GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-08 > 1156637306


From: "A DesCartes" <>
Subject: Re: #7 Re: [DNA] `Ultra-Norse`..who is making up this stuff? / Normandy study
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 20:08:26 -0400
References: <e468a0040608251738v66686371kc63abc0c0f8dba84@mail.gmail.com> <004201c6c8be$cccb8830$86139a8e@PeterAKincaid> <e468a0040608260728w4751e92dg1aa89d67db015c77@mail.gmail.com> <REME20060826170552@alum.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <REME20060826170552@alum.mit.edu>


On 8/26/06, John Chandler <> wrote:
>
>
> History shows that the Normans were, and continued to be, wielders of
> SWORDS, not of PLOWSHARES. If Normandy had truly been depopulated,
> as you suggest, there would have been no one to grow the food to feed
> the province. I could also point to the linguistic evidence, which
> shows a rapid assimilation into the French background. There can be
> no doubt at all that the bulk of the population of Normandy was little
> changed by the Norman incursion.





Not at all accurate. Who grew the crops in Scandinavia? Local
peasant farmers did.
How did the romans survive when they campaigned accross Gaul? Yes, if
they were able under certain circumstances they could be resupplied by Sea,
and they had some provisions in base camps, but the prime reason that
`campaign season` was summer/fall only in temperate Gaul, was THAT WAS WHEN
THE CROPS WERE IN THE FIELD.. ``History shows`` that Normandy was
a STRATIFIED society, with peasants, clergy and nobles. If I am looking to
make a settlement as opposed to raid (which was the case in this instance),
and I have a burgeoning population at home that I am looking to find room
for (which was the impetus for colonization), I sail the few days to
Normandy at HARVEST TIME, seize the place, enjoy the crops that are already
havested and stockpiled for the winter, take it easy till next spring,
instead of shivering malnourished up `north`, and then send my peasants to
work for spring planting doing the same thing they had done for me in `sweet
home Scandinavia`. If the Romans could figure how to build their
campaigning season around the exploitation of the locals crops, I strongly
doubt the thought never occured to the Normans.


> (As to your concerns about the logistics of the re-population of the small
> > province of Normandy following its conquest, an analogy- when Louis
> settled
> > what is today Canada, a massive region, he did so with appox. 10,000
> adult
> > French. 300 years later, today, there are Six Million French
> Canadians.)
>
> That's no analogy at all. Despite the colorful escapades of the
> "voyageurs" and the allure of getting rich in the fur trade, the
> main occupation of the Canadian immigrants was intensive
> agriculture, which sustained a heavy population growth and which
> destroyed the ecological niche occupied by the sparse indigenous
> population.


I am not seeking to promote or even address the period of colonization- the
notion was offered that the logistics of moving people to Normandy from
Scandinavia (a few days journey for an already sea-faring people) would have
prevented the Normans from establishing their own people in Normandy in
sufficient quantity to affect population. Canada in months journey from
France and the St. Laurence is only open for FOUR months out on the year!
My point was not related to the canabalistic Iroqouis natives (read about
Father isaac Jogues treatment having his fingers eaten-off as he
watched) before you lament the passing of the ``indigenous ecological
niche``.
My point is that Scandinavians were on the move because of their own
population explosion. The idea that they risked depopulating their homeland
or couldnt fit enough of them inot their boats...come on, give me a
break!!! I think its entirely plausible tha the meager I1a their today is
NOT indicative that it was not their before- but an explanation that they
couldnt fit enough of `em into the boats?..;)


> After years of violent raids throughout Europe in which they were dreaded
by
> all, I dont think logic allows that the natives stayed around in hopes of
> benevolent masters once the Normandy province was itself taken by Viking
> forces.

You've got it backwards. Once the Viking forces had a stake in the
province, the raids there stopped. This is an early example of the
"protection" racket.


John Chandler


We know for a fact that the Normans actually expanded their holdings to
include neighboring provinces, populated by locals- IN LATER YEARS. If you
knew people were coming who killed everyone they encountered and had done so
time and again, you be either organizing to fight them or running for the
hills. The Gauls did not fight, but ceded the territory, so during the
inital settlement, we can reasonably assume which reflex kicked in the old
`fight or flight` response.


==============================
View and search Historical Newspapers. Read about your ancestors, find
marriage announcements and more. Learn more:
http://www.ancestry.com/s13969/rd.ashx

This thread: