Talk:Norman Conquest/Archive 1

old talk
"However, over the centuries, the two racial groups merged and are no longer distinguishable."

-Almost true, but not quite....for example, say aloud the word "envelope."

Now if you said en-velope, your family was likely Celtic, or Anglo Saxon. If you said on-velope, your family may have been Norman or, because the Normans became synonomous with nobility, your people copied the Normans.

I say envelope. My wife says onvelope. I tell her she's just trying to be hifalutin. Pollinator 15:25, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Would that really still be true today? Maybe in 1300 or so it would still be a shibboleth, but I doubt that means anything 700 years later. Adam Bishop 15:28, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I've often wondered about this myself, is the upper-class English accent really a remnant of an Norman-French accent? --kudz75 23:54, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * No evidence for this. All English speakers have been influenced by the Norman language: everyone says "pocket" in the Norman manner, rather than "poshet" in the French manner. "Envelope", like "hôtel" and "garage", is a more recent import, hence the dual pronunciations. Man vyi 07:21, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well that's why I didn't edit the page...but it is a tiny remnant of the division.... kind of a historical curio, one of those things that makes history interesting. Pollinator 00:51, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I very much doubt this. My father says on-velope i say en-velope. I think it has more to do with our respective upbringings than our ancestry ---Revolver66 31/12/06

Title
"Norman conquest of England" would be more accurate I believe, as there have been other Norman conquests (some mentioned in text).


 * I agree!--Irishpunktom\talk 10:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

True but there have also been other French Revolutions other than that of 1789 but it was such a world changing event that we all know which revolution we mean when we say "the French Revolution". Isn't it the same for "The Norman Conquest"? With your agreement I'd like to change it back. Or at least capitalise the "Conquest". (Brixtonboy (talk) 14:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC))

recent edits by anon user
I'm concerned about the recent additions by 210.54.77.25 -- its a lengthy and detailed diversion into one theory about a church conspiracy and how the role of the church played a big part in the conquest. I had never heard this before, at least in standard mainstream accounts of the conquest. There are no attributions to which authors this comes from. Any comments from others? Stbalbach 04:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Basically it reads like a Saxon apology for why England succumbed to the evil Normans. England had "lapsed into depression". Harold was a god-fearing and loving man, who was sad about being excommunicated by a conspiritorial William who had entered into an unholy alliance with the Vatican. The English were Democratic and thus slow to respond to the war-mongering Normans, portrayed as killing peasants 4 days a week for sport and fun.

There is perhaps material to be saved, an example how nuetrality can be subverted and POVs from 1000 years hence creep in. This is popular history, not serious history. Stbalbach 04:35, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Saxon apology
Ive moved (what I believe is) a Saxon Apology for why England lost to the Normans here for discussion and edits, or just historiographical interest. Some of this is good and needs to be saved, but it needs to be re-framed to be more neutral. Ive made comments:

All things considered, William with just a few thousand men (many of whom were suffering the devastating effects of gastro-enteritis after sacking Dover) would conceivably have been unable to hold even his small conquest.


 * This is inaccurate. He had a legitimate claim to the throne which gave him authority, this was more than just a few thousand brigands taking the country.Stbalbach

Part of William's success on the field and in being crowned king so quickly was because Norman cultural and political influence in England had built up over the years prior to 1066, and William had an arguably legitimate dynastic claim to the throne of England, which enabled him to claim enough support among the Anglo-Saxon nobility to prevent a wholly united front against his ascent of the throne.


 * This is almost accurate, but Williams success on the field had nothing to do with Norman political and cultural influence in England.Stbalbach

That dynastic claim, in contradiction to the decision of the witan witena gemot, had weight for another reason. This reason, one particularly favoured by English historians, was the influence of the Roman Church. Though he certainly felt strongly about it, William’s rationale for the invasion was particularly weak. For those Norman lords who agreed to the adventure, the booty was enough but William had a wider theatre of politics to consider. In a conspiracy to place the Church in power over the secular government (the church was in a momentous struggle with the Emperor Henry IV to rule itself and the secular governments), Hildebrand, the Pope’s chaplain (later Pope Gregory VII), had conspired with Lanfranc (a friend of William’s, the Prior of Bec, later the Archbishop of Canterbury) and William to declare the invasion a crusade and to reform the Church in England. Pope Alexander II, known as Anselm and a student of Lanfranc, had obliged Hildebrand, blessed the Norman invasion of England and excommunicated Harold.


 * This paragraph has a lot of problems. Which English historians favour this? Its also framed to sound like the witan were more authoritative then Williams claim. William had the better claim. Next, the idea that Normans went only for "booty" is just one in a long string of pejorative attacks on Normans throughout this piece. Norman Lords went because they had a chance to increase their political power, just as William did, it was part of a large European wide expansion and resettlement pattern during the high middle ages. The "Church Conspiracy" needs supporting evidence.Stbalbach

Harold, like all the English, was deeply religious. By all reports, he was a changed man after learning that he had been excommunicated. Not a few English historians have made a comparison of his demeanour before—when he defeated Harald Hardrada at Stamford Bridge—and after hearing of the excommunication—his defeatists attitude when he met the Normans and their French allies on the southern slopes of Caldbec Hill outside the small town of Hastings.


 * This portrayal of Harold as deeply pious, and that his excommunication broke his spirit is sweet and dear but is highly suspect of propaganda. Harold was like all kings of his age, brutal, tough and not someone to wilt under the moral strain of excommunication.Stbalbach

The extent of this influence from the Vatican was strongly felt after Harold’s death. When Harold was defeated, this shook the Bishops’ resolve to uphold the rights of Edgar (recently elected king at the witena gemot after the death of Harold), and eventually demoralised the resistance. Archbishop of Canterbury, Stigand, whose legitimacy as the Archbishop was under a cloud, played it safe, deserted the English and made peace with the invaders who came with the Pope’s blessing.

The means by which the English reached a decision was also a disadvantage it seems. The English at that time was considerably more democratic than the Normans in their decision making processes. When Harold had been elected, the witan in London that chose him did so before the word of King Edward’s death had even reached beyond the environs of London. There was dissatisfaction amongst the northern English with this rushed decision and Harold took it upon himself to go and speak to a witan in York. After making his case, he had been soundly endorsed. But the steps he had to take are telling. The people expected a say in what happened and who led them. This rather slow process of reaching consensus contrasted with the absolute tyranny represented by William the Bastard.


 * "..the absolute tyranny represented by William the Bastard." vs. the "Democratic English" .. the real truth is somewhere in the middle.Stbalbach

The traditions and atitudes of the English in matters of war also contrasted with the Normans—the English did not engage in war making nearly so readily. Invasions and petty conflicts in Normandy were common. The knights existed merely for the sake of combat, fighting for any reason on any occasion. So ready were they to fight that the church had declared the Truce of God in Normandy in 1042 and set aside Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays for combat. The peasants would work the fields Thursday through Saturday, rest on Sunday and hide till Thursday. William had managed to suppress these private wars but he had turned this warlike temperament onto the surrounding provinces. Not so in England where King Edward even had difficulty getting his soldiers to engage in civil conflict. The contrast is further illustrated by the fact that Normandy was a primary resources for campaigners in the crusades and the knights themselves sold their services as mercenaries in many wars outside of Normandy, including Spain and Sicily.


 * More attacks on the Normans, we should think they spent 3 days a week killing peasants for sport and fun! The better way to describe this situation is the anarchy and chaos present on the Continent compared to a historically peaceful period in England meant more fighting men and spirit were available to the Normans. Normans and Saxons were equally brutal at different periods in history. Stbalbach

This was all complicated by yet another aspect—superstition. Earlier in the year there had been a comet (probably Halley’s Comet) which was believed to have foretold doom. A second and evidently more prevalent event was this, on his deathbed, the previous ruler, King Edward, had related a dream in which he was told that England would suffer for its wickedness and that God would curse the country for a year and a day. Since the messengers in the dream were two deceased ecclesiastics the king had met years before in Normandy, this made the foretelling all the more credible.

As the Norman army laid waste to a growing number of villages, the country was unable to act quickly and immersed in a deep depression. There were many still capable of meeting and defeating what was but a few thousand marauding mercenaries effectively cut off from any additional support from Normandy. But resistance, which continued for years, was never sufficiently organised and William was nothing if not competent to establish his rule and maintain it.


 * Not sure how a country (it was not) immerses into a collective deep depression. This is most telling of the POV here: "..William was nothing if not competent to establish his rule and maintain it." Obviously, William had no redeeming qualifications!Stbalbach

the Norman versus English account
Let me just offer my reading of the account as it is. It has huge gaps. That is why I went to sources like Howarth, Lacey, Bloch, Strayer and Dana, Keegan, Bunson, Butler and Given-Wilson, Postan, and Kantor.

This article conveys the same problem that besets the account of the Scottish hero, William Wallace. The victors get their version but not the vanquished. The blessings of the Pope given William in the middle of the massive conflict Hildebrand master minded between the Holy See and the German Emperor--well established history, well documented. That perspective was identified. If citations are needed, that is not a problem. An accessible and easy to read version is that put out by David Howarth--1066: The Year of the Conquest. Various Roman Catholic sources also state that Alexander II did in fact excommunicate Harold, and bless this 'crusade:' This version of that account is readily available. It was old news when Howarth’s book was published in the late 70s. I heard it in high school in the 60s. Religious conflict in Britain is very old.

A recent article in the BBC online sheds more light on what has been often been retold as a great and beneficial undertaking by what was in fact one of the most warlike cultures in the European Medieval era.

The Tapestry and its alterations are also well documented--as a source from which to retell the events? This is a bit of a reach.

The article as it is provides no coherent explanation of any of the current theories on why a few thousand mercenaries, cut off from any additional support from Normandy, conquered what technically should have been 40-50,000 soldiers (irregulars though they may have been). Look at the gastero-enteritis. They did not bring enough wine is one leading theory (nor could they get any more)&mdash;host of interesting aspects to that one (logistics are the most obvious but then the sheer luck William had getting his soldiers and their horses to England is a dead giveaway).

Nothing here on the whole-sale replacement of the indigenous clergy, the immense extent of castellation, the tremendous drop in property value and tillage as illuminated in the Doomesday Inquest, the effects on their courts and their language. ..

It offers no explanation on why the Pope got involved--if William’s claim was watertight, why the interference? Sorry. Not to put too fine a point on it but the article as is clearly biased. The view that his claim was solid is simply a retelling of popular myth and not good history.

What about the reasons for the Normans and French with him--the whole idea was lunacy--what compelled them to go?

What happened to the King that was elected in Harold’s place? Why was the resistance so fragmented? Why did the clergy drop out and their support fade?

What happened to the Church in England, the social backbone of this and so many other Medieval societies. That it was overwhelmed in the Gregorian Reformation that was sweeping western Europe is not in doubt. Who was the instrument of that change? What it meant and why is not even mentioned.

The Norman Conquest did more than change the language. The various theories about the story certainly deserve an equal space.

One who believes in a balanced account and a coherent attempt at background.


 * What you say is very interesting and I would love to hear these subjects addressed in the article . Please join in Wikipedia and work to set a balanced account. Lumos3 08:24, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

When I have time of course. However, the whole account will take a lot of time. This additon was to convey some of the leading theories out there which were not in the original article (the one I addressed).

Balanced. No such animal. The objective is to place the ideas out there and be transparent. That is really all we can do. Everyone has their story. E.g. President Grant just got a rewrite. Everytime I turn around there is another Theory of the War in South East Asia--I was in Hanoi when McNamara's autobiography came out--what a shock.. The theory of the Vatican conspiracy could go on for 100s of pages. Euope was in the middel of a huge row over secular control of the church. Alexander was the first Pope in yonks to be elected by the canons. Hidelbrande's famous confrontation with the Emperor came a few years later but he was in the thick of it when William was trying to sell his story to the Norman lords (Howarth is a readable and accessible source). William used that conflict and took it with him to England (issuing anathemas was normal back then so what was another one--especially if it gave the Gregorians a new power base.) and the Archibishop of Canterbury at that time was in trouble over the canonical issue of his appointment. To go into detail on this page would be misplaced.

PS. To my knowledge, I have joined the Wikipedia. I signed up for something.

Thom Simmons, Kapiti Coast, NZ User:Malangthon 12:14, 11 May 2005 South Pacific

Response to Specific Comments
The Comments I'm concerned about the recent additions by 210.54.77.25 -- its a lengthy and detailed diversion into one theory about a church conspiracy and how the role of the church played a big part in the conquest. I had never heard this before, at least in standard mainstream accounts of the conquest. There are no attributions to which authors this comes from. Any comments from others? Stbalbach 04:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Basically it reads like a Saxon apology for why England succumbed to the evil Normans. England had "lapsed into depression". Harold was a god-fearing and loving man, who was sad about being excommunicated by a conspiritorial William who had entered into an unholy alliance with the Vatican. The English were Democratic and thus slow to respond to the war-mongering Normans, portrayed as killing peasants 4 days a week for sport and fun.

RESPONSE-Not necessarily killing peasants but yes, the Truce of God is no secret. Big reason the Crusades were called (Cambridge History of the Crusades) was to get the lords and knights from knocking each other off. Strayer and Bloch also give good accounts of life in that era. [stop]

There is perhaps material to be saved, an example how nuetrality can be subverted and POVs from 1000 years hence creep in. This is popular history, not serious history. Stbalbach 04:35, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

RESPONSE-Neutrality? Insisting that one and only one person had a better claim than another as the sole perspective of the article’s current look is not neutrality. [stop]

Part of William's success on the field and in being crowned king so quickly was because Norman cultural and political influence in England had built up over the years prior to 1066, and William had an arguably legitimate dynastic claim to the throne of England, which enabled him to claim enough support among the Anglo-Saxon nobility to prevent a wholly united front against his ascent of the throne.

This is almost accurate, but Williams success on the field had nothing to do with Normal political and cultural influence inEngland.Stbalbach

RESPONSE-I did not write that. It was already there and I am loathe to step on toes [stop]

Ive moved (what I believe is) a Saxon Apology for why England lost to the Normans here for discussion and edits, or just historiographical interest. Some of this is good and needs to be saved, but it needs to be re-framed to be more neutral. Ive made comments:

RESPONSE-This is a current apology being made by living English historians. [stop]

All things considered, William with just a few thousand men (many of whom were suffering the devastating effects of gastro-enteritis after sacking Dover) would conceivably have been unable to hold even his small conquest.

This is inaccurate. He had a legitimate claim to the throne which gave him authority, this was more than just a few thousand brigands taking the country.Stbalbach

RESPONSE-Really? Some one here was actually there and knows this beyond a shadow of a doubt? Not, by any stretch of the imagination is William's claim the only and wholly iron-clad theory. The legitimacy of the claim is also called into question by the fact that Lanfranc and Hildebrand got involved. And yes, they were brigands. Brigands with castles and armour and men-at-arms, but brigands all the same—the Truce of God imposed in Normandy in 1042 says it all. There is an article here on Wiki about it I think. Check it out. [stop]

That dynastic claim, in contradiction to the decision of the witan witena gemot, had weight for another reason. This reason, one particularly favoured by English historians, was the influence of the Roman Church. Though he certainly felt strongly about it, William’s rationale for the invasion was particularly weak. For those Norman lords who agreed to the adventure, the booty was enough but William had a wider theatre of politics to consider. In a conspiracy to place the Church in power over the secular government (the church was in a momentous struggle with the Emperor Henry IV to rule itself and the secular governments), Hildebrand, the Pope’s chaplain (later Pope Gregory VII), had conspired with Lanfranc (a friend of William’s, the Prior of Bec, later the Archbishop of Canterbury) and William to declare the invasion a crusade and to reform the Church in England. Pope Alexander II, known as Anselm and a student of Lanfranc, had obliged Hildebrand, blessed the Norman invasion of England and excommunicated Harold.

This paragraph has a lot of problems. Which English historians favour this? Its also framed to sound like the witan were more authoritative then Williams claim. William had the better claim. Next, the idea that Normans went only for "booty" is just one in a long string of pejorative attacks on Normans throughout this piece. Norman Lords went because they had a chance to increase their political power, just as William did, it was part of a large European wide expansion and resettlement pattern during the high middle ages. The "Church Conspiracy" needs supporting evidence.Stbalbach

RESPONSE- Which English historians say that without equivocation William’s claim was so solid that the folks welcomed him with open arms? The objection to this view commits the infraction of the very blatant bias it protests. Context Note: This is medieval Europe we are talking about here. I very fairly and without malice or subtrafuge of forethought framed that passage and the subsequent passages as view points. Unlike the assertion that William’s claim was beyond doubt. The view that the witan had authority is just that, a view and William had another—but that is history.

Church conspiracy needs supporting evidence? Here is a quick one, The Pope Encyclopedia in which the author thanks, among others, The Most Reverend John P. Foley, President of the Pontifical Commission for Social Communications and a couple of guys from the Vatican Library—the Roman Catholic Church says there was one. You can get that at Barnes and Nobles.

Lanfranc, Anselms’s teacher and Williams chaplain, was dead in the middle of the Gregorian Reform (wrest control from the Emperor and the aristocracy and wield control over them in return) and was rewarded by William with the Archbishoperic of Canterbury. University text here—A History of Christianity: Volume 1, Beginnings to 1500. K. S. Latourette.

This stuff is accessible.

[stop]

Harold, like all the English, was deeply religious. By all reports, he was a changed man after learning that he had been excommunicated. Not a few English historians have made a comparison of his demeanour before—when he defeated Harald Hardrada at Stamford Bridge—and after hearing of the excommunication—his defeatists attitude when he met the Normans and their French allies on the southern slopes of Caldbec Hill outside the small town of Hastings.

This portrayal of Harold as deeply pious, and that his excommunication broke his spirit is sweet and dear but is highly suspect of propaganda. Harold was like all kings of his age, brutal, tough and not someone to wilt under the moral strain ofexcommunication.Stbalbach

REPONSE- ‘is sweet and dear.’ (give me a break) LOL. My perspective--Comments indicate a serious personal conflict. OK--How is this, ever seen a battle hardened, grown man break down and weep at the death of a loved one? Is that what you mean by sweet and dear? Clearly i am addressing someone who has deep personal issues. For the good of the Wikipedia, pleeeze leave them at home. We are fast going from Open Source to Stbalbach Source here.

Oh. Yea. When there are spiritual conflicts, big boys can go from absolute carnage to utter desolation. Next. [stop]

"..the absolute tyranny represented by William the Bastard." vs. the "Democratic English" .. the real truth is somewhere in themiddle.Stbalbach

REPONSE-Excellent. I will buy the book when it comes out. Meantime, this is what is out there now. And, do go back and read the text as it was posted. It has deliberately been misread again. Meanwhile, the statement here shows this massive deletion and subsequent verbiage is more about wishful thinking and personal issues, not viable historical record and interpretation. [stop]

More attacks on the Normans, we should think they spent 3 days a week killing peasants for sport and fun! The better way to describe this situation is the anarchy and chaos present on the Continent compared to a historically peaceful period in England meant more fighting men and spirit were available to the Normans. Normans and Saxons were equally brutal at different periods in history. Stbalbach

RESPONSE-Another misreading and another utter disregard for well documented events and issues. By the way, the market for Norman Mercenaries is legendary. And the period of time on topic is the period around the events of the Norman Conquest. Not the Fall of the Roman Empire and retreat from Britain.

The utter desolation that resulted from Norman rule was a BBC History on-line article by Michael Wood in 2001. Good reference point and does explain the need for historical context in the WIki article..

The remainder of the comments by Stbalbach did not offer any new perspective. I have offered the perspectives of authors of note and credibility. They are not my assertions or conclusions. Shall we go for arbitration here?

I am in the process of writing additional text for the article and I need to know if this is being arbitrarily censured by the unknowing and presumptuously singleminded author of these rather simplistic comments.

Thom Simmons Kapiti Coast, New Zealand User:Malangthon

This was repeated in error

Response to Thom re: the Saxon View
Thom, first off thank you for taking the time to reply, and signing up for an account. Wikipedia has a lot of anonymous users who hit and run and its often difficult to tell who is serious and who is not. As I said from the very start, there is material here that is good. The purpose of the discussion page is to avoid edit wars and arbitration committees by working out the differences and communicating.


 * "..This additon was to convey some of the leading theories out there."

It was not presented as such. If we go down this road of presenting alternative to the mainstream view, they need to be properly organized and framed as such so the reader understands the historiography issues, and this doesnt become a battleground of alternative views all trying to be authoritative. It's possible to present two entirely different views in the same article.


 * "..The victors get their version but not the vanquished."

Yes, this does seem to be a politically motivated issue for some authors. It's typical for the revisionist historians, those with nothing to loose perhaps to make a name for themselves or from lesser known universities outside of the mainsteam, women and minority authors, to take up the cause of the underdog, while the more conservative historians from the mainstream institutions maintain the "mainstream" views, this happens everywhere, not just the Norman Conquest. Sometimes these revisions result in a shift of the mainstream view, sometimes they remain controversial and never fully take hold.


 * "..This is a current apology being made by living English historians."

Yeah, some.


 * "..this is being arbitrarily censured by the unknowing and presumptuously singleminded author of these rather simplistic comments."

No need to be an ass about it, Thom, Im sure we can work together to make it a better article.

Ass? I am sorry but the numerous assertions about the one and only theory are presumptuous. David Armine Howarth's work on this came out in 1977. He wrote quitte a bit about the history of England. His works have been out there for years. The consensus has been very positive. Marc Bloc, Joseph Strayer, M.M. Postan. . . the list is long. The Horror of the Conquest might be a better title. This is not an alternative theory. It has been in the mainstream for years. User:Malangthon 11, May, 2005 9:48 SPT

Im going to suggest the following. Add the text back in, but under a separate heading such as "Views on the Conquest" or somthing like that. It would be a place for analysis, separate from the basic narrative account so it doesnt break the narrative, and provides more detail for those readers who want to explore more. It would have citations, so the major ideas lead to the major works on those ideas. It would also tone down some of the language to be more neutral, not presenting the Normans as some kind of devil and the Saxons as saints, it was not that simple (and BTW I literally wrote the article on Peace and Truce, Im familair with the period. The Making of Europe by Robert Bartlett provides a standard analysis of the nature of migrations going on in Europe during this time).

Stbalbach 16:26, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem. I can do that. I will get on it later today. A subtitle change can be helpful. The view there now also needs to be identified for what it is, one of many theories.. User:Malangthon 11, May, 2005 9:52 SPT

The Vatican's role in the Norman Conquest--check wikipedia articles
Found this in the Wikipedia article on Lanfranc, William's chaplain and co-conspirator, the Archbishop of Canterbury who divested the English Church of English and one of the foremost proponenst of the Gregorian Reformation to subjugate all secular governments to the Pope: "Henceforward Lanfranc exercised a perceptible influence on his master's policy. William adopted the Cluniac programme of ecclesiastical reform, and obtained the support of Rome for his English expedition by assuming the attitude of a crusader against schism and corruption. It was Alexander II, the former pupil of Lanfranc, who gave the Norman Conquest the papal benediction--a notable advantage to William at the moment, but subsequently the cause of serious embarrassments."

There is more. lanfranc was a major political force. That excommunication also made it possible to get the blessing of the German Emperor to prohibit Harold soliciting any aid from anyone outside of England. It was, in essence Harold versus Europe and the Church.

Howarth is hardly alone. Frank McLynn (1066: The year of the three battles) gives even greater details on the actions of William and an earlier run-in between the Godwins and Vatican. McLynn cites sources that preceeded Howarth's work in the 60s and 70s.

Was there a Norman-papal conspiracy to run off the Saxons, cut them off from the Church, alienate the English Church and deprive Harold of support of the Church in England--Yes.

Credibility: Both Howarth and McLynn employ the complete list of contemporary sources.

More later, e.g. the Norman sources are far more suspect than the Saxon, the Bayeux Tapestry is a work of art--not history and on and on.

Stuff I knew in highschool 60s is being referred to as neither mainstream or known.

Thom Simmons, Kapiti Coast, NZ User:Malangthon May, 16, 2005, 11:33 SPT (GMT+12:00)


 * Yeah that wiki article on Lanfranc you refernce is from a 1911 Britannica article, we know how NPOV the Victorian English establishment was ;) To me the whole thing smacks of Anglo-Saxon ethnographic topoi. There are kernels of truth in it, but the narrative comes across in the end as pro-English and anti-French (and anti-Vatican) -- a very convienent narrative for what must be an event that doesnt sit well with many English, being conquered. It reminds me of in America, some conservatives blame the failure in Vietnam not on bad policy, but on the US Press; they have elaborate explanations of how it was a failure of public perception that lost Vietnam, otherwise it was a fundamentally good and just cause and noble war. It's poltics to play sides. Do we really want to play politics with this event that happened almost 1000 years ago? There are neutral observations, the article is currently pretty neutral, I think. It doesnt blame anyone, or say one side was in the right or wrong, or demonize anyone. Stbalbach 06:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Last invasion of England?
"It remains the last successful contested military invasion of England."

This is a very romantic sort of statement, but I think at least Henry VII of England and William III of England (and perhaps others) would have begged to differ – both led very successful contested invasions of England! --203.52.130.139 03:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I was about to ask about that line too! What is a "successful contested invasion" anyway, exactly? Superm401 | Talk 03:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The fact that it is Henry VII of England is exactly why it was not an invasion. Henry VII was English (even if he was in exile in Brittany) and thus he simply usrped the throne rather than in vaded the country.
 * I think that most people who fought at Bosworth would dispute the idea that Henry VII "simply usurped the throne" Rjm at sleepers 15:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Henry VII was Welsh, not English, that's why he has a Welsh surname - Tudor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.214.192.149 (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * only one-quarter Welsh, and apparently he spoke English and French and there is no known source stating he could speak Welsh - see the Wiki article on Henry VII HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To be fair, he was born in Wales...although his dad was born in Hertfordshire and his mother in Bedfordshire and his only other Welsh connection was one grand-parent. DeCausa (talk) 09:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

William the third has a slightly stronger case, but was more invited in than actually 'invading'- there was no real military contest when he came over (James II just ran), although naturally there were the Jacobite battles (like the Boyne) in Ireland and the like. 172.214.164.27 23:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The statement is the sort of romantic nonsense that should be found in a Ladybird book rather than an encyclopedia. Rjm at sleepers 15:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The following were all successful military invasions.

Louis VII in 1216 Henry IV in 1399 Henry VI in 1470 Edward IV in 1471 Henry VII in 1485 William II in 1688 Rjm at sleepers 16:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * William III. Zoetropo (talk) 23:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon vs English
Anon user, you've spent considerable time and effort in changing "Anglo-Saxon" to "English" across dozens of articles. This is obviously a minority POV, these articles have stood the test of time and editors and academic sources; your the only one in 4 years that believes this is how it should be. I would suggest gaining consensus before continuing this campaign to avoid a lot of wasted effort on yours and others part who just revert it back.

(note: Im posting this here since you seem to be using a dynamic IP account and have no set talk page. Stbalbach 00:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Norman conquest of England
actually i liked the article,and since i'm writting my seminary paper on it i thought i could use it as a source but i have to name the author of the article,the number of pages...so could u please help me and tell me who wrote it,and when,thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sandrcak (talk • contribs).


 * Hi. Many editors have contributed to the article so there is no single author. Citing Wikipedia has some guidance on how to cite a Wikipedia article. -- Stbalbach 13:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations
Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b. Members of the WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 20:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Norman conquest of England
I'm differentiating between "conquest" and "invasion" as they are different concepts. Historians use the term "norman conquest" to talk about not only the battle of hastings and Williams title as King of England, but the subsequent conquest of the rest of the country which took decades. An invasion - even one where the ruling king might be disposed - does not mean a country has been conquered. If we talk about invasions, there were small successful Viking invasions of England after the Norman Conquest. But certainly there is a difference between short-lived contested invasions and the total conquest of a country, such as with the Normans, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, etc.. that is the point being made. -- Stbalbach 17:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

End of the conquest
Could the conquest be considered to have ended on October 14 with the Battle of Hastings and the Saxon army defeated, December 25 with the crowning of William and the casus belli fufilled, or some other date I'm not thinking of? —VolatileChemical 21:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Most historians speak of the conquest as having begun with Hastings and taking a decade or two to fully repress, many more people died in the ensuing conquest than died at Hastings. The Saxons didn't just roll over because it lost one battle or temporary loss of the crown, kind of like Iraq "mission accomplished" was not over at the Battle of Baghdad (although that's a poor comparison as the Anglo-Saxons were more than an insurgency). -- Stbalbach 13:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So the conquest didn't start on September 28, when the Normans landed? In my mind, an invasion begins when the outside force gets to the location. VolatileChemical 00:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure I guess you could say it started then, or perhaps when the Norwegians landed, depending on what your trying to emphasis. -- Stbalbach 15:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Errors
Harald Hardrada had no relation to the "Anglo-Saxon family"...and the Norman Conquest was not the last successful military invasion of England, see Glorious Revolution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.17.193.107 (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Fixed the Harald claim. It says "last successful military conquest", not invasion. It took the Normans nearly a generation to conquest England. -- Stbalbach 20:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone has refuted the idea that Henry VII and William III staged successful military conquests. I would also argue for Louis VII, Henry VI and Edward IV. My edit simply drew the reader's attention to the fact that the claim that 1066 was the last successful military conquest is not universally accepted. Rjm at sleepers 16:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think saying "it is not universally accepted" opens a can of worms that goes beyond the scope of this article, we can't really say that without backing it up and explaining what we mean. If you want, start a new article called Invasions and conquests of England (if there is not something like it already) and list all the events, along with the names and works of historians who support various views, and we can link to it from this article. -- Stbalbach 23:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The ODNB article on William III is explicit that it was a foreign invasion. The battles of the Boyne, Preston and Culloden marked the conquest. Thus there are reliable secondary sources that demonstrate that the assertion that it "remains the last successful military conquest of England" is not true. I would like to see the sentence deleted but how about "is popularly believed to be the last successful military conquest of England"? Rjm at sleepers 10:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you provide some sources that I can verify, such as on Google Books, Internet Archive or Amazon.Com's "Look Inside" - or on the web - or transcribed here - that says England was successfully "Conquered" in the 17th century? This is news to me, but I admit my history of the period is not as good as it could be. If this is a standard view, it should be no problem showing so from mainstream scholarly sources. -- Stbalbach 03:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The ODNB article is on-line. It is a subscription site, but many UK libraries have arranged access using your library card number. If you are outside the UK, you should be able to consult the printed copy at any major library and I suspect many universities have on-line access. I'm not sure what it is you want to verify. I'm not aware of any historical dispute about the events. William III was a foreigner from a country against whom England had fought three wars in the previous forty years. He had no hereditary claim to the throne. He landed in England at the head of a foreign army. After he was crowned, supporters of James II continued to oppose him and his successors - in Ireland, Scotland and to a small extent in England. The three main battles against the Jacobites were the Boyne, Preston and Culloden. The only "problem" is the name that has been given to the events - "the glorius revolution". But if that is what is bothering you, there are references that say it was neither glorious nor a revolution. (Incidentaly, the wikipedia article calls it the last successful invasion and gives a source, although not the one I would have chosen.) Rjm at sleepers 07:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This article in the Independent may be useful - addresses the issue head on, and claims that, "British historiography cloaks William's invasion of 1688 as 'the Glorious Revolution'."MAIS -talk - contr 14:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * btw, I can verify that the ODNB describes William III's intervention as and "invasion".MAIS -talk - contr 14:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "He had no hereditary claim to the throne." Well thats really not correct.   William was a great-grandson of James I/VI,  and just about the only one alive at the time.   His wife was the daughter of the reigning King James II  which a majority of Parliament were apparently keen to depose,  and she was appointed co-reigning monarch.  The 1688 war was not a "dutch invasion" nor a "dutch conquest",  where was the battle,  where was the dutch takeover.   Nowhere, thats where.Eregli bob (talk) 09:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

"Invasion" and "conquest" are pretty different. One is a short term gain, the other is a complete and total control for the long term. William I invaded England, won Hastings.. but he did not Conquer England for another Generation at least. Invasion is one thing, even a successful invasion, but conquering .. I'm not aware of historians who label anything post-Norman as a Conquest of England. -- Stbalbach 02:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is much difference between a successful invasion and a conquest. However, I've never seen any suggestion that William III and his sucessors did not achieve "complete and total control for the long term". The battles of the Boyne and Culloden established the defeat of Jacobitism. Incidentally, although it is not an acceptable source, a wikipedia article - Paul Barillon - says explicitly "conquest". If you would like a more academic reference: Ina Baghdiantz McCabe, Trading Diaspora, State Building and the Idea of National Interest. Interactions: Regional Studies, Global Processes, and Historical Analysis. 28-March 3 Feb. 2001. Library of Congress, Washington D.C., 25 Mar. 2007 . Rjm at sleepers 08:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess we can debate what conquest vs invasion means, and if the GR was comparable with the Anglo Saxon and Norman conquests of England in terms of their language, cultural and population changes. But its all just our opinions. How about instead we consider this is an encyclopedia for a general audience, and per the WP:LEAD Lead Section guidelines, the lead section should provide a basic broad summary overview of the article contents for someone who has no experience on the topic - reading the rest of this article in more detail, under the Legacy section, it already discusses the issue with the Glorious Revolution in more detail, in case someone wants to learn more about that aspect. -- Stbalbach 00:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The important, undeniable (and therefore encylopedic) point is that 1066 has become part of the popular psyche as the last successful invasion / conquest - whether or not the historical revisionists are correct. Surely it is that which should appear in the introduction. How about something like "It has a secure place in the English national identity as the last successful military conquest of England" or "It is populary remembered as the last successful military conquest of England" or even "It has an iconic role as the last successful military conquest of England. Rjm at sleepers 07:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok good suggestions, I think the iconic wording should satisfy the experienced and general reader. -- Stbalbach 23:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Royal Absenteeism
I added this part in the "control England part". I also put a source and a quotation. This royal absenteeism is important enough to be mentioned in the government part since it's probably the most striking contrast between Norman (and Angevin) kings and previous and latter kings. I don't even understand how this point (not even a detail) was missing. Matthieu 08:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguating the footballer
I notice there isn't a link to Norman Conquest (footballer) from either this page or Norman Conquest. Which would be the best way to do this? If the conquest is not normally referred to as "Norman Conquest" (two words, both capitalised) then I suggest change it from a redirect to a disambig between Norman conquest of England and Norman Conquest (footballer). Otherwise, add a disambig header to the top of this article. Any other ideas? -- Chuq 23:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Question of Timing
So if the Normans had left on time and arrived at England before the Vikings, the Normans would have probably lost and the Vikings would have come upon a weakened English army and probably won?Cameron Nedland 14:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps not, as the Bretons who comprised by some estimates over a third of William's army were adept at overcoming shield walls (see Battle of Jengland in 851). Also, the Breton leader Count Alan Rufus, whose father Eudon was a maternal first cousin of Edward the Confessor, was by some accounts also the commander of the Norman rear-guard. (It's a fact that he later commanded William's royal household knights.) Wace wrote of Alan and his men doing "great damage" to the English, a statement supported by Geoffrey Gaimar. The Domesday book records assert that both King William and Count Alan obtained 28 manors from Earl Gyrth's estates, so it's quite plausible that Alan aided William in the moment that Gyrth and his men attempted to slay the Duke. Had William perished, Alan was in position to take command of the army and, upon victory, claim the throne for his father. That the Bretons and their company were, contrary to William of Poitiers' jaundiced account, instrumental in the outcome, is also evident from Harold moving his command post east, away from the attacking forces on the left wing led by Alan's brother Count Brian of Brittany and Viscount Aimery IV of Thouars (in Poitou, the capital county of Aquitaine). This is why the Flemish on the right wing reached Harold first. It should also be remembered that the Normans and Norwegians were working in tandem: Tostig Godwinson, whose wife Judith of Flanders was related to both William and Alan, had met William to plan strategy earlier in the year. That said, it's an interesting question what would have happened had the Normans defeated Harold before the Norwegians landed? Would William and Harald Hardrada have had a showdown? Or would they have partitioned England, as William had reputedly offered Harold Godwinson? Zoetropo (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Offering the throne to Eudon might well have been the smart move for the Witan to make, as it would have made William's invasion infeasible, and indefensible even with a Papal blessing. The Bretons were, as William well knew, quite friendly with many of the people of England, of whom they regarded at least the Cornish and Cumbrians as kin. Observe too that Alan retained an unusually large number of Englishmen (and some women), including some who had fought for Harold at Hastings and survived. His Yorkshire lands firmly excluded Normans but retained many Anglo-Danes and Cumbrians, some of whom were promoted to tenants-in-chief and given additional properties. Other indications of affection between Alan and the English include the love Gunhild Harold's daughter bore for him, and the adoption of the name "Alan" for heirs of the exiled Earl Gospatric. In the Rebellion of 1088, which involved most of the Norman barons, Alan, one of the few loyal magnates, allied with the still-active English fyrd and they won comprehensively on land and at sea. It was 1066 in reverse. Christopher Clarkson claimed that in the following year Alan persuaded William II to call England's first Parliament. Moreover, in 1091 when William II invaded Normandy, his army included many English. As a further pointer to where England would have headed, had it had a Breton king instead of a Norman or an Angevin, Alan's successors were prominent among those who bore the brunt of the fight against King John. I think there are good reasons why many of the tales of King Arthur and Robin Hood are connected with Alan and his later relatives such as the Earls of Huntingdon: they show, in subtle but memorable ways, where their sympathies lay. Zoetropo (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Correct date for the Death of King Harold
In this article it states under "Conquests of England" that King Harold is killed at the Battle of Stamford Bridge on September 25th, yet if you scroll down to where the Battle of Hastings is mentioned it states that Harold is killed in the closing hours of this battle on September 14th. I was wondering what the correct answer to this is. 72.76.156.135 03:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)5/3/2007


 * It probably refers to King HarAld (Harald Hardrada, the invading Norwegian king) who was killed at Stamford bridge, rather than King HarOld (Harold Godwinson, the defending English king).Cyta 08:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Legacy
An analysis section like Legacy should contain citations from reliable sources, because such sections present a POV that others will disagree with and almost always fall foul of WP:OR.

"The Norman conquest was the last successful conquest of England.." what about Henry Tudor was that a Welsh conquest of England? From the Wikipedia article:
 * he landed with a largely French and Scottish force in Mill Bay, Pembrokeshire, and marched into England, accompanied by his uncle, Jasper Tudor, and the experienced John de Vere, 13th Earl of Oxford. Wales had traditionally been a Yorkist stronghold, and Henry owed the support he gathered to his ancestry, being directly descended, through his father, from the Lord Rhys. He amassed an army of around 5,000 soldiers and travelled north.

What about the less well known invasion by Prince Louis during the First Barons' War (not a long term success, but similar to the Glorious Revolution which is mentioned)? What about the Scottish invasion during the Second Bishops' War it was a successful invasion and it could be argued that it had a profound affect on England as it was a direct precursor the English Civil War and all that followed. -- (Although this is fun I would not include any of this in the section unless there was a reliable source to back the points).

The trouble with "The Norman conquest was the last successful conquest of England." it is the sort of historical analysis presented in England to primary school children. Like the French Revolution being "revolting peasants" or the English Civil War being a "class war" (as Hill wrote). When one looks at it in more detail the simple analysis of such statements lead to inaccuracies. Much better to expand the meaning of the words "successful conquest" so that it is clear that the Norman conquest had a more profound and long lasting affect on the English nation than any other subsequent invasion of England. Philip Baird Shearer 12:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say that the Roman invasion was more significant than the Norman, which is just a convenient period when scholars begin to have a clear picture of events. Also, the Norman dynasty is what the Royals ever since have claimed descent from.  Even now, we hearken to the Romano-British and the country is called "Great Britain".  Are not all Britons?  68.110.8.21 06:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Delisted
In order to uphold the quality of Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. Unfortunately, as of September 10, 2007, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAC. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GA/R. The article currently has very few inline citations, even after the notice nearly a year ago from Agne. Since inline citations are a requirement of the GA criteria, I have delisted the article at this time. There is also a banner underneath one of the sections that is requesting inline citations as well. It would also be beneficial if the second image had a license added to it, as it is currently missing one. Again, if you address these issues and check the article against the rest of the GA criteria, consider renominating the article at WP:GAC. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article's history to reflect this review. Regards, Nehrams2020 23:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Cultural Genocide
Any chance that the article can touch on the ramifications of this battle and how it led to the total destruction of indigenous cultural heritage? Perhaps a mention could be made of how places of worship, centres of great learning and cultural traditions were burnt out of both society and its psyche by the mailed fist of the invader, how speaking the native language was punished by whipping, sometimes even to death? Twobells (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That would probably be the legend of the Norman yoke. Man vyi (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Last Conquest?
"It has an iconic role in English national identity as the last successful foreign conquest of England."

What about the glorious revolution, it is listed as an "invasion of england" surely there isn't some technicality that allows it not to be classed as a conquest too, and therefore the last conquest of england was a mere 320 years ago.

I have removed the line until it is resolved.

Noman coat of arms
Does anyone posess a coat of arms for the house of normandy? Please contact me at my talk page! I would be so grateful! --Cameron (t|p|c) 15:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistencies and poor research Norman Invasion
I have edited this article because it quotes post 18th century sources, is inconsistent in its sources and provides information that is pure supposition based upon post 18th century documents which have no proven validity when taken in their original meaning. This article should therefore be delisted permanently because supposition is not the basis for historical research or statements. The article stated that the Normans landed at Pevensey. This is not proven and English Heritage who own Pevensey Castle where popular belief is the Normans landed do not list it as a credit to either the castle or the area, indeed there is no evidence that Pevensey was involved in the Invasion other than Wace's confirmation that the Normans visited the unmanned castle the second day after the landing at Hastings.

The author of this article has quoted items from Wace (prefabricated fort) yet ignored the evidence in Wace that the landing was at Hastings. The author has quoted Poitiers statement that he "believed they landed at Pevensey" but has not clarified what Pevensey was - the area of land between Pevensey Castle and Dover Castle a huge expanse of land encompassing Hastings - hence at least six other sources other than Poitiers confirming the landing at Hastings. Poitiers cannot be quoted as a correct source when the bulk of evidence is against it.

This article ignores recent research (Secrets of the Norman Invasion) which has not been countered by historical or archaeological proof and is seeking to reinstate the Victorian view of what happened at the Norman Invasion quoting supposition. No-one knows how many horses were used. No-one has eve=r found any specially designed horse transports and the Bayeaux Tapestry specificly shows no special transports yet this has been added as fact which I strongly dissagree is not how history should be recorded.

I would like to know the source of the promise to bring horse, weapons, and armour in return for lands and title comes from before accepting such a statement. Whilst I do not know of this document it looks like supposition to me but accept that it may be reinstated if documentary proof from the period is available.

I would like to know where the source comes from which confirms that William recruited soldiers from the Low Countries and Germany. Whilst I do not know this document from the period it looks like supposition to me but accept that it may be reinstated if documentary proof from the period is available.

Wace is the only source to confirm a prefabricated castle so why ignore the rest of the 10,000 line document - if you are going to ignore that information you also need to remove the prefabricated fort claim.

There is no evidence that shows that William won the battle because of his cavalry and archers. Indeed Wace makes the point that the horses were useless because Harold put stakes across the field - poor research and selective missquoting on an extremely important National Curriculum history subject.

Ogmium (talk) 08:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

A point of semantics
Merely a point of semantics, but in the opening paragraph, the Norman conquest is stated to have begun in 1066 AD. At the end of the paragraph, the writer continues "The conquest changed the English language and culture and set the stage for a rivalry with France that would continue intermittently for the next millennium." Since a millennium lasts one thousand years, that would mean the conflict is yet to continue for another fifty eight years, which nobody can be certain of. Perhaps the statement could be replaced with something more accurate such as "that would continue intermittently until the present day." (Or some variation of such.)

59.167.141.127 (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Map Accuracy
The outline map showing England in the 11th Century is incorrect and merely the outline of modern day England. Would someone like to correct this please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.232.195 (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the map is quite good. However, is there a way of changing the spelling of the town where William got the final surrender? It should be "Berkhamsted" not "Berkhamstead". I would welcome any advice on how to do this. (Brixtonboy (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC))

The map is quite good for the 21st Century I suppose but in 1066 Cumberland, parts of Westmoreland and Cornwall had yet to be absorbed into what would become England indeed, small parts of modern day Wales constituted part of the kingdoms controlled by Edwin and Harold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.75.132 (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Religious and Cultural Genocide?
Odd, where in the article is a piece on the impact the Invasion had on traditional religion, culture and language? On how priests were massacred up and down the country, their Churches burnt; centre's of learning destroyed and vast libraries razed to the ground in an attempt at cultural genocide? The article reads more like the Norman invasion was some sort of beneficial UN-sponsored program than the horrors of the reality, very poor indeed. Twobells (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you've got the references to back up your claims, go ahead and include them in the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is wiki article called Harrowing of the North, I'll link to that. Twobells (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * History is written by the winners, and in this case the winners have been winning for the past 900 years. They are so good at it, we don't even think of them as winners anymore (or remember that the loosers were probably us). I wonder what the "ordinary" English (if they still exist) thought of the Channel 4 historical drama "1066: The Battle for Middle Earth". Meowy 13:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Those terms are much more appropriate for the Anglo-Saxon conquest of Britain rather than the Norman conquest of England.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 17:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

In a way both were religious and cultural genocide ,Ευπάτωρ ''' undefined, AS conquered Britain ,but making contact with the Latin world,they changed religion,adopted Latin alphabet,imported a lot of latinian words et cetera,it is the famous "Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit et artes intulit agresti Latio" effect. --Graecia capta (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree before Normans arrival there was still the possibility of mutual understanding between the English and other Germanic peoples.After Normans this possibility disappeared.Istead the Anglo-Saxon conquest of Britain more gradual,get a look at Germanization of the Roman Empire and Belgian immigration towards british isles (at that time the Belgians were a Germanic people,located in an area +- corresponding to Belgium/north east France/ south central Holland) pre,during,and after roman conquest of Britannia.It s an evidence that there was already migrations from North West Germany to GB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moqq (talk • contribs) 12:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mutual understanding or mutual intelligibility? Belgians are a combination Dutch/Flanders speakers in the north and French/Walloons in the south. CromwellH (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that he is speaking of Belgium of Roman period... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dng23 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

William's Luck, Determination and Skill
William was extremely ambitious and determined to win the English throne. His army included many skilled knights, using well-crafted weapons. He himself possessed enormous talent, skill and bravado. William also had a great deal of good luck, such as; The weather getting worse, and him not being able to cross the channel until Harold had left Hastings to fight Hardraada. (All by chance!) William was a strong and purposeful man who used some clever tricks, and good fortune, to seize the throne for his own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.252.175 (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The use of the word "Knight" can not really be employed to the Normans, Knight stems from the Old English word "Cnigt" so is not really applicable to the Normans until AFTER the conquestEnglish n proud (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a mite too technical, because we don't exclude French or Spanish soldiers from being "knights" on linguistic grounds. Instead it's understood that the term is modern English for an ancient concept of which the Roman equestrian order is yet another example. Incidentally, the Norman and Breton soldiers reminded some onlookers of Romans because of similar equipment: in the Bretons' case at least, this was for good historical reasons. Zoetropo (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

"Norman yoke"-style soccer-stadium "history"
''Tens of thousands of Anglo-Saxons ultimately found Norman domination unbearable and emigrated. The main destinations were Scotland and the Byzantine Empire.'' No citations for this new section, needless to say. I'd tag it, but tagging has developed trashy connotations. --Wetman (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Reads like a Victorian-era history, wonder if it's lifted from Edward Freeman? This article is slowly rising on my to-do list... sooner or later. There's just so much literature to read on the subject... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just reading the article and wondering about exactly that same "tens of thousands" statement, and what could possibly be the source for it. Whatever other improvement might be made in the article, that really sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb. I would suggest at least emending it to "Some ..." :) since that seems a bit safer that than the (surely unsupportable) "tens of thousands" .... Carlsefni (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"Scotland was the first country officially to speak English"
Any citation on that? Appears to contradict History of the English language ("Since it was used for legal, political, religious and other intellectual purposes, Old English...") and doesn't seem to sit easily with the timeline for Old French, either throughout a united England (927) or even to the predecessor kingdoms (define "country"?). Regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 02:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Map
I made a new version of the map for the Norwegian Wikipedia which can easily be edited for other languages, as I exported it to a SVG file. You might be aware that there is a text error the current english GIF version in this article. --FinnWiki (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the text error on the current map? Keith D (talk) 12:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Harold's legitimacy and coronation by Ealdred/Stigand - proposed edit for NPOV
The current paragraph on Harold's legitimacy and who presided over Harold's coronation does not have a NPOV. It also cites the ASC as evidence that Ealdred presided while in fact all versions of the chronicle are silent on the matter, although John of Worcester names Ealdred.

I propose the following if no one objects:

Edward was succeeded by the Earl of Wessex, Harold Godwinson (King Harold II), the richest and most powerful of the English aristocracy. Harold claimed to have been nominated by Edward on his deathbed and he was elected king by the Witenagemot of England. Norman sources claimed he was consecrated by Stigand, the uncanonically elected Archbishop of Canterbury, while English sources say Archbishop Ealdred of York presided.

Ceola (talk) 11:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I am the one who put in the citations for the Walker and the Higham works, but I did NOT add the ASC cite, it was there when I started adding citations to the already existing text. We really need to cite the secondary authorities, not the primary sources here, so it'd be better to find secondary sources rathter than William of Poitiers and the ASC. I think the proposed wording may present a too-start contrast between the Norman and English sources, because as you note, the ASC, which is often decidedly pro-English at points, really doesn't say who did the coronation. But otherwise, it's a good start. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Were the northern earls (in particular Edwin and Morcar) present at the Witenagemot that elected Harold? Zoetropo (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Map
Please ask if you think want the replacement map I've done to be altered in any way, it's easily done. Hel-hama (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You do maps???? (looks hopeful) It looks pretty good except it's not "saxon earls" ... I think it would be best to say "English leaders submit" at Berkhampsted. Harold didn't defeat the Danes at Stamford - he defeated Harald and Tostig. You can also just say "Stigand" instead of "Archbishop of Canterbury"... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Hel-hama (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Infobox
Nev1 deleted this infobox, arguing that "an infobox is not always helpful and since this one shrinks the lead image I'd say this is one of them". Well, I don't see what's wrong about the Infobox and why the lead image couldn't be fixed. I think this infobox has a great educative value and improves the article.DITWIN GRIM (talk) 07:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes, IMHO, are over-rated generally and I can take or leave. But there does seem something odd about having the map alone by the lead rather than in the body of the article. I don't know whether there's something in the style guide that prohibits images other than infobox images in the lead - but you certainly don't see it very much. DeCausa (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The map can remain in the body of the article and be replaced by a picture of the Bayeux Tapestry, by example. DITWIN GRIM (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I"m pretty much opposed to any infobox on this article - I'm not opposed to them completely, but an infobox on this article would be entirely too simplistic for an event that took place over a long period of time and that was not nearly as simple as the infobox implies. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The purpose of an infobox is to simplify a complex event. If events as complex as the First and Second World Wars have been successfully summarized in an infobox, why couldn't we do the same with the Norman conquest of England? Your help to improve the infobox is welcome.DITWIN GRIM (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The purpose of an article is to inform - infobox isn't needed. I should point out that the proposed infobox is inaccurate also - the Conquest lasted longer than 1066 ... as the article makes clear. It simplifies it down to a military conflict, but there is more the Conquest than the battles in 1066 - it extended easily to 1075 at least, and arguably until the mid 1100s in some respects. I've seen some folks argue that the Conquest didn't end until 1204 or even later... who chooses the end dates? Using an infobox that concentrates on conflicts/battles is simplifying a complex subject. What the WWI and WWII articles choose to do isn't germane to this article ... Both Nev1 and I oppose using an infobox here and the article passed GA without one, which argues quite conclusively that the reviewer didn't see a need for one either. As an aside - who decides who the "commanders" are? I disagree that Morcar or Edwin or Odo were "commanders" - and you've left off Sweyn of Denmark, who played a role later in the conflict. Nor did the Flemings or the inhabitants of Maine take a serious part in the conflict - why list them? Was it a Norman victory? On one view, yes it was, but that's a way simplification of the conflict - in the end, the Normans were basically absorbed into the native population and ended up thinking of themselves as "English". The subject is entirely too complex to be reduced to an infobox. If folks want the summary version - that's what the lede is for. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * With a bit of good will, all the informations/corrections, that you've pointed out here, could be added/corrected in the infobox.DITWIN GRIM (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have all the goodwill in the world, but it's still a simplification of a complex subject. Better to just read the lede, than to be inaccurate/too simplistic with an infobox. It's that simple to me. I edit a LOT in this subject area - I'm very familiar with the scholarship and the sources. I'm not "anti-infobox" in all instances, just in this instance. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that an infobox here is not a good idea - it over-simplifies matters, and in this instance doesn't add value to the lead. I think infoboxes have their place (and many of the GAs that I have written use an infobox, in fact) but I don't think it helps here. BencherliteTalk 14:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ditto, I've used infoboxes in some contexts, but I wouldn't recommend one here. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The last English rebellion of William I's reign was in 1071, and this led to Edwin's death and Morcar's final fall from grace. The Revolt of the Earls in 1075 was led by a Norman and a Breton for obscure personal reasons. The next big rebellion in England was in 1088, by the majority of Norman barons as a reaction to their loss of influence at William II's Royal Court; in a nice turn of events, the English sided with the King and helped him to suppress his fellow Normans. English soldiers subsequently participated in his 1091 invasion of Normandy, and later in the conquest of Normandy by Henry I. Sometimes what comes around, goes around. Zoetropo (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

English emigration
"Following the conquest, large numbers of Anglo-Saxons, including groups of nobles, fled the country.[56] Many chose to flee to Scotland, Ireland, and Scandinavia.[57] Members of King Harold Godwinson's family sought refuge in Ireland and used those bases for unsuccessful invasions of England.[58] The largest single exodus occurred in the 1070s when a group of Anglo-Saxons in a fleet of 235 ships sailed for the Byzantine Empire.[57] The empire became a popular destination for many English nobles and soldiers as it would have been known that the Byzantines were in need of mercenaries.[56] The English became the predominant element in the elite Varangian Guard, hitherto a largely Scandinavian unit, from which the emperor's bodyguard was drawn.[59] Some of the English migrants were settled in Byzantine frontier regions on the Black Sea coast and established towns with names such as "New London" and "New York".[56]

I have to say, this chauvinistic fabricated section made me laugh heartly.

I've never read in any history book or on the internet, and that's allot of books and sites, where it says: "many or any Anglo-Saxons fleed to Scandinavia" after Hastings lol. And seriously.. "englishmen was the predominant element" in the varangian guard lol? 235 ships set sail for byz emp. lol? I would've belived something like 23, instead someone thought: oh No, it's to few, we HAVE to make it look like the Norman dogs totally de-populated and scared off the britons who fleed with 235 ships to the Byzantine Emp...

What's next? the Normans won the Battle of Hastings with Dragons and trolls hmm?...

--Byzantios (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC);
 * The bracketed numbers are reliable sources citations. More convincing than your semi-literate post. DeCausa (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It's segments of like those quoted above, made with clearly biased sources that's made the academic world shunned wikipedia as a reliable source of information. And the so called "reliable sources" you present, look like they came from something like Snow White and the Seven Dwarves and doesn't make your claim more reliable or vaild for that mather, it just says you got a bunch of links/references to biased sources approved as "reliable sources" for wikipedia.

--Byzantios (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You haven't shown how any source is biased or unreliable. I haven't read that much on the subject, but I've read enough to recall that historians note that William of Malmesbury recorded the flight of the English aristocracy to Denmark and Ireland, and that Saxo Grammaticus recorded that two sons and a daughter of Harold Godwinsson fled to the Danish court. Maybe someone can find a way to squeeze this wlink into the 'emigration' section somehow: New England (medieval)? Or maybe in the 'see also' section?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The sources look fine to me. The Osprey book may be considered borderline, but then the sourced fact (that the Varangian Guard became very anglo-saxon after Hastings) is widely known and hence not exceptional. IIRC, it's both in Ostrogorsky's "History of the Byzantine State" and in Norwich's "The Normans in the South". Cigaar is an established author published by a good academic publisher. The same is true for Huscroft. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It's just nationalist trolling. (The implication that the Anglo-Saxon presence in the Varangians is British propaganda is quite amusing here: but the trouble is the obsessions of this type of user have defaced so many of our Balkan articles.) No critique of the sources has been provided. Can be safely ignored. DeCausa (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Sadly the above commentator appear to be completely oblivious(?) that everyone can read on the talk page above what i wrote and compare with DeCausa's selective implications.

Further more it is obviously he's not off a non-NPOV and wants to obscure questioning about the article's bias (for unknown reasons) which is not suitable for articles or Wikipedia, nor for the article's progression, instead of discussing the subject in progressivly way.

It's allsow interesting to note about the "nationalism trolling", as i myself mentioned this earlier that the article is ridded with seemingless non-NPOV chauvinism.

--Byzantios (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

"practice of the Fore-mother" not explained anywhere
The text "Germanic practice of the Fore-mother was brought by the Anglo-Saxons" appears in the "Women's rights" section and many other places on the interenet. But searching the internet fails to turn up any attempt at describing what this means. Nor is the expresion "fore-mother" in any english language dictionsry. So the term "fore-mother" needs an explanation, or it should not be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.154.171 (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In the absence of such an explanation, it's not clear how something similar to this would be a Germanic practice. Modern Jews trace their ancestry matrilineally, but the House of Wessex was patrilineal. There is some evidence that, in certain periods (notably in its last several generations), the Mercian monarchy was matrilineal, but in this Mercia seems quite exceptional. Zoetropo (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasons
MoS says not to use seasons as time markers because seasons are dependent on where in the world you live. We have many readers who live in parts of the world where the seasons are the reverse of those in the temperate northern latitudes. We also have many who live in areas where there are effectively no seasons. If the season is important to a military campaign (and obviously I accept this is true), we need to reference this to a source (eg "they attacked in the spring to get the benefit of the good weather"). It isn't good enough to just talk lazily and vaguely about (northern) seasons. --John (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've already replied on your talk page. And made a compromise edit that hopefully meets with your approval (I believe we had this clash with William the Conqueror also - sometimes we just can't pin things down and the sources assume that you know that it is important to know when the campaigning season is. Historians assume that when you're reading about a military campaign you're smart enough to know why the seasons are important - it's like knowing the sky is blue. They aren't going to state why they are making a point of mentioning the season.) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd echo Ealdgyth's comment. WP:SEASON is a good feature of the wiki, but there are limitations when applying it to narratives based on medieval sources. Reliable professional academics certainly deploy seasonal references, because of the chronicler sources involved. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, I understand your points. Two responses from me; it may not be as "sky is blue" as you think, even with an exclusively parochial northern hemisphere temperate audience (which we don't have); try asking a sample of people when a season begins and ends. You'll be surprised by the variation of answers you will get. This would extend back to whatever period your chroniclers are writing in; alternatively, if there was a universally accepted definition of "spring" at a particular period and we can reference it without synthesising from the sources, then we should always do so. Second response is this; whenever I hear people use the "sky is blue", I recall that I have seen our Earth sky be pink, orange and red; and the sky on Mars is usually tawny-coloured. If we were writing for an audience that included a lot of Martians, we couldn't and shouldn't assume that the sky was always blue for everyone. Sorry for the long response on a fairly minor (but I believe important) point of MoS. --John (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to add even more to it, but imagine a European or North American reader reading an Indian resource that referred to an event taking place in "the monsoon season of 1793". Would you find that satisfactory? --John (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't disagree about the importance of avoiding the "sky is blue" problem - and generally, I'd fall on that side of that camp. If original sources from any region are imprecise, though, perhaps seasonal or similar, the same problems creep in in trying to convert them to the standards of a modern, international encyclopedia. It has been ages since I did any early Indian history (so, err, please don't ask me for any sources!) but from what I recall, there are similar issues with Vedic period texts, for example. As ever, we have to fall back on reliable, top quality secondary sources - and sometimes they'll have to fall back on seasonal descriptions. I believe that the best we can do in some circumstances is providing footnotes to explain why. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I would find "the monsoon season of 1793" to be satisfactory, as I know what a monsoon is, and that they're seasonal, just as I know what a winter is. Eric   Corbett  19:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * LIkewise, I know what a monsoon is and that they vary timing by where they are. I guess it's just that I'm more used to having to have knowledge of things or going out and actually looking for something if it doesn't make sense to me, rather than expecting the world to conform to my POV. Your milage may vary and I certainly don't mind trying to conform to WP:SEASON as much as possible, but we shouldn't be inaccurate to the sources just to fulfill some MOS guideline that allows for exceptions anyway. But... that's neither here nor there... does the compromise I instituted work? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * We definitely shouldn't be inaccurate to the sources, but strive to be as accurate as possible using the sources, while remaining as intelligible as possible to a wide audience who may legitimately not know exactly when spring is in the northern hemisphere. I don't exactly know when spring comes any particular year in Scotland; as our article says, "There are various technical definitions of spring, but local usage of the term varies according to local climate, cultures and customs. When it is spring in the northern hemisphere, it will be autumn in the southern hemisphere." I do know what a monsoon is too, but I'd rather the hypothetical Indian author had said "the monsoon season, in June 1793" (if rainfall was important to the context) or just "June 1793" (if it wasn't). WP:SEASON is not just about jumping through a hoop; it's an ethical consideration. We are writing for people in Kenya and Pakistan where there are no seasons as such, and also in New Zealand and South Africa where our seasons are reversed. For this article, we should definitely say when chronologically using a universally understood term like "August", and then the season and its importance. It will be easy to source that the invasion could not have taken place during the stormy autumn months. For instances like coronations, this wouldn't be necessary. --John (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * the people in lands that lack seasons are reading this article for information, and if they never learn about how important seasons are in England they will not understand English history. Let's not treat them as stupid, please. Rjensen (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Landing dates
There are two errors regarding William's landing: although the article gives a date of 28 September, the map in the lead places it on the 26th, and the lead itself says that at the time of the Battle of Stamford Bridge on 25 September "William had meanwhile landed in southern England". Waltham, The Duke of 13:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Map is wrong. The date of William's landing is pretty well established - Bates William the Conqueror p. 89 has it on the morning of 28 September 1066. Walker Harold p. 151 has it 28 September 1066. Huscroft Ruling England p. 13 has it 28 September 1066. Stenton Anglo-Saxon England p. 591 has it 28 September 1066 (He even gives a time - "At nine in the morning of Thursday 28 September the fleet entered Pevensey bay, and the army disembarked at leisure on tan undefended shore."). Not sure how to change the map. I've slightly corrected the lead. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've corrected the map, may take a few hours for the wiki system to catch up though. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The new image doesn't look too good to me; there's a missing space and another line goes right through the text. I'll download the previous image and make the change again. Eric  Corbett  23:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ... which I've now done. Eric   Corbett  23:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you both. I know it's silly that a photographer sucks so bad at actual graphic editing, but there it is. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * SVGs are a bit strange sometimes, given WP's tempremental rendering engine. Eric   Corbett  00:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think that the date in the text was wrong, but I had to ask. Thank you for the swift response. Waltham, The Duke of 10:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Women's rights
I find this section unclear.

''Women had some rights before the Norman Conquest that they had lost by about 1100, continuing a trend that began after the Danish invasion of the early 11th century, and in particular through King Cnut's revision of laws. They may have lost the right to consent to marriage, for example, and widows the right to remarry. The Norman kings distinguished between aristocrats and commoners, and a woman's place in her life-cycle, in general, brought some changes in opportunities. Widows could remarry (even if they could not always consent to whom they were remarried) and, in general, control property in ways that married women and maidens could not. The greatest rights were generally available to women with access to land.''

May have? Life-cycle? Widows could or could not remarry? -John (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This "tidbit" was left over from stuff previously in the article. I'll try to sort it out ... as soon as I figure out what it is trying to say. (I really dislike parts of the whole "feminist studies" movement - they are as bad as businessmen for writing opaque prose). Ealdgyth - Talk 17:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've revamped this, and integrated it into the "Society" section. There is no longer a belief that women enjoyed a "golden age" of freedom under the Anglo-Saxons that was crushed under the Normans - this view has lost all traction with historians who now think differently, so I've revised accordingly. Check it over please? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Better, and clearer. --John (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Distance
Stamford Bridge to Hastings is much more than 200 miles, in fact it is almost 300 miles. --John (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I cannot get it below 257 miles using Gmaps. --John (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah. I see the difficulty. It's 200 some miles from Stamford Bridge to LONDON. Harold went to London first, then on to Hastings. Clarifying. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That makes more sense. Thanks for the correction. --John (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * SB -> London =198 miles.--John (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

etymology of "conquest"
Ealdgyth, please explain your reversion of my edit and why you think it is "utterly irrelevant". The etymology of the term "Norman conquest" is relevant to this article, and I backed up the statement I inserted with a reference. Count Truthstein (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * YOu backed it up with a 250 year old reference to Blackstone. If it was an important part of scholarly study of the subject, it'd be mentioned modern studies. It's not. Without mention in modern reliable secondary sources - what Blackstone thought about the possibility of the conquest being not a conquest as we mean it today (which, quite honestly, is pretty much silly - there was plenty of fighting and conquesting going on in the Norman conquest of England) is irrelevant to this article. No modern scholar discusses such a possibility of "conquest" meaning something different than gaining something by military means, so we can't include it. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Being 250 years old does not make it an unreliable source. Are you saying that what he said was wrong, i.e. that "conquest" has changed in meaning? Even it is absent in modern sources (which would be hard to prove), this does not negate what older sources have said.
 * The etymology of the term "Norman Conquest" is indeed probably not relevant to the study of the conquest itself (that's a study of history rather than of language). What I added was not meant to say that it wasn't a conquest (in the modern sense) or that there was no fighting involved. But I think it's certainly interesting and worth mentioning that the phrase "Norman Conquest" (a common name in English for this event) originally meant something else from what it means today.
 * An illustration: Saying that the name "Ethelred the Unready" didn't mean at the time that Ethelred was unready, but that he was ill-advised doesn't say whether he was unready or not. 00:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But you haven't proved that modern scholars think that the name "Norman Conquest" meant something different. "Aethelred the Unready" isn't a good example ... because every biography written recently discusses the fact that the common "nickname" is not correct, that it really meant "unrede" which meant "ill-counseled". No such discussions take place about "Norman Conquest" in modern sources. So we can cover the fallacy of Aethelred's nickname but without modern secondary sources we cannot discuss "Norman Conquest" in the same way. The sources just do not exist. It might be interesting in an history of the word conquest - but it has no bearing on this article or it's subject matter. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Morever - my edition of the Oxford English Dictionary gives the "acquire by force of arms" meaning a dating of at least 1297 - so it's clear that the military meaning is just as old as the plain "acquire by effort" meaning. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with Ealdgyth that this doesn't belong here, interesting though it is. --John (talk) 05:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with John and Ealdgyth. I haven't seen this discussed by modern scholars writing on this topic. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the source again this is referring to the title of "William the Conqueror" rather than the name "Norman Conquest" - the later may have originated with a different meaning but it's less certain given what I've seen in the sources. I will post my reply to the above at Talk:William_the_Conqueror. Count Truthstein (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's still not discussed in modern biographies or studies of William either. I did most of the editing for William's article - they don't discuss this. You need modern sources that discuss this possibility - and I can tell you that the most common modern scholarly biographies - Douglas' William the Conqueror, Bates' William the Conqueror, Barlow's various on the period, Bartlett's England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings, Huscroft's Ruling England, Clanchy's England and its Rulers, Huscroft's The Norman Conquest, Chibnall's Anglo-Norman England, Stenton's Anglo-Saxon England, Rex's various works on the period, Williams' various works on the period, Thomas' The Norman Conquest, nor any of the recent military histories of the battles or the conquest - do not discuss this. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Blackstone's centuries-old analysis of English law terms is not relevant to this article about successful military invasion and conquest. The two topics are worlds apart. What I find especially irritating is the manner in which it was presented as "modern English" with only the 1753 cite to support the assertion. Binksternet (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To be fair, "modern English" was a reference to the current meaning of the word so that's not an issue. But I agree that Blackstone is not an WP:RS for this. It seems like a piece of 18th century antiquarianism which seems likely to be baseless given that no modern writers have taken up the point. But, if it were supported by modern scholarship it would be worth mentioning. DeCausa (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)