Rod Speed said:Some pathetic little gutless pom desperately cowering behind
Bilky White wrote just what you'd expect from a desperately cowering
gutless pom.
Rod said:John Turco wrote
Nar, they never did, just some bastardised form of it.
Blame that on those damned Normans, bloody frogs.
Bilky said:Oh dear. Try moving the "n" to the right.
Oh dear oh dear. How's the cricket going?
Only those of us who aren't chavs.
John Turco said:I was quite aware of your typo...
just as I'd been equally
certain of the puerility of your recent public attacks on Rod Speed.
The only true question is, do you have anything positive, to contribute to
Haven't experienced any problems with crickets, lately. Still, I've spied
a few ants, crawling around the house, this summer.
Oh, so, you >don't< speak English, after all? (In other words, what the
hell
is a "chav," might I ask?)
Rod Speed wrote
Recall, though, that those French invaders from Normandy, had originated
in Scandinavia; thus, they were "bloody Vikings," once upon a time.
Of course, "bloody" always had a more literal meaning,
where the violent Vikes were concerned! <g>
Bilky White wrote
No kiddin', Corky? I was quite aware of your typo...just as I'd been equally
certain of the puerility of your recent public attacks on Rod Speed.
The only true question is, do you have anything positive, to
contribute to <news:comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage>?
Haven't experienced any problems with crickets, lately. Still,
I've spied a few ants, crawling around the house, this summer.
Oh, so, you >don't< speak English, after all? (In other
words, what the hell is a "chav," might I ask?)
John Turco said:The only true question is, do you have anything positive, to contribute to
<
Oooo, I missed that bit. More redundant comas and I'm fairly sure there must be other true questions but FWIW at
least you now know what a chav is. Who knows, you may even be one!
Rod Speed said:Bilky White wrote
Tad unlikely given that there are no councils in the US, ****wit.
Rod said:John Turco wrote
Sure, thats where the word Normans comes from, its a contraction of Norse Men.
And then there's the raping and pillaging in spades.
Their funeral events were a tad over the top too.
Rod Speed wrote
Most Vikings expeditions to Britain (and France, and most other places) were for trade and/or settlement, not for
raids or other violence.
They got their historical reputation because many of their raids were against churches and monasteries, since these
had all the gold.
And since virtually the only people who could write at the time were churchmen and monks, the written history is
severely biased.
I'm not claiming the Vikings purely were a peaceful people
- merely that they were like most others at the time
(they liked to farm good land, make good trades, and steal from people with lots of gold and poor defences).
Most Vikings expeditions to Britain (and France, and most other places)
were for trade and/or settlement, not for raids or other violence. They
got their historical reputation because many of their raids were against
churches and monasteries, since these had all the gold. And since
virtually the only people who could write at the time were churchmen and
monks, the written history is severely biased.
I'm not claiming the Vikings purely were a peaceful people - merely that
they were like most others at the time (they liked to farm good land,
make good trades, and steal from people with lots of gold and poor
defences).
Interesting and entirely credible.
Yea, that was going on for most of human history. The Romans even
build a large empire on that approach, but nobody calls them "bloody".
Possibly related reasons as above.
Rod Speed said:Bilky White wrote
None of those provide housing, .
Jim said:Arno wrote
Nope, he's forgotten about the sagas. They just had an oral tradition instead.
Plenty do the mongols.
For good reasons too, there are STILL massive great piles of skulls
in stone cairns left from some of their most gung ho operations.
The reason the romans dont get called that is because they were quite
happy to absorb those who werent stupid enough to try resisting them.
They could be pretty gung ho tho, have a look at what they did to Boudica sometime.
Nope. There were no written historys of the survivors of the mongols to speak of.
Jim Jones wrote
I haven't forgotten about the sagas.
The sagas (both oral and written) had several purposes. They covered religious stories, they had some real history,
they celebrated famous Vikings, and they were - perhaps
above all else - entertainment. There are plenty of sagas covering wars, battles, and raids - but very little
covering such every day events as trading or farming.
These are things that everyone knew about and would hardly be a subject for a song or a tale at a king's feast.
Just like the British churches' records, the sagas are therefore very biased in the sort of historical information
they provide.
The extent of the Vikings' peaceful (or at least /relatively/ peaceful) dealings in Britain can be seen in the huge
influence they left behind - language, place names, peoples names, culture, and descendants, as well as
archaeological evidence and non-church writings.
I'm slightly confused by what you write here - it reads as though you think the Mongols called the Romans "bloody",
but I'm assuming you meant that the Mongols were another group who have a reputation of being "bloody".
Yes, the Mongols killed a great many people and destroyed a great many cities, and are certainly justly known for
their violence and mercilessness.
It's worth noting, however, that their ruthlessness was sometimes a way to /avoid/ violence - they would totally
obliterate one city in an area, sometimes causing nearby cities to surrender without a fight and therefore with
minimal casualties.
The total killed was then less than it might have been with a more "traditional" approach.
Of course, the Mongols did this because it was easier, not to avoid deaths.
The Romans took full control of many of the areas they conquered, and generally always considered themselves to be a
separate people ruling subject states.
They did not "absorb" other people except as slaves or peasants
(though the longer term subject states gradually became more and more "romanized"). While many countries they
conquered had little
chance against the Roman armies, and arguably benefited from the Roman presence (peace between rival tribes, roads,
law and order, etc.), it was hardly "stupid" to resist them.
Regarding the Romans (and many other people), it is undoubtedly the case that reputations they have now is heavily
influenced by those that wrote records at or around the time -
whether it be the attacking forces, their victims, or third parties.
I think that how historical people and events are perceived, and how and why that perception changes over time, is
often as interesting as the history itself.
Sure.
"History will treat me kindly. I know, for I shall write it".
Winston Churchill.
So what?