Jump to content

Faction Proposal: Normans/Normant/Norðmaðr


Recommended Posts

loisirs639852illustrati.jpg



tumblr_matg83Zo6d1rtn3ufo1_400.jpg




NORMANS




Right because I didn't see that there was a relaunch and centuries were cut back, this classifies this mod being very early (dark age) Medieval ages.



According to wiki



"The Normans played a major political, military, and cultural role in medieval Europe and even the Near East. They were famed for their martial spirit and eventually for their Christian piety. They quickly adopted the Romance language of the land they settled, their dialect becoming known as Norman, Normand or Norman French, an important literary language. The Duchy of Normandy, which they formed by treaty with the French crown, was one of the great fiefs of medieval France. The Normans are famed both for their culture, such as their unique Romanesque architecture, and their musical traditions, as well as for their military accomplishments and innovations. Norman adventurers established a kingdom in Sicily and southern Italy by conquest, and a Norman expedition on behalf of their duke, William the Conqueror, led to the Norman conquest of England. Norman influence spread from these new centres to the crusader states in the Near East when Bohemond I established the Principality of Antioch in the First Crusade, to Scotland, England and Wales in Great Britain and to Ireland."




The timeline 1,000 covers is 476 AD / 962 AD the Dutchy of Normandy cuts this thinly because it started 911 A.D. which still makes this faction qualify.




The Normans also had knights and played a crucial role in their conquest of England in 1066 which will be considered the second part of 1,000 A.D.



Examples:



BofH_7692.jpg



norman-1511-a.jpg



normans.jpg



NormanKnight_Best.jpg



___________________________________________________________________




Norman Castles:




123_2694092_blog.jpg



filename-dsc01153-jpg.jpg


Edited by Romulous
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd think that the Normans have not their place in 1000 A.D.

For the last two centuries in the millenium, the future duchy witnessed Viking raids and settlement and then a nordic immigration.

But Normandy, as a political and cultural entity revealed itself during the 11st century, when the duchy was "reunited". By this time, in less than 10 generations, it had nothing more in common with a Viking raiding and wintering base. Many Norsemen had came to settle in some parts of now Normandy (Danes, Norwegians and Danelaws), mostly the coastal area and the Cotentin foreland, and made a transition between the nordic Antiquity and the western High Middle Age. Other language, other religion, exogamy with frankish-gallic-romane people : a brand new and original culture.

Edited by Rodmar
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd think that the Normans have not their place in 1000 A.D.

For the last two centuries in the millenium, the future duchy witnessed Viking raids and settlement and then a nordic immigration.

But Normandy, as a political and cultural entity revealed itself during the 11st century, when the duchy was "reunited". By this time, in less than 10 generations, it had nothing more in common with a Viking raiding and wintering base. Many Norsemen had came to settle in some parts of now Normandy (Danes, Norwegians and Danelaws), mostly the coastal area and the Cotentin foreland, and made a transition between the nordic Antiquity and the western High Middle Age. Other language, other religion, exogamy with frankish-gallic-romane people : a brand new and original culture.

the name is 1000 A.D not as starting age. its becuase takes 500 A.D to 1500 A.D

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

He is just mentioning the name not the year, and indeed Normans had a lot to do with Vikings. Therefore I am not sure if we should include the Normans as a standalone faction. We could however include Normans as a sub faction from the Vikings, although Normandy only played a role since it conquered England in 1066 AD.

Link to post
Share on other sites

History states they a perfectly legitimate faction in you time frame.

Having just one faction that makes for others is skimming variety. My opinion, I like lots of factions because it diversifies the game with depth.

Buts its your choice

Link to post
Share on other sites

History states they a perfectly legitimate faction in you time frame.

Having just one faction that makes for others is skimming variety. My opinion, I like lots of factions because it diversifies the game with depth.

Buts its your choice

It is certainly not my choice only. (I'm not the team leader, I'm just taking care of business till NoMolester is online back again.) I was just wondering what would be better.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see. In case the mod goes until 1500 A.D., sure the Normands are in the time frame, but for how many centuries?

From the 11th century to the end of the latin kingdoms in Near Orient? How to differentiate them from other "Franks"?

I think that in the 9th and the first half of the 10th century, there were Vikings settled or based in some places of western "France". But at the time of Guillaume the @#$%, those Nordmen had became Normands in quite large areas of former Armorica and had nothing to do with the Norwegians the Anglo-saxons were fighting at the same time. Except for the last settlers, they were a christian, feodal, upper and middle class speaking a romane language, focused toward the anglo-saxon crown, not the Danelaws nor the Scandinavian kingdoms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see. In case the mod goes until 1500 A.D., sure the Normands are in the time frame, but for how many centuries?

From the 11th century to the end of the latin kingdoms in Near Orient? How to differentiate them from other "Franks"?

I think that in the 9th and the first half of the 10th century, there were Vikings settled or based in some places of western "France". But at the time of Guillaume the @#$%, those Nordmen had became Normands in quite large areas of former Armorica and had nothing to do with the Norwegians the Anglo-saxons were fighting at the same time. Except for the last settlers, they were a christian, feodal, upper and middle class speaking a romane language, focused toward the anglo-saxon crown, not the Danelaws nor the Scandinavian kingdoms.

Yeah, a small Nordic settlement seemed to conflate Normans with the Nord peoples. However, the Normans/Nortman are comprised of many sub groups, these include Celts and most the Visi Goths. It doesn't seem to occur to historians nor archaeologists that can't simply have a minor settlement of a "few" Norse people and suddenly out of fresh air there in a drop of a hat in two centuries you have a formidable force ready to invade England in 1066... It becomes an ironic novelty to assert purity to a people of being this or that, without taking into consideration the math and population. The Vikings did colonize in a great disperse of voyages, but remember these weren't high by any standard. And to simply conclude that the Normans were purely of this stock, seems a little far fetched to say the least.

During the invasions of the Barbarians, many ignore the that the original population of said land (I.e. Gaul) were still occupying those lands. They simply didn't vanish in a vapour of mist. It was still vastly populated by Gauls, the only difference being, since 50 B.C., till the turn of A.D. The centuries that followed in this tine period, the population of Gauls compared to what they were used to was significantly less and thinned out due to slavery, army recruitment, and general displacement of human traffic all over the vast outskirts of empire. But because you've had hundreds of years of oppression, you now have a Gallic people stripped the bare basic elements of culture, (e.g. Religion, traditions, trade, aristocracy) which as a result cripples the belief and identity in the people and became reduced to scatterlings of somewhat reminiscent to the lost tribes of Israel, difference being is that these people have had their slate clean in metaphorical terms, which gives birth to the "Hebrew Complex" of wanting to create a history where there were none. So you have this Gaul with a culture less populous which essentially becomes a stock to be infused with a conquering force, and this is exactly what we see with the Gothic and Viking invasions, is the blending of peoples which provides numbers to an emerging influence which brings and installs a culture and provides system of rule.

So the fundamentals of understanding origin is not by labeling a group/faction according to origin, but by understanding the natural blend of influence, rather than ethnicity.

Edited by Romulous
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Romulous: First paragraph: Fine, you've just said what I was basically saying in my last posts: no Vikings in Normandy in the 11th century besides the last immigrants in some immigration spots. Even the Nordic language was left aside in very few generations because of the diverse origin of the Norsemen (not always easily inter-understandable), and because those folk decided to make their life here amongst the other inhabitants. As a result, except in the nautical domain, where almost all the lexicon is from Norse origin, barely 150 words in anglo-normand come from the North (on the same level with words of Gaulish origin). On the other hand, the impact was much larger in the onomastics (in Britany as well). So no Groenland in Normandy; that was to answer to those who were seemingly seeing the Normand as a Viking sub-faction.

Also, I wrote "there were Vikings settled..." and not "they [the Normands] were Vikings settled...".

Second paragraph: Roman Gaul was one of the granary of the Empire and I wouldn't call this a depopulated area. Maybe Caesar killed a few tenth of thousands warriors and tribesmen, and some vanquished tribes "disappeared" politically (with their main city razed), but at worst, they only had one or two generation of warriors vanished. Even if not able to do otherwise (no more army), the elite and the townsfolk willingly adopted the Roman model, trading independence for three centuries of peace and commercial opportunities at the only cost of paying taxes, and following the Imperial cult. The rest was already on the trails, see the romanized southern Gaul before their eyes, and the Greek influence in southern and central Gaul even before that.

You call it a "de-culturation", but it could merely be a "turn of society": they wouldn't be culture-less, indeed they had a new culture made out from old components: Gallo-Roman. Culture-wise, I'm sure that they were still more Celt than those Celtic people nowadays! Especially in the countryside.

Back to the Normands : they were not the invader who replace a vanished population, you are right, but it was even much more complex and interactive as they didn't impose more than what a ruling class wish to impose: some laws and customs that are acknowledged and make it easy to rule. You could say that the settlers (Nordic farmers and craftsmen, plus the raiders) were shallowed by the local population too. For instance, the "danish marriage" (the second bed danish tradition)... Guillaume the _Bast_ard_ (the Conqueror) was seemingly the last of his kin to be a heir from a second bed in Normandy (and of course, the Normans knew that old tradition, only the Church and the rivals _the French Kingdom_ would despise this). After him, only heirs from the first (or only) bed are found.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, I'll say in my opinion I think England and Scotland and to some extent northern Ireland have contained or preserved the Celtic heritage far more than any country in this era. The British pagan ceremonies, and the legend of king Arthur, which is Christian yes, but Merlin and the "mystical" side features the Celtic essence which makes it a mixture.

Now back to the topic, one of the things we both agree on here, is vast numbers of Celtic population still left. But let me elaborate. By the time the Roman occupation where backtracking - I personally don't believe Rome fell, I believe it was carefully planned to shape shift from a dominant political war machine into a war machine of faith, a Christian disguise which would later become to be known as Byzantium, and Roman Catholicism, in order to adapt to cultural invasions with A: the probable cause to adapt, or B: that there really was a significant internal degeneration based on the scandalous nature in which the Roman elite evolved, drunk from the omnipotence indulging in luxurious baths of decadence, one can only imagine the vast sums of millions of sestercies flowing like a river of milk and honey down that dark infinite drain of the bowels of corruption would of in all likeness brought about the death of the Empire. That it was civil cannibalism and indeed not a conspiracy. But its because its staring us in the face with facts -- the council of Nicaea -- that it was Constantine who was the emperor with foresight, layed the marble road for another thousand years for Rome to tread in a new guise. This is blatantly off the subject, but to better illustrate the turn of events, one needs to assimilate the procedure of deterioration to better understand general movement across the borders.

In these times when the Romans were fleeting Gaul, it became a completely different age... It became one where perspective and mental perception of everything, mysteriously shifted into something mirroring a Tolkien theme of total chaos and mayhem of civilization. Almost to the point that "the orcs" were at the gates and Rome (helmdeep) was fending for its sovereign right. It was when empires micronized into fragments of principalities and kingdoms where empires became the thing of the past. The concept shattered, civilization and true culture dismantled, disfigured and burnt to cinders in a pile of barbaric ashes. It therefore signifies the dawn of the dark ages, that coming of these illiterates was certainly known to the Romans that's why a faith of Christianity was fabricated in order to exploit the superstitious condition of the illiterate. And this has crossed the dark path of controversy open to debate on a new thread which is titled as such. But a braking down of the oligarchy, invited every Tom @#$% and Harry to be a king, soon the fashion of Medieval times took on the feudal Japanese fashion -- cluster nest of warlords, where there wasn't a single point of government to dictate how thing unravel, but a continuous outbreak of minor pockets of conflict everywhere, which states that the original population of Celts got absorbed in pockets of kingdoms as the stock of peasents to provide the essential "FFs" (e.g. Food & Fodder) the driving force, the catalyst which runs empires, kingdoms alike. The sad fate of the Celts in the end, they became resources.... And the Vikings who settled in Normandy were nothing more than a tiny kingdoms that was set up, which absorbed thousands of Celts and later established the kingdom of Normandy :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of things you think at in the same time!

I'd complement your thoughts in recalling two-three things myself.

It is quite ironically that it was in Gaul that some of the last defenders of the empire stood up.against the invader. They were no adventurer and his faithful legion, they were backed up by a "nation" of towns, that quickly understood however that Christian Franks would be the next best alternative the moment when they defeated this last Gaulish Emperor.

Speaking about Rome's decadence and dark views, I can't wait more before I share this hypothesis that you can watch on Youtube about how the urban Romans could have been massively but perniciously intoxicated by the lead in their waterworks, dishes, etc. That could explain apathy, fatalism and some case of ascertained madness, and why the barbarian seemed more wealthy and willy.

Also what is basically the feudal system? Simply the best system to pacify a vast territory when you have no money to keep a large peace force. When you can't pay legions nor even barbarian mercenaries, when your kingdom grew so large that you can't defend it "against" the willingness of its inhabitants, you loan your land to able local warriors. Maybe it is a tribute to a German state of mind but the same occurred in Japan before the shogunate. Every times a feudal system emerged, it wasn't because of chaos, and selfish petty warlords, it was because the landowner (the king) decided to "decentralize" its kingdom's defense precisely to avoid chaos.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Feudal system is nothing more than a tight threshold of regulation of minor pockets of serfs. A taxation not of coinage, but of tangible commodities.

Now in my honest opinion and view about the case of lead poisoning is completely false. Reason being is that this seemed to have somehow became a justification based no substantial facts and bases to explain something that is equally fallacious.

Why the abrupt tone of certainty you might add?

Its because that if we accept this theory to indeed be true, would instantly simultaneously be denying the science and logic of the matter. One reason that there hasn't been a scientific probe launched to cut the justification in half, is because it serves the purpose to remain a theory in the mainstream orthodoxy of history, comforted with acceptance by the schools and universities because it is considered viable and legit. Which is totally ironic and typical.

But if we challenge this, and threaten to venture into the dark forest of suspicion conspiracies that surround it, we begin to see the fresh meadow oasis of sensible clarity right in the center of it.

For let's take a look at some statistical facts:

First let's assess the time when the first Roman wine recipe began to hit the Roman shelves in the market.

Defrutum. Defrutum was a mixture of lead and wine mixed with a variety of fruit pulp sapa which was considered to possess a great taste. The date of its actual appearance, let alone consumption is not clear.

Let's assume that it was in use during Punic wars

What then?

Well nothing. Because let's a generation get lead poisoning to the degree where madness sets will be close in your forties way exceeding the average life expectancy. That means they couldn't of been consuming that much lead and note: that too, from water out of lead pipes.

So therefore if lead poisoning was the case, its not medically possible for someone to become mad in their early days consuming lead, it take far lot longer. And how does this explain the later generation in AD that were involved in the narrative of a collapsing empire? This theory of lead poisoning assumes that its therefore an heredity disposition which is totally incorrect. It does become an heredity factor only after thousands of years for the damage to actually manipulate the DNA of these people involved. That is to say, not every Roman did consume lead in the first place.

Another token that throws a pilum in the Gallic wedding cake, is the fact that lead pipes are like copper pipes.

We know today in plumbing that copper pipes through in no less than approximately 4-5 years of continuous water flow, forms a a coat layer of grunge inside the pipe of the fresh copper wall. Composed of grime, fluoride, algae, and copper erosion along with trace elements forms a total protective skin in the pipe reducing gradually the intake of copper content. And lead pipes are no different. So what if we assume that it would take 80 years to form a grime layer, that's not even 1/2 of the Empires timeline to have then caused a psychological impact decades in advance till the time of collapse delving into a decadent pitfall.

So an logical, sensible conclusion is that lead was not the suspect which impacted Rome's "fall" but it was simply reallocated in the impenetrable walls of Constantinnople which lasted for another thousand years of Roman rule.

Link to post
Share on other sites

About feudal system:

Feudal system is a bit more complex than a chief and its serves, struggling face to chaos and neighbor chiefs. It's a whole pyramidal political system with the commoner at its base. I don't think the serf is a needed component of it as well as the other liberty privation, as long as the warrior class is fed, only a deviance of it, though a historical part of it. I mean that at its origin, it is not like what we figure to advent in a post-apocalyptic (nuclear, etc.) situation.

About lead intoxication:

I didn't recall the protective oxidation that occurs in immersed metals and that's true that the plumbing's noxious effect decreases with time. Also, when I say "theory" it is not to be taken as the sole cause's hypothesis, it is a theory about one of many causes. One such that could help and understand why in some critical cases an astounding decision was made. A bit like Napoleon the Third's stone.

As a side note, that's the way I see Science: a beam of theories and hypothesis that add, complement and merge to construct a model that describe more or less, to a certain degree and for a certain time what occurred and what could occur. So no certainty for my part, only hypothesis that might be more convincing and successful than others. Rest assured I'm not a believer in hypothetical certainties, only in proved cold facts. But I can't dismiss either yet unrelated evidences nor strong presumptions just because they haven't yet been correlated and integrated in the main theory or one of its competitors.

Lead intoxication is a bane that is fought even today, as they replace all the plumbing between the distribution network and the houses. Before mental disorder is clearly diagnosed, mental confusion, tiredness, general weakness occurs, and maybe well before your death in those early times.

Sorry for my English and when I wrote "dishes", I wanted to say "plates", that is the recipients which you eat every day with. Not every citizen could afford metallic dishes plates, or an abusive use of the defrutum you mentions (thank you to have directed my curiosity to this direction), nor lived in modern ("leaded") cities, but we are talking about the elite and the senior, those who decided or didn't decide for the Empire's fate.

http://corrosion-doctors.org/Elements-Toxic/Lead-history.htm

Here an excellent link on the thematic of defrutum: how the Roman were aware from acute lead toxicity but failed to figure that it could have a low exposure effect too:

http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/lead-poisoning-historical-perspective

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/wine/leadpoisoning.html

And finally, the main source (a meta-search) for the "cons" :

http://www.ajol.info/index.php/actat/article/viewFile/52570/41176

The "daily" lead consumption for some people and particularly the elite is ascertained but the argument against lead intoxication in the elite comes from two facts:

  • although described as early as the 2nd century B.C., the chronic lead poisoning was first diagnosed in the 7th century A.D. (constipation, etc.);
  • skeleton analysis has shown that one garrison city (Augsburg) had similar lead level as Rome, and that overall mean level of lead was 40% that of modern population (because of leaded gas).

Although not a specialist, I allow myself and dismiss the first argument because one thing is to correctly link a syndrome to its cause, and another thing is to correctly link several symptoms into a syndrome. Also, they are considering lead clinical chronic poisoning, not a vague tiredness and apathy, and mental confusion, learning/concentration difficulties. The lead concentration in bones may be relatively "small", it is relevant, because I wouldn't explain Rome decadency by acute lead poisoning such as when a child ingests lead-based painted material, and bones don't keep the history of the poisoning, acute, chronic, low level, only of the total dose when you die.

As regard to the second argument, well it is most disturbing, but as they themselves say, the sample was maybe too small. Also, how does it comes that wile lead use is fairly well documented and reported, the dose in the bones is so small, compared to modern automobile drivers who seem to not be affected?

So my conclusion is that if lead is one of the cause of the Roman elite "bad" reactions to the invasions, it should be as a low-intensity chronic poison. Now, if defrutum and lead crockery were of wide use in Byzantium too, only big walls may have made the difference between it and Ravenna. That's your point, isn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know about the political hierarchy of the feudal system. But you misunderstood what I meant. Essentially every ruling class is pyramidal by nature. Feudal system is an elaborate term for it. The true fundamentals of feudalism is, the elevation of the soldier class uplifted with prestige and status, which then would revolve around the lords and barons -- the revival of the aristocracy -- 9th century where the knights got born. A noble "lord" that owned land and farms would also own peasants on these farms, which then would grant the knight taxation in the form of (e.g. cows, pigs, and chickens, cheese, break, milk, and wine) as his personal levy. The knight would share this with his esquires, menatarms and so forth. It was only the church and monarchy that demanded tax in coinage. Knights as well, but the bartering of goods was the last resort to a serf drained of money. But its to simply underline the shear primitivity such simple "tribalism" as this totally conceals within it, a new power game in feudal times.

With so many knights "playing the role" of minor "kings", the monarchy at the top doesn't actually own or have a threshold over the lands and people, as an emperor or despot would. This power is with the sub-elite whom erects a totem at work here, the totem of loyalty. Which means the king has a limited capacity at how he can rule over his subjects. Should he overstep a mine field of uncertainty, the loyalty is then altered, turn sour and he his forced to refute his actions and retreat. Its because of the barbaric savagery at the gates that brought with it the seeds of tribalism and from those seeds grew a feudal tree of hierarchy of pretentious rich-folk playing as lords. This primitive government therefore was responsible for the strife, civil unrest, wars, famine and upheaval all through the Medieval world. The foundation of authority which pivoted on oppression, quenched by the brute force that balanced it.

Now as for the lead side of things.

Firstly there's two arguments

1. What and were their symptoms of lead poisoning?

2. Lead poisoning was the result and fall of Roman rule.

Okay let me refute the first myth. But before I do, I know it was a theory you brought up, but I was merely asserting my view on the matter with science to give it basis, and irrespective of what records tells us, science says otherwise. I did it just to add clarity on the greater scope of this subject.

Lead poisoning (i.e. Plumbism(medical term)), would of had it's toxicity declined as years went by of continuous water flow. Which would in effect halt the sickness from spreading. Now defrutum could of been the main lead vector responsible, however again, it wouldn't of had any effect and carried itself over the next generation. This is the crux of this argument.

Its that plumbism is not an heredity disorder, until only after many, many years for it to actually alter the genes with defective code. Which replicates itself in future generations and therefore induce psychological dysfunction. Its this mere principle that totally debunks this myth.

Moreover, conceptually correlation how Romans lived in BC to AD seems blanket the facts of when lead in defrutum was being consume. We have no real records of dates, so the only logical conclusion is that they would of probably had during the Punic wars in early BC. the concept of continuing intake of lead from this time, till the time of it's end, would mean that madness would of set in well in BC still, and would of had pernicious, deleterious effects on the Roman Empire. Concluding that plumbism is not heredity in the time periods in question, outrules it as a viable theory.

So in layman's terms, plumbism didn't have enough toxicity, to both cause a genetic defect, and to have induced madness in the elites young years of critical governance, only probably until late on in theirs where is too little time even then to impede the empire's health.

____________________________________________

Which brings that arguments end, and now I shall anwser your question in quote

""Now, if defrutum and lead crockery were of wide use in Byzantium too, only big walls may have made the difference between it and Ravenna. That's your

point, isn't it?""

No that was not my point. But before I answer this, this question poses a total mockery of the lead poison theory.

If Byzantium used defrutum and lead pipes like Rome, how is it then they lasted thousand years after Rome? It wasn't because of tall mighty walls, its because it didn't exist.

My point however back to your question, is that Byzantium's walls was not the difference between the two cities. But that of faith. Byzantium was the first Christian city, and a Rome changed into a guise which coexisted with the barbarity incursion which swept Europe. It was by faith that Roman rule permeated through kingdoms like the black death plague, spreading Roman Catholic law through every kingdom, which clearly shows us here that whilst Byzantium had a share of Rome's old empire, it was Rome's military power, but Rome's law incorporated the whole of Europe... So has it fallen really? Or changed?

I would think the later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...