Well, the Normans had the opportunity, motive and means to create their own myth, didn't they? And boy did Poitiers et al milk it?
Now we- still as English speakers- have free speech, so let's get the facts straight...
1. The succession-
In 1064, why would King Edward, who had already offered his crown vaguely and expediently to kings Swein of Denmark & Magnus of Norway in the late 1040's to stay off invasion, (and who presumably hated Earl Godwin for his alledged part in the brutal murder of Edward's brother, Arthur in 1036) then still wish that Norman duke to succeed(acc. to the supposed but unlikely 1051 'promise' to William), when he had also just had another of Edward's relatives murdered in 1064(his nephew, walter, Count of Mantes)?
Bearing in mind of course that in early 1066 the dying king had given the crown to Harold(with witnesses including Robert FitzWimarc), in the most important manner known to him- the verbal crown bestowal.
2. Coast-huggers?
The Franco-Norman-Breton-Euro-mercenary army having landed on the 29th Sept and learning for certain(from Robert FitzWimarc- a |breton courtier who had witnessed Edward's bestowal of England to Harold) that King Harold was 250m to the north(Stamford Bridge beating the vikings), leaving the roads to Winchester & London open, they hugged the south coast inexplicably for three weeks!
3. Come on, we haven't got all day...
Even though they were rested, re-supplied and ready, with their elite cavalry and much-vaunted archers, they struggled all day to beat an exhausted, depleted and unprepared army, with the best infantry in Europe(housecarls), at the battle at Santlache(OE 'Sandy Lake') in October 1066... and very nearly lost!
4. Truth is the first casualty...
They lied about virtually everything in their desperate attempt to justify their violent usurpation(1051 throne promise- unlikely; 1064 "oath"- enforced with death threats against captive Harold abroad- invalid; Santlache- too closely fought & too long to be an easy victory), and their abysmal failure to align William I to King Edward by airbrushing Harold out of history, when the latter had been offered the crown by that same Edward, and elected by the WITAN!
5. Their coinage quality was woeful and rarely reminted, badly-struck and lacking much silver. Harold, in just 9mths, had produced a wealth of high-quality coinage, with many just laws.
6. They were so impressed by the highly-complex English systems of administration and of taxation- the most sophisticated and experienced in Europe then- that they kept it running for several decades afterwards, basing their govt upon it.
7. Fit for purpose...?
These supposedly great soldiers were severely troubled by several large-scale rebellions(Exeter; Chester; Ely etc- not just the countless Norman-French-Breton ones either!)
ie. Successful guerilla-leader Hereward's huge and organised long-term revolt with earls Waltheof, Edwin and Morcar, around Peterborough & the Ely fens for over a year, so much so that PuffingBilly himself felt bound to cover his shame by attending...and they still got trounced in many concerted & fierce ambushes until only some Ely monks led them in by treachery!
8. They were being murdered so often by the un'conquered' English men & women, that they were forced to introduce the Murdrum Fine...
9. A flag from the sycophantic Italian puppet...?
Having supposedly attained a papal banner from the pro-Norman pope(hardly wanting to upset his thuggish Norman 'masters' in Italy?) to reclaim this country for the Pope and reform the A/S church(even though PuffingBilly defied the popery later himself!), they then raped and milked the country dry out of avarice, then allowed those same English clerics in power until 1070!
10. What's in a word...?
Their third-rate and often hysterical copying in 'style' and lifting of the Greco-Roman classics (Dudo; Poitiers- and his slanted hagiographies) was transparent and over-slanted. Fact and balance were casualties first...cover-ups and omissions(Harold's true kingship) came later. For example;-
1. Acc. to Poitiers, the English army were-
"the fiercest of men...always by nature ready to take up the sword"
they had "easily defeated the King of the Norwegians"
they had "resisted bravely" at Hastings and the Norman/Bretons were "terrified by their ferocity"
But soon afterwards they were "never famed for their feats of arms"
2. In one sentence Earl Harold had "honour, wealth and power",
Then, ever after he was dishonest, "greedy" and a "usurper" (Usurping whom? Being lawfully elected King by the ruling powers- and the KING HIMSELF- doesn't make it illegal)... no longer "such a man as poems liken him to Hector or Turnus"?
Did Poitiers no longer feel the need to have to boost William's image to 'match up' to Harold's strength and martial prowess by stating insecurely "William, his equal and in no way inferior in standing"
But remember- "We do not revile you, Harold"...lol.
3. William had "50,000 men-at-arms" amassing in Normandy before September 1066!
So did over 37,000 desert the French/Breton/ Norman/ Sicilian/ Flemish army before landing in England then?
11. "The Normans were more outward looking"-
B*****ks(an old A/S word) to this myth, they looked abroad out of sheer greed because they wanted to preserve dual-lands in Normandy and England!
- The Vikings had looked further- Russia, Byzantium, Greenland, America!
- The English had been looking "abroad" ever since the first viking invasions in the 8thC!
- There were many English embassies to the pope, ie. in 1061 when Ealdred was given the Archbishopric. He crowned Harold as King, not Stigand, despite their friendship- Harold knew of the pope's dim view of that wily old cleric.
- Earl Harold had ventured across a dangerous Europe in 1057, meeting the pope himself, and successfully persuading the doomed Atheling, Edward (son of Edmund 'Ironside', d.1016), to return from exile in Hungary to his estranged England to become king.
Edward died soon after arriving. If it was murder and not illness, the fact that Harold had literally gone to such lengths to bring him safely home, only for him to die "suddenly", ruled out the earl. More like another contender had this done(William- again to a rival, as he had many times before), with bitter delusions about a 'promise' in 1051 when everyone knows he was too busy at that time defending Normandy, to be in England???
12. In contrast to the Normandy of the 10th century, England had a more efficient, experienced, centralized & better-funded system(through national taxation - the geld) of government than any other country in W Europe. It also had a richer and deeper-rooted culture than that of the Normans, whose drive was merely a catalyst for changes already in hand.
The changes taking place in this highly-evolved England, with a strong kingship especially, never had a chance to prove themselves- just as various other historical situations cut short also never had the opportunity to flourish...Perhaps the misconception that the Franco-Normans brought superior civilization etc to Saxon England is another example of Franco-Norman propaganda.
So what was so special, original and great about the Normans- a thuggish, ordinary band of grasping, usurping viking adventurers?
N.o.t m.u.c.h.
Now we- still as English speakers- have free speech, so let's get the facts straight...
1. The succession-
In 1064, why would King Edward, who had already offered his crown vaguely and expediently to kings Swein of Denmark & Magnus of Norway in the late 1040's to stay off invasion, (and who presumably hated Earl Godwin for his alledged part in the brutal murder of Edward's brother, Arthur in 1036) then still wish that Norman duke to succeed(acc. to the supposed but unlikely 1051 'promise' to William), when he had also just had another of Edward's relatives murdered in 1064(his nephew, walter, Count of Mantes)?
Bearing in mind of course that in early 1066 the dying king had given the crown to Harold(with witnesses including Robert FitzWimarc), in the most important manner known to him- the verbal crown bestowal.
2. Coast-huggers?
The Franco-Norman-Breton-Euro-mercenary army having landed on the 29th Sept and learning for certain(from Robert FitzWimarc- a |breton courtier who had witnessed Edward's bestowal of England to Harold) that King Harold was 250m to the north(Stamford Bridge beating the vikings), leaving the roads to Winchester & London open, they hugged the south coast inexplicably for three weeks!
3. Come on, we haven't got all day...
Even though they were rested, re-supplied and ready, with their elite cavalry and much-vaunted archers, they struggled all day to beat an exhausted, depleted and unprepared army, with the best infantry in Europe(housecarls), at the battle at Santlache(OE 'Sandy Lake') in October 1066... and very nearly lost!
4. Truth is the first casualty...
They lied about virtually everything in their desperate attempt to justify their violent usurpation(1051 throne promise- unlikely; 1064 "oath"- enforced with death threats against captive Harold abroad- invalid; Santlache- too closely fought & too long to be an easy victory), and their abysmal failure to align William I to King Edward by airbrushing Harold out of history, when the latter had been offered the crown by that same Edward, and elected by the WITAN!
5. Their coinage quality was woeful and rarely reminted, badly-struck and lacking much silver. Harold, in just 9mths, had produced a wealth of high-quality coinage, with many just laws.
6. They were so impressed by the highly-complex English systems of administration and of taxation- the most sophisticated and experienced in Europe then- that they kept it running for several decades afterwards, basing their govt upon it.
7. Fit for purpose...?
These supposedly great soldiers were severely troubled by several large-scale rebellions(Exeter; Chester; Ely etc- not just the countless Norman-French-Breton ones either!)
ie. Successful guerilla-leader Hereward's huge and organised long-term revolt with earls Waltheof, Edwin and Morcar, around Peterborough & the Ely fens for over a year, so much so that PuffingBilly himself felt bound to cover his shame by attending...and they still got trounced in many concerted & fierce ambushes until only some Ely monks led them in by treachery!
8. They were being murdered so often by the un'conquered' English men & women, that they were forced to introduce the Murdrum Fine...
9. A flag from the sycophantic Italian puppet...?
Having supposedly attained a papal banner from the pro-Norman pope(hardly wanting to upset his thuggish Norman 'masters' in Italy?) to reclaim this country for the Pope and reform the A/S church(even though PuffingBilly defied the popery later himself!), they then raped and milked the country dry out of avarice, then allowed those same English clerics in power until 1070!
10. What's in a word...?
Their third-rate and often hysterical copying in 'style' and lifting of the Greco-Roman classics (Dudo; Poitiers- and his slanted hagiographies) was transparent and over-slanted. Fact and balance were casualties first...cover-ups and omissions(Harold's true kingship) came later. For example;-
1. Acc. to Poitiers, the English army were-
"the fiercest of men...always by nature ready to take up the sword"
they had "easily defeated the King of the Norwegians"
they had "resisted bravely" at Hastings and the Norman/Bretons were "terrified by their ferocity"
But soon afterwards they were "never famed for their feats of arms"
2. In one sentence Earl Harold had "honour, wealth and power",
Then, ever after he was dishonest, "greedy" and a "usurper" (Usurping whom? Being lawfully elected King by the ruling powers- and the KING HIMSELF- doesn't make it illegal)... no longer "such a man as poems liken him to Hector or Turnus"?
Did Poitiers no longer feel the need to have to boost William's image to 'match up' to Harold's strength and martial prowess by stating insecurely "William, his equal and in no way inferior in standing"
But remember- "We do not revile you, Harold"...lol.
3. William had "50,000 men-at-arms" amassing in Normandy before September 1066!
So did over 37,000 desert the French/Breton/ Norman/ Sicilian/ Flemish army before landing in England then?
11. "The Normans were more outward looking"-
B*****ks(an old A/S word) to this myth, they looked abroad out of sheer greed because they wanted to preserve dual-lands in Normandy and England!
- The Vikings had looked further- Russia, Byzantium, Greenland, America!
- The English had been looking "abroad" ever since the first viking invasions in the 8thC!
- There were many English embassies to the pope, ie. in 1061 when Ealdred was given the Archbishopric. He crowned Harold as King, not Stigand, despite their friendship- Harold knew of the pope's dim view of that wily old cleric.
- Earl Harold had ventured across a dangerous Europe in 1057, meeting the pope himself, and successfully persuading the doomed Atheling, Edward (son of Edmund 'Ironside', d.1016), to return from exile in Hungary to his estranged England to become king.
Edward died soon after arriving. If it was murder and not illness, the fact that Harold had literally gone to such lengths to bring him safely home, only for him to die "suddenly", ruled out the earl. More like another contender had this done(William- again to a rival, as he had many times before), with bitter delusions about a 'promise' in 1051 when everyone knows he was too busy at that time defending Normandy, to be in England???
12. In contrast to the Normandy of the 10th century, England had a more efficient, experienced, centralized & better-funded system(through national taxation - the geld) of government than any other country in W Europe. It also had a richer and deeper-rooted culture than that of the Normans, whose drive was merely a catalyst for changes already in hand.
The changes taking place in this highly-evolved England, with a strong kingship especially, never had a chance to prove themselves- just as various other historical situations cut short also never had the opportunity to flourish...Perhaps the misconception that the Franco-Normans brought superior civilization etc to Saxon England is another example of Franco-Norman propaganda.
So what was so special, original and great about the Normans- a thuggish, ordinary band of grasping, usurping viking adventurers?
N.o.t m.u.c.h.
