Britannia-Romans or Normans

[Gaivs Antonivs Satvrninvs]

Avete.

I recently saw a very interesting program about the
Roman conquest of Britain.Prominantly featured was
one Kate Gilliver giving the play-by-play.

This made me wonder.What are similarities and
differences of these two occupying forces?
Both had difficulties with locals and perhaps having
become used to Roman influences made the people
even more resistant.Then again,a few hundred years
can make a world of difference.
Any thoughts?

Thanks

[Kate Gilliver]

Hey, Andy, where did you see that? I haven't seen it!!!

[Gaivs Antonivs Satvrninvs]

Hi,Kate.

I'm glad to discover that it was you.I had a feeling.

I saw it a couple of days ago on the History Channel
International. They were doing a preview of the new
Military History Channel. I enjoyed the program very much.
I don't know when they will show it in your area but most of
their programming can be ordered from their web site.

As soon as your name appeared I was very excited.
It is an honor for me to be a member here in such
august company.
I hope you get to see it.

Happy Holidays,
Andy

[Robert Vermaat]

What are similarities and differences of these two occupying forces? Both had difficulties with locals and perhaps having become used to Roman influences made the people even more resistant.Then again,a few hundred years can make a world of difference.
Any thoughts?

Differences:
The Romans were a pretty centralized imperialistic state with a standing army. The Normans were a hired army of a powerful warlord.
The Normans cut up the land and devided it between the friends of William, with him in charge of course. Claudius kept the spoils but the conquest was for the empire.
The Iron Age Britons were a jigsaw puzzle of tribes, some allied and some enemies. The English were pretty unified, which also made it easier to beat them. Their societies were very dissimilar.

Similarities:
Both Romans as well as Normans needed decades before they totally pacified the land.
Wales was never really controlled by either.

[Arthes]

Greetings,
the main difference between the Romans and Normans was that William of Normandy believed England was his by right, he was related to Edward I, who he claimed had offered him the kingdom after his death and his wife Matilda was descended from Alfred the Great.
He supposedly also claimed descent from King Arthur through his mother Herleve of Falaise.
Edward I had lived in Normandy from the age of 9 and was a Norman in outlook when he took the throne of England and had many Normans in authority and amongst his favourites. He was eventually forced to send these back to Normandy, as it was causing unrest amongst the English.
Harold Godwinson or Harold II was tricked into supporting William's claim to the throne of England by swearing an oath over hidden relics of saints. (He probably did swear afterwards :roll: )
Harold's sister Edith had been the wife of Edward I, but there had been no children.
Both Harold II and Edith were descended from Harold I Bluetooth of Denmark and Ethelred I of Wessex.
The other difference was that amongst the soldiers of William were Breton warriors, many of whom were descendants of the British driven out by the Anglo Saxon invaders - who maybe hoped to regain their ancestral lands.
All those who fought on the side of Harold II at Senlac (Hastings) lost their goods, chattels and lands, which were given to William's Norman or Breton knights. Saxon women of high birth who had lost their husbands or fathers were often married off to the new land lords to ensure co operation of the surviving tenants.

from: Genuki - A History of York
from Baine's Gazetteer (1823)
No sooner was William the Conqueror, established on the English throne, than he showed that his policy was to root out the ancient nobility, and to degrade the native inhabitants of the humbler classes, to the situation of miserable slaves. In the North, where the spirit of liberty and independence has always been cherished, the tyrant was determined to rivet his chains. For this purpose, Robert, the Norman, was sent down to Durham, with a guard of 700 men, but the inhabitants rose upon the governor, and exterminated both him and his guard. William, once more drew his conquering sword, which he was not soon inclined to sheathe. He marched into York, at the head of a powerful army, and the city with its two castles, were speedily garrisoned with Norman soldiers. The Saxon nobles in this city had manifested a disposition to shake off the Norman yoke, and on the arrival of William, they fled into Scotland, where they were joined by Malcolm, the Scottish King.
The Danes soon after united in the confederacy, and arrived in the Humber with a powerful army, under the command of Osbern, brother to the Danish King. Their first operation was against York, which they carried on the 19th of September, 1069, sword in hand, in the midst of flames, inkindled by the Normans, to prevent the suburbs from being made useful to the besiegers. In this fire, the invaluable library of the cathedral, was, to the irreparable injury of learning, totally destroyed. William, no sooner heard that the garrison of York had been taken by his enemies, and that three thousand of his troops had been put to the sword, than he hastened, at the head of a powerful army, into the North; and on his march thither was often heard to swear, "by God's splendour," which was his favourite oath, that he "would not leave a soul of them alive." On his arrival in Yorkshire, he had the address to corrupt Osbern, the Danish general, and to induce him to quit the country with his army, leaving his allies to the vengeance of the ruthless tyrant. For six months the seige of York was prosecuted with all the means which the Conqueror could command. During this time, Waltheof the governor, and his troops displayed prodigies of valour and constancy; but at length famine began to rage in the city with so much violence, that the garrison was obliged to capitulate. At first the Conqueror affected to display some degree of forbearance, but it was only the better to secure his victims; a pretence was soon found to dispatch the gallant Waltheof, by the hand of the executioner; and it is said, that he was the first nobleman ever beheaded in England. Upon the ancient kingdom of Northumbria, the Norman looked as the nest of rebellion. Under this impression, and in order to gratify his own blood-thirsty nature, he razed the city of York to the ground, and with it fell all the principal nobility and gentry in the North, and a large portion of the inhabitants. The garrison, which consisted of English and Scotch troops, notwithstanding the articles of capitulation, all perished, "and this noble city" says William, of Malmsbury, himself a Norman, "was wasted by famine, fire, and sword to the very roots." Nor did the tyrant stop here: he laid the whole country waste, from the Humber to the Tweed, and rendered it so complete a scene of desolation, that for nine years neither the plough nor the spade was put into the ground: and such was the wretched state of the inhabitants, who escaped the sword, that they were forced to eat dogs and cats, horses, and even human flesh, to preserve their miserable existence. This account is confirmed by Roger Hoveden, and Simeon of Durham, as well as by the concurrent testimony of all the historians of those times, and from that day to this, York has never regained its ancient splendour. Before the Norman conquest, the city of London was inferior to York, (Ref: J. Hardynge.) and the author of the Polychronicon writes, that before it was burnt by William, York seemed as fair as the city of Rome, and was justly enough, by William Harrison, stiled, Altera Roma. According to Leland, the suburbs, at this time extended to the towns a mile round the city.
Conscious of the detestation in which he was held, William entertained a perpetual jealousy of the English people. In the wantonness of power he obliged them every night to extinguish their fires and candles, at the ring of a bell, called "The Curfew :" he also caused a survey to be made of all the lands in the kingdom, which were unregistered in the Domesday book, many of the estates of the nobles in Yorkshire, as in other parts of the kingdom, he wrested from their rightful owners and bestowed upon his rapacious followers.
regards
Arthes

[Marius_Ursus]

Greetings,
the main difference between the Romans and Normans was that William of Normandy believed England was his by right,

Given the Roman attitude of, "We're much more advanced than you, so why wouldn't you want to be part of our empire? Now submit!" the Romans probably thought Britannia was theirs by right as well. :wink:

[Robert Vermaat]

The Normans used the Church to their advantage (read: subjugating the Saxons), whereas the Romans did not. The Roman empire was more relaxed in that aspect I think, the Roman pantheon was never forced on the natives. Although many gods were assimilated and similarities emphasized, I think the Romans considred reliogion a private thing as long as it did not interfere with the state in any way.

[Felix]

One other signifcant dfference between the Romans and the Normans was the size of the base. The Romans were invading an area which, relative to their total holdings, was of minor importance. If there was trouble, the empire could mobilize overwhelming forces to crush any opposition. The Normans invaded an area of roughly comparable size and importance to the whole of Normandy, and it is likely a number of Normans came, expecting to settle of newly won lands. Trouble in England would disturb the home base in Normandy, and vice versa. From the Roman point of view, being stationed in Briton was not a particularly good thing, and I suspect most of the Roman ruling elite did not spend their whole lives in Briton, and consequently made fewer concessions to the local people.

Felix Wang

[Gaivs Antonivs Satvrninvs]

Thanks to all who took time to
respond to this query.
Great info and opinions,all.

Extra thanks is due Arthes for the
early account.I knew that someone
from York would have a personal insight
and perspective on this.-"brilliant"!

I learned recently of York's past
with Vikings,too.Very interesting.
So many places to visit.

[Crispvs]

Arthes,

Well quoted! I just have one small quibble about your preamble.

You refer several times to 'Edward I'. The king you speak of is normally known as 'Edward the Confessor'. Edward the Confessor was not actually the first King Edward of England. That honour goes to King Edward the Elder a century before. The king normally called 'Edward I' was in fact England's third King Edward and is has otherwise been known as 'Edward Longshanks' (on account of his height) and 'The Hammer of the Scots' (on account of his successful Scottish campaigns). He was the father of the fourth English king to bear the name 'Edward': the somewhat unorthodox Edward II (well known for shuffling off this mortal coil in a most unpleasant of ways). Next up we have his son Edward III (best remembered for his victories at Crecy and Poitiers). A century later Edward, Duke of York (formerly the Earl of March) captured and deposed Henry VI at the Battle of St Albans and had himself crowned Edward IV. His son Edward V didn't have much time to get used to being a king before he was carried off in the night and ended up being buried under the stairs (by persons unknown, although I am sure Henry Tudor [shortly to become Henry VII] didn't shed too many tears. The next Edward (Edward VI) was Henry VII's grandson but just as he was shaping up into a competent and decisive young man the icy finger of death carried him away too. We have to wait until 1901 to get the the next King Edward (VII) but seeing that he had been Prince of Wales for rather a long time, it was only another 28 years before his grandson the somewhat fleeting Edward VIII (later known as the Duke of Windsor). All this means, of course, that we have had ten Kings Edward but for some odd reason only the last eight get numbers. Despite years of studying history at university I never quite worked that one out satisfactorily.

Crispvs (in a joyously OT mood)