Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Britain | |
Author: Ed Harris (London) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 20:10:24 01/05/05 Wed In reply to: Owain (UK) 's message, "Europe" on 16:58:55 01/05/05 Wed Henry II is the British name that springs to mind as a ruthless bastard who tried to conquer Europe. He ruled all of Britain, half of France, some Mediterranean islands and all sorts of other things. His dominions were bigger than Charlemagne's and he was the greatest power since the fall of Rome. We don't think about that much because it was all lost by his son John, and so the first British Empire lasted only a generation. (Apologies to Scots on this forum, but the next even reasonably powerful monarch in our islands was Edward I 100 years later...) Besides, as Ron would probably point out, he was half-French anyway, being an Angevin. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Bigger domain than Charlamagnes? That surprises me | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:57:22 01/05/05 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: It shouldn't... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:49:18 01/05/05 Wed Charlemagne won a lot of battles but didn't really rule the territories of his vanquished foes, so to speak. Bloody amateur... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: lol, couldnt build an empire like a Brit | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:55:53 01/06/05 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Henry II and inaccurate history | |
|
Author: Andrew [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:56:01 01/06/05 Thu "Henry II is the British name that springs to mind as a ruthless bastard who tried to conquer Europe. He ruled all of Britain" No he didn't. He never ruled Scotland and barely controlled Ireland. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Really? | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:02:25 01/06/05 Thu The King of Scotland was a dependent of Henry's, just as the Indian maharajas ruled their kingdoms on sufferance. As I said, though, it didn't last. As for Ireland, in the Middle Ages the monarch barely controlled his own country let alone his conquered territories - communications were slow, bureaucracy was even more inefficient than our own, and conquest was more about prestige than anything else. This is to say, that so long as a king had a piece of parchment saying, "We, the people of Pointlessland, do fulsomely submit to You our only sovereign", then that country could get on with it while the king boasted about his territories in the courts of Europe. And, be this as it may, I belive that the point was about warmongering tyrants who wanted to conquer Europe, and Henry II was the closest I could think of. If even he was not much of a conqueror, then we're better off not worse off. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Vassals etc | |
|
Author: Andrew [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:17:53 01/06/05 Thu Henry II didn't rule Scotland... at least not all of it. He wouldn't have ruled the Shetlands and Orkneys either, which were ruled by Norway until the 1400s... his control of the west of Ireland was minimal (even Elizabeth I had trouble with it, centuries later). The Hebrides would have been completely outside his control too... Vassalage is a complicated thing... sometimes it implies complete servitude, other times just tokenism. An example of the two extremes might be the monarchs of Muscovy. At the beginning they were completely servile to the Mongols, but at the end they were still paying homage, but little else. It was only a minor step for them not to go in the end, because they had so much power. The whole matter of vassalage applied within Scotland too. Because many of the Highland chiefs would often swear fealty etc to the King of Scots and go off and do their own thing. So it's even arguable how much central control the Scottish kings themselves had. I agree with what you say. People forget, for instance, that William the Conqueror never controlled the whole of England, I think in fact Cumbria doesn't appear in the Domesday book... yet he is termed King of England! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Could someone please enlighten me on what the Domesday Book was? | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:41:31 01/06/05 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Er... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:46:42 01/06/05 Thu ... about the most famous book in British history, which can be seen a few hundred yards from my flat, in the British library. It was William of Normandy's complete national census. He decided that it would be a lot easier to tax his new and very wealthy dominion if he knew what was in it, so every town, village, cottage, church, farm, person and animal was recorded in a great tome, down to the last chicken and egg in the most miseably backwards Fenlands hamlets. Domesday allowed William to introduce the rigid structures of French feudalism to Anglo-Saxon England. As Andrew says, however, there were quite a number of places which he hadn't subdued yet, which don't appear in the book. The last place to fall was Chester, which he couldn't subdue until long after the census was complete. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Sorry, I was never taught about it in school in Canada | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:51:20 01/06/05 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: No problem! | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:57:45 01/06/05 Thu If you didn't study the Norman Conquest at school - and there is no reason why you necessarily should - then naturally you won't have heard of it. I imagine that not many British schoolchildren know much about the Durham Report. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: and what baout the british kids... | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:34:27 01/06/05 Thu that dont know about the domesday book? I would sya that is most of them sadly. I was never taught about it at school, I learnt about it from my Dad. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: British history in Canada | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:07:04 01/06/05 Thu British history is taught in school in Canada (or I should say English history for the earlier days). I am certainly aware of the Norman Conquest of 1066. My ancestors were Normans who fought alongside William. However, I was not aware of the Domesday Book. I think it's safe to say that we learned British history in general, but not in too much detail. I think that British history is relevant to Canadians because we are part of it. We had a year of British history and then a couple of years of Canadian history. American history was also covered in a year. It's too bad that British students don't get a more detailed history of the dominions. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: What? | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:36:29 01/06/05 Thu What do you mean a "more" detailed history of the dominions? We dotn get anything atall about them! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Well... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:49:55 01/06/05 Thu We did in my school, but we're old fashioned... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: differnet gneration | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:28:02 01/07/05 Fri Your a differnet generation to me thats why. History teaching has gone down hill. Thats why a very clever fellow worte a book called the "Pocket Book of Patriotism", its well worth getting for the political message if nothing else, that we need to take pride in our history not hide it away. The line on the first page sumes up perfectly: "This story the good man shall teach his son" The story being the history of the British people. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Sauce! | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:56:51 01/07/05 Fri I only took my A-Levels in June 2000. Not exactly a huge age gap... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: lol | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:56:27 01/08/05 Sat lol sorry I thought you were older. Well you were very fortunate then. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Good thing I put the Empire history page on the FCS Canada site - we can refer people to it | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:25:41 01/06/05 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I learned my history from "1066 and all that" | |
|
Author: Ian (the colonies) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:37:42 01/07/05 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |