Denmark, Muslims, and THOSE cartoons

[depoix 11]

if i remember the vikings lay siege to paris and were given normandy to leave paris alone, the viking leader was king rollo...............i think

[LordChaverly 10]

But they did - the Normans were Viking settlers in France and the French failed miserably to unsettle them - but a certain William saw easier meat across the channel and decided to expand westwards and give the French a respite.

 

Asterix, at least the one I remember, was a Gallic cartoon character tormenting the Romans. Has he now reappeared in Denmark ?

 

Apparently, there was a student who did a PhD on the history of the Vikings in the south of France. He spent three years investigating this, spending his time in the various posh resorts in the region. When he came back, he handed his PhD in and it consisted of just one sentence, viz:

 

'I have found no evidence that the Vikings were ever in the south of France' :hihi:

[timo 10]

Regarding Danish and Norse settlement in Normandy, I am not aware of any recent studies in population genetics. It would be very interesting to determine the extent of Scandinavian genetic input into this part of northern France. Certainly, the visitor to Norman departments will be disappointed if he or she expects to find a predominance of 'Nordish' phenotypal features among the local population. 'Viking' place-names too are minimal. The consensus appears to be that the Danes under Rollo colonised most of Normandy [a smaller Norwegian contingent colonised the Cotentin area of Normandy] as a numerically-small elite class.

 

By the time of the invasion of England in 1066, the Normans [meaning originally 'North Men'] had ceased to be 'sons of the fiords'. Through interbreeding and cultural exchange they had become French, or as some argue, a mixture of Scandinavian, Frankish and Gaulish stock. The invasion itself was never solely 'Norman' anyway, with William's 'Norman' army flanked at Hastings by Flemish and Breton contingents.

 

Many 'Norman' surnames said to have 'come over with the Conqueror', are in fact from other areas of France. For example, Jarvis, Harvey, and Joyce are Breton; Bellamy is Frankish; and Copping, Fleming, and Roche are of Flemish origin.

 

The image of purely 'Viking' Normandy was discredited by historians, philologists and archaeologists a long time ago. Doubtless studies in population genetics shall prove that Rollo's followers were but small in number. Whether this will be warmly received by the Normandy tourist board is a matter for conjecture.

[depoix 11]

Regarding Danish and Norse settlement in Normandy, I am not aware of any recent studies in population genetics. It would be very interesting to determine the extent of Scandinavian genetic input into this part of northern France. Certainly, the visitor to Norman departments will be disappointed if he or she expects to find a predominance of 'Nordish' phenotypal features among the local population. 'Viking' place-names too are minimal. The consensus appears to be that the Danes under Rollo colonised most of Normandy [a smaller Norwegian contingent colonised the Cotentin area of Normandy] as a numerically-small elite class.

 

By the time of the invasion of England in 1066, the Normans [meaning originally 'North Men'] had ceased to be 'sons of the fiords'. Through interbreeding and cultural exchange they had become French, or as some argue, a mixture of Scandinavian, Frankish and Gaulish stock. The invasion itself was never solely 'Norman' anyway, with William's 'Norman' army flanked at Hastings by Flemish and Breton contingents.

 

Many 'Norman' surnames said to have 'come over with the Conqueror', are in fact from other areas of France. For example, Jarvis, Harvey, and Joyce are Breton; Bellamy is Frankish; and Copping, Fleming, and Roche are of Flemish origin.

 

The image of purely 'Viking' Normandy was discredited by historians, philologists and archaeologists a long time ago. Doubtless studies in population genetics shall prove that Rollo's followers were but small in number. Whether this will be warmly received by the Normandy tourist board is a matter for conjecture.

rollo was born about 845 in maer,norway,he was christened in france in 911,he died around 927 and he is intered in notre dame,rouen,normandy,he was the leader of a group of vikings that settled at the mouth of the seine,in 910ad he attacked paris,and charttres, by the treaty of saint clair-sur-epte(911) he was given by king charles 111 of france the fief of normandy,on condition he defended it and paris from attacks,part of this grant was that he would be babtized,this occured in 912 ad and he took the name robert,he supported the king against raoul,and gained additional territory,he was succeeded by his son william,whos decendant was william the conqueror,through royal weddings

the title spread westward, inter marrage between countries led rollos decendants to be related to most of the royal families of europe

[timo 10]

Depoix,

Rollo's genes may well have entered the gene pool of European Royalty, but those of his followers are, I suspect, thinly distributed throughout Normandy, and very thinly at that. Normandy had an infusion of Saxon blood too, at an earlier point than the invasion of Rollo's bands. Some place names previously thought to have been of Norse or Danish origin have turned out to be Saxon. Some are identifiable as just plain 'Germanic'. One suspects that there is far greater 'Viking' ancestry in Yorkshire than ever was the case in Normandy.

[depoix 11]

Depoix,

Rollo's genes may well have entered the gene pool of European Royalty, but those of his followers are, I suspect, thinly distributed throughout Normandy, and very thinly at that. Normandy had an infusion of Saxon blood too, at an earlier point than the invasion of Rollo's bands. Some place names previously thought to have been of Norse or Danish origin have turned out to be Saxon. Some are identifiable as just plain 'Germanic'. One suspects that there is far greater 'Viking' ancestry in Yorkshire than ever was the case in Normandy.

i would think that the place names you mention are on a time line,the saxons passed through france long before the vikings,hence the place names, i would imagine that once settled in normandy the northmen would have eventually spread out in search of wealth,land and power,eventually settling in all parts of the known world

[timo 10]

The Viking settlers became, by intermarriage and cultural exchange, 'French'. The Normans who settled parts of Italy, for example, brought with them little in the way of Scandinavian genes or culture. As I said earlier, the Normans became a Frankish-Gaulish-Scandinavian mix. With the latter element being the smallest.

 

The Saxon immigration to the northern regions of France which became Normandy, took place around 3 hundred years before the coming of Rollo's Northmen. Essentially, the Normans stepped into the shoes of the Germanic Franks as lords of the manor in many villages, drawing their rents/dues from a native peasantry whose language was neither Frankish nor Scandinavian, but French. There is no evidence for a massive repopulation of Normandy by Scandinavians. The 'Vikings', as I previously said, formed an elite but that elite did not attempt to remain apart from the general 'French' population. The Norman families married freely with non-Scandinavians. Rollo is said to have married the daughter of a Frankish count. That son, William, married the daughter of a Frankish count and had a son, Richard, by a Breton. None of the Norman duke's wives came from Scandinavia, and by the first half of the eleventh century their family connections were typically French.

[donkey 10]

I do accept that these cartoons may have been published with the motivation of widening the rift between Muslims and the West, and that is wrong, but to cave in to pressure for religions to veto the media would be more than just a blow against freedom of speech. It would be a blow against free thinking.

 

Whereas some people find the cartoons offensive, I find it offensive that young children are indoctrinated with ideas which may cause them to hate other types of people in later life, be those ideas christian, muslim or whatever.

 

It should be more of an obligation than a right to ridicule all forms of helfire and brimstone type religions. The fact that there has been so much violence stirred up by these cartoons just goes to prove what a mind-warping thing religious indoctrination can be, and drawing attention to the ludicrousness of some of the ideas therein is a powerful weapon for reason.

[withnail 10]

I do accept that these cartoons may have been published with the motivation of widening the rift between Muslims and the West, and that is wrong, but to cave in to pressure for religions to veto the media would be more than just a blow against freedom of speech. It would be a blow against free thinking.

 

Whereas some people find the cartoons offensive, I find it offensive that young children are indoctrinated with ideas which may cause them to hate other types of people in later life, be those ideas christian, muslim or whatever.

 

It should be more of an obligation than a right to ridicule all forms of helfire and brimstone type religions. The fact that there has been so much violence stirred up by these cartoons just goes to prove what a mind-warping thing religious indoctrination can be, and drawing attention to the ludicrousness of some of the ideas therein is a powerful weapon for reason.

 

Well said.

[tab1 10]

I do accept that these cartoons may have been published with the motivation of widening the rift between Muslims and the West, and that is wrong

 

Isn't that what the muslims have been protesting about? the deliberate intent to insult is wrong in any given case, be it the Jews, Christian or Muslims, and NO ifs or buts. Can't see why the wide explanations to justify something you know is wrong and will offend, unless of course you want to take away the freedom to be offended and only have freedoms to insult as long as it's not you at the receiving end.

[donkey 10]

Isn't that what the muslims have been protesting about? the deliberate intent to insult is wrong in any given case, be it the Jews, Christian or Muslims, and NO ifs or buts. Can't see why the wide explanations to justify something you know is wrong and will offend, unless of course you want to take away the freedom to be offended and only have freedoms to insult as long as it's not you at the receiving end.[

 

There were no wide explainations in what I wrote to justify the cartoons. The fact that reaction to them was so slow in coming would seem to indicate that it was not spontaneous and was stirred up by zealots who basically want the same thing as the people who printed and re-printed the cartoons. To widen the rift between muslims and the west.