History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VII

Quackers said:

I'm guessing it is the Normans conquering England and then having to deal with rebellious French constituents and failing.

Click to expand...

Speaking of the Normans and since we're going back to 1000, I just want suggest a continuity between pre and post invasion. Emma of Normandy (daughter of Richard I) married first Aethelred the Unread and then Cnut the Great, basically tying Normandy to England no matter who ruled it. Normans began settling in England around this time. Hell, 1066 could be viewed as two groups of Vikings fighting with some Saxons for control over the island.

Then, two years later, some more Vikings invaded as well.

Traitorfish said:

There's some Bretons in there, too. Two sets of them. And various Germans wading in from time to time. And the Scots. S'a right mess.

Click to expand...

Also; Spanish fleets routinely hitting up the English fleets.

taillesskangaru said:

India would still be Hindu today.

Oh wait.

Click to expand...

While I'm sure India would still be Hindu, the question of what exactly would happen to Buddhism in India, and even in the world in general, is still a valid question.

I'd also be really curious on what direction his Empire might have taken, and how different the legacy would have been. For one, it might not have declined so rapidly after his death.

Hell, 1066 could be viewed as two groups of Vikings fighting with some Saxons for control over the island.

Click to expand...

How Viking (both in terms of culture, ethnicity and ancestry) were actually the Normans by 1066?

Aren't Vikings by definition Pagan (Pagan deities were integral part of Viking culture)? The Normans were Christian.

Modern population of Normandy also does not seem to be genetically Scandinavian:

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/swedes.html

Just 1% of Normandy population has R1a haplogroup whereas in Germanic Scandinavia this haplogroup is much more frequent (15% - 26% depending in which country). The same is the case with haplogroup I1 which is also much more frequent in Scandinavian countries than in Normandy.

It is also well known that the Normans were French-speaking when they came in 1066, so perhaps they were heavily mixed with local French population. Or did they preserve the "purity" of their Scandinavian ancestry and just adopted the language, without mixing with the local population?

Here is a good website describing the composition of William the Conqueror's army (including a list of eminent men who led their own troops):

http://www.battle1066.com/wforce1.shtml

We can see that apart from forces of his own Duchy of Normandy, William also had allied forces provided by the Bretons and by Flanders.

==============================================

Fighting methods of the army of William the Conqueror were also totally different than those of the Vikings.

The Vikings did not rely on heavy cavalry. The Vikings did not use cavalry at all. While the Normans are famous for using shock cavalry, and for holding spear underarm (which eventually gave rise to development of new weapons - lance, and long lance - improved versions of spear for cavalry).

The Vikings also did not rely on archer support - at least not to the extent that William's army did at Hastings.

The Housecarls employed by Harold resembled the Vikings much more (there could actually be foreign mercenaries among them).

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about what the Vikings (by definition) were:

So Pytheas, Columbus, Cortez and Zheng He were all Vikings because they went on expeditions overseas?

German forces which invaded Norway in 1940 were also Vikings (quite ironic) by this definition.

The point is that nobody called themselves 'viking' as an ethnic identifier; they called what they were doing 'viking', and other people called those who did it 'vikings'. As ever, ethnic categories are subjective.

Still I don't see any similarities between William's conquest of England and previous viking raids and voyages.

Aside of both being overseas enterprises?

Yeah aside from both being oversea enterprises, I can't see other similarities.

Also the patterns of settlement were different:

Louis XXIV said:

Normans began settling in England around this time.

Click to expand...

The patterns of settlement of the Vikings in Britain were mostly family-based and Viking settlements consisted of common people.

In case of Normans it was different - they settled as feudal elite, the land-owning class, and - according to David C. Douglas - they took possession of 93% of all land (Anglo-Saxon ownership was reduced to just 7% while in the remaining 93% they lived as peasant serfs of Norman knights). Since William's reign until the Hundred Years' War all classes of the society in England - except for the lowest class, peasants - spoke French (according to Douglas).

When it comes to the Norman-French impact on English language - here is my experience:

I can understand "the Canterbury Tales" (written in Middle English which developed in Norman England) reasonably well. On the other hand, I understand almost nothing from "the Exeter Book" (written in Old English from Anglo-Saxon period). In my opinion it was an enormous transformation.

And Early Modern English is - to me - almost the same as modern English. But Middle English is much more similar to modern, than is Old English.

This shows that post-Norman conquest French influence had enormous impact on English language. J. R. R. Tolkien also noted this.

I think there's no question the Norman Conquest accelerated the change. I was just pointing out that the change was happening anyway as Norman influence began in England anyway. Hell, if not for that influence, William wouldn't have had his claim (whether it was a legitimate claim is a separate issue, but he could plausibly claim it, at least). Although I like how David C. Douglas, in his biography of William, wrote with a straight face "there can be no doubt that his claim was genuine."

I was being deliberately loose with the phrase "Viking" since it's an anachronistic phrase anyway. I felt if I said "Scandinavian" I would be bogged down with definitions based on geography that were unhelpful. I wanted to suggest a shared culture (at least as a subject worth exploring). Since the question was to essentially sum up a giant range of English history, I thought it more interesting to bring up topics to consider rather than suggest there's a "definite truth."

Theodorick said:

While I'm sure India would still be Hindu, the question of what exactly would happen to Buddhism in India, and even in the world in general, is still a valid question.

Click to expand...

It's a fair point. Asoka was responsible for a lot of the missionary efforts to take Buddhism outside of its Magadhan heartland. Or so we're told. No doubt having the backing of an emperor would aid the spread of a religion. But after Asoka few other Indian rulers showed the same enthusiasm for Buddhism. And Buddhism turned out to flourish more lastingly outside of India, and it's really debatable how much part Asoka's efforts might have in that.

It's actually a really hard question to answer, which is really not helped by the black hole that is subcontinental history, mixed with the complexity of religious traditions (good luck trying to define what Hinduism is).

I'd also be really curious on what direction his Empire might have taken, and how different the legacy would have been. For one, it might not have declined so rapidly after his death.

Click to expand...

Not sure if it would not have declined as rapidly. The usual argument is that Buddhism weakened the empire militarily, but post-conversion Asoka was hardly a hippie, and if so you'd expect breakaways to start as soon as the emperor showed signs of military aversion, not after his died. The breakup of the Mauryan Empire seemed to me at least like a classic case of a realm expanded well past the point of overextension, kept together only by the personal loyalty of commanders to the present emperor. Asoka would have been aware of this given his promotion of Buddhism, hoping it would serve as a unifying creed. It didn't work, of course, but then preserving an overextended empire is hard.

ParkCungHee said:

Can anyone think of anyone who held the rank of both Admiral and General at the same time, or different times in their lives, other than Idi Amin?

Click to expand...

certainly not the thing you need but there is this Russian warship named as General Admiral Nakhimov . At least ı think so ; will actually check an old book of mine .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Nakhimov

taillesskangaru said:

It's a fair point. Asoka was responsible for a lot of the missionary efforts to take Buddhism outside of its Magadhan heartland. Or so we're told. No doubt having the backing of an emperor would aid the spread of a religion. But after Asoka few other Indian rulers showed the same enthusiasm for Buddhism. And Buddhism turned out to flourish more lastingly outside of India, and it's really debatable how much part Asoka's efforts might have in that.

It's actually a really hard question to answer, which is really not helped by the black hole that is subcontinental history, mixed with the complexity of religious traditions (good luck trying to define what Hinduism is).



Not sure if it would not have declined as rapidly. The usual argument is that Buddhism weakened the empire militarily, but post-conversion Asoka was hardly a hippie, and if so you'd expect breakaways to start as soon as the emperor showed signs of military aversion, not after his died. The breakup of the Mauryan Empire seemed to me at least like a classic case of a realm expanded well past the point of overextension, kept together only by the personal loyalty of commanders to the present emperor. Asoka would have been aware of this given his promotion of Buddhism, hoping it would serve as a unifying creed. It didn't work, of course, but then preserving an overextended empire is hard.

Click to expand...

Thank you very much for a more detailed answer. Less asked questions about historical periods like this greatly interest me, due to the difficulty and sometimes lack of credible sources or sources at all detailing this period. It adds a layer of mystery to it, and you can ask many questions I find. Though I can sometimes ask something far more related to an alternate history than something more coherent.

How many armies have mainly used axes? I don't know of many besides the Vikings...

Merkava120 said:

How many armies have mainly used axes? I don't know of many besides the Vikings...

Click to expand...

Even among Vikings axes weren't particularly common. Most warriors in that time period and region would have a wooden shield, spear/javelins, and a seax (a type of long knife edged on a single side). Axes were quite expensive and tended to be confined to the nobility and their retainers.

I disagree.

Axe was not an expensive weapon - at least when it comes to most common types of axes, which could be used as both weapons and tools (hatchets).

How many armies have mainly used axes? I don't know of many besides the Vikings...

Click to expand...

Axe was popular (perhaps 2nd after spear/javelin) in all Early Medieval armies. It was much cheaper than a sword.

Of course there were dozens of types of axes - some of them could be expensive, but others were widespread due to being also used as tools.

a seax (a type of long knife edged on a single side)

Click to expand...

But why should a seax be less expensive than an average axe? Do you have some data on prices?

Domen said:

I disagree.

Axe was not an expensive weapon - at least when it comes to most common types of axes, which could be used as both weapons and tools (hatchets).

Click to expand...

Any sort of 'dane axe' was going to be very expensive and only found among the wealthy. I assumed merkava was referring to those type of axes rather than the smaller sort of hatchets that could be found among the motley collection of weapons poorer soldiers fought with. With what limited pictorial evidence we have, most poor soldiers, if depicted, are depicted with a seax and spear.
Would poor soldiers have used whatever they could get their hands on? Yes. If the soldier happened to own a small hatchet instead of a seax they would use that. However, axes for "use around the house" are not at all properly balanced for combat. Considering that most battles at this time consisted of dense blocks of infantry colliding with each other; evidence from pictures, writings, and modern reconstructions indicate soldiers preferred to use smaller, lighter stabbing weapons.
(See the records of knights using "combat knives" in combat to try and cut enemy knights in the areas not covered by armor.

But why should a seax be less expensive than an average axe? Do you have some data on prices?

Click to expand...

No idea, I'm going with what I remember for Guy Halsalls Warfare in the Barbarian West: 470 to 900 where he talks about the 'best guesses' for how the poor fought and were equipped.

Mesopotamian history is really my stronger part, and in my society I consider myself an expert to the subject.

But last week, while reading about Mari, I was shocked to find out that Jamhad ever existed.
I started reading about it on Wikipedia, and it seems like an important regional power of the time, though I can't recall ever hearing that name.

Trying to find an explanation for that, I want to ask here - Does anyone know if many of information about Jamhad comes from new discoveries?
I see that a year ago, the Wikipedia article about Jamhad was much thinner. Is there any practical reason for that?

It also made me wonder:
About 90% of the text in that article was written by a single user, during the last year.
Is it possible that it is another incident of a fake historical article on Wikipedia? Like Bicholim conflict?