While I'm enjoying this conversation, I'll suggest that we move it to a separate thread: given how much we've been posting here, people must think that there's been a sudden and dramatic outburst of new mods!
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Sept 13, 2017 23:30:21 GMT -6
the French King (who was by far the most powerful man in western Europe at the time and whose vassal had just defeated Rollo with a fraction of the French forces). FTFY.
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Sept 14, 2017 0:01:56 GMT -6
the French King ( who was deposed by his own nobles in 922: I cannot emphasize this bit enough) who negotiated with them even though his vassel had defeated them (allegedly when the Bishop of Chartres displayed a relic of the Virgin Mary), permitted them to settle in Normandy and who (as far as anyone can guess as almost no written records exist from this time) then gave the hand of one of his daughters in marriage to Rollo. FTFY. Not quite
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Sept 15, 2017 10:35:25 GMT -6
You are pointing out something that happened 11 years later, after two major wars. In 911, Charles was unquestionably the strongest man in western Europe. Marrying the king's daughter sounds impressive. Marrying the king's 4th daughter, who might have been a bastard, and converting to her religion sounds much less impressive. It's just flat out to absurd to suggest any Carolingian king who was ruling without pretenders had less military might then a count.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 15, 2017 11:13:06 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Sept 15, 2017 11:24:56 GMT -6
That is an interesting source but it's mostly talking about the siege of Paris a generation before. It's the bit at the end we were talking about.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 15, 2017 11:41:26 GMT -6
That is an interesting source but it's mostly talking about the siege of Paris a generation before. It's the bit at the end we were talking about. guides.library.cornell.edu/c.php?g=32286&p=203484I am trying to give everyone some background but not bore them to death, hope this link is better.
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Sept 15, 2017 12:32:36 GMT -6
You are pointing out something that happened 11 years later, after two major wars. In 911, Charles was unquestionably the strongest man in western Europe. Marrying the king's daughter sounds impressive. Marrying the king's 4th daughter, who might have been a bastard, and converting to her religion sounds much less impressive. It's just flat out to absurd to suggest any Carolingian king who was ruling without pretenders had less military might then a count. That event 11 years later is pretty telling about what kind of King Charles the Simple was. The height of the Carolingians was a century before Charles the Simple's reign, and by this time, the Carolingian Dynasty had been cut down to East Francia. Many of their "Vassals" by this point in time where vassals in name only. Much like the Dukes of Normandy would do, most vassals of the Carolingians by this point tended to ignore the authority of the kings. If enough of your own vassals stop taking notice of you, than you simply become someone who has a fancy title. More to the point, during this time, they were being supplanted by the House of Capet in terms of influence with the nobility. Particularly in this period in time, events like the forced removal of a person that is supposedly the "the strongest man in Western Europe" don't just happen spontaneously, or even in a matter of a few years: Edward II of England may have been king for 20 years before he was kicked off the throne, but relationship with his vassals were exceedingly poor for most of his reign and their hostility to him greatly weakened his own position.
Second with regard to Charles being powerful, he was put on the throne by a faction that had been opposed to the old king (which says something about the power and independence of the vassals). Now, when vassals put a king on the throne, there's generally a loss of power on the part of the King to those who put him on the throne (an exception being Mikhail Romanov, but that's 700 years in the future at this point). Given how independent many of the "vassals" actually were, how much power he actually had is debatable. Third, let's consider the invasion and its aftermath. This is tricky, as there's very little source material (Charlemagne might have brought back record keeping, but things got lost, and a ton of stuff got flat-out destroyed during the French Revolution [government documents were favorite targets]) However Rollo landed with an Army of some 20,000 Vikings, and was able to capture most if not all of Normandy from the Franks. It's well worth noting that the city where he was allegedly "defeated" (if as the sources say when a Bishop produced a religious Icon that scared them). Now, if Charles the Simple (or his "vassal" as the case very well may have been) had actually managed to really defeat Rollo, then why on earth did he let them keep Normandy? Why not march on Rouen to expel the invaders and then push them out of the rest of Normandy? As King, Charles had a duty to come to the aid of his Norman vassals whose territory had been overrun by an invading army of "heathen"vikings. As such, the fact that he did not indicates that this "defeat" was hardly decisive. Furthermore the fact that he "allowed" them to keep the lands that they had forcibly taken from him lends to the notion that he did not have the military power to expel them. Now, why on Earth was the most powerful man (as you say) letting people who had invaded his realm to keep what they had taken from him? Because he did not have the ability to kick them out. Simply put, the creation of Rollo as the new Duke of Normandy and Count of Rouen and as the vassal of the King of West Francia was a fiction that was cooked up by Charles the Simple in order to hide the fact that he could not expel the Vikings by force of arms. Now, in other ways, it was a shrewd move as the Norman Vikings would, by their location and presumable resistance to an invasion of their own land, help screen the rest of the territories that Charles still controlled from any more invasions. As such, I think it is hardly absurd to argue that Charles the Simple lacked military might, or to dispute that Charles the Simple was the most powerful man in Western Europe when he couldn't even manage to expel an invasion from his territory. Particularly when that same King was kicked off the throne by his own vassals, and when his dynasty would be kicked of the throne it held only about 60 years after his death.
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Sept 15, 2017 12:44:17 GMT -6
TBH, I did not intend to start a debate about this/get into one. I just wanted to share a humorous legend about a king getting knocked on his ass
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Sept 15, 2017 12:52:05 GMT -6
I am trying to give everyone some background but not bore them to death, hope this link is better. It was a good link, I just wanted to make sure there wasn't any confusion. However Rollo landed with an Army of some 20,000 Vikings, and was able to capture most if not all of Normandy from the Franks. Medieval sources greatly exaggerate numbers. Kings in the 10th century did not defend territory like a 20th century nation state. Even four hundred years later the english again and again went merrily romping through the french countryside doing "chevauchée" with armies of just a few thousand. This strategy of warfare didn't change until the widespread adoption of firearms. We have no reason to think that Rollo was doing anything different until the French king offered him a deal. That would precisely fit with the behavior of other viking armies. Particularly in this period in time, events like the forced removal of a person that is supposedly the "the strongest man in Western Europe" don't just happen spontaneously, This is exactly the time period when events like that were extremely common. You seem to be mistaking my statement of saying he was the most powerful man in western europe with saying that he was secure on his throne. I'm not. The fact that he was king of West Francia meant he could easily command more troops then some viking. The fact that he was king of West Francia also meant that he was sitting on the throne of damocles.
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Sept 15, 2017 13:53:43 GMT -6
That makes a lot more sense. I think more of my disagreement was with the concept of most powerful man in Western Europe. I'd argue that you need the later to be the former. However that is very much debatable and a matter of opinion (and tbh is probably a philosophical one about the nature of power and there are instances where people who were powerful were killed because their rule was not secure (Ceaser comes to mind, others as well).
To be perfectly honest, my first post was not very well thought out or typed. I definitely agree that Charles the Simple could command more troops than a Viking. The larger issue that he probably had with Rollo (aside from any nasty dynastic/vassal issues) is that Rollo's army was concentrated regardless of how large it was (20,000 is highly unlikely, as you say the numbers are often inflated, though I think a tad bit more accurate than Herotodus). In contrast, Charles would have had to call out his levies and those of his vassals, concentrate them, and then try to hit Rollo.
I still do think that we have to take account of the fact that Charles cut a deal with them, as there's no real good explanation for that aside from him not being able to expel them. I suppose it could be possible that Charles looked at the Vikings in England and just though "if I give them a little land, maybe they'll stop raiding" I' also not sure that this was just another viking raid. This invasion occurred only about 50 years after the Great Heathen Army invaded England with the express intent of conquest, so I think that it can't be ruled out. Now, there was a big difference between West Francia (which was, as you say, very large and well-armed even if there was some weakness with the Carolingians), so I think that your position there has merit.
Well I've said my peace about this subject. It was fun debating it with you!
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Sept 15, 2017 16:19:08 GMT -6
also there is a big difference between an axe wielding armoured shock trooper and a levvie
|
|