Talk:British Isles

A can of worms, but worth a try

So, I know this isn't likely to get anywhere, but it's worth considering the historical nature of using the term "Normans" to describe the 12th Century invaders of Ireland. There is actually a fairly robust consensus among scholars of Ireland (at least among those who have critically examined this terminology) that the term's an anachronism, belonging mainly to the 11th Century, and is unhistorical when applied to Englishmen of the late 12th & 13th Century[1]. As Gillingham also notes (see link), hybrid terminologies like "Anglo-Norman" were unknown at the time, and entered the lexicon only in the late 19th Century, when attempts were made to draw a parallel between the 1169 invasion of Ireland and the 1066 invasion of England. Prior to this, these invaders were described simply as 'Englishmen'.

I realize this isn't likely to get anywhere. "Norman" and "Anglo-Norman" are so widely used on Wikipedia and in pop history that even many historians use these labels out of convenience. But it is really no more accurate than saying the Battle of Hastings was fought between Anglo-Saxons and "Vikings". In the same way the Norse intermingled with the Franks and became 'Normans' in the 11th Century, the Norman invaders of England assimilated with the Anglo-Saxons and became Englishmen a century later. That's also why a number of Old English surnames in Ireland, like Stapleton and Birmingham, have Anglo-Saxon genealogies (and even here, I frequently come across Irish genealogy sites erroneously describing Stapleton as an "Anglo-Norman" name). Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the problem is, whether anachronistic or not, 'Anglo-Norman' has become so entrenched in the English language to describe these invaders that 'common usage' will apply. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

That's what I figured, and perhaps a more appropriate place for this discussion would be on the main article for the so-called "Norman" invasion of Ireland. I think there are enough reliable sources disputing this terminology that a section addressing this may be due. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any more proof than just a single abstract of a chapter? The Banner talk 20:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I mean, it's the abstract for a whole chapter in a history book about ethnic identity in the Middle Ages. Thomas Bartlett also addressed this issue in Ireland: A History, and even went so far as to describe Norman terminology as pseudo-historical:

"Second, it was an English invasion and partial conquest: all talk of the 'Normans' or the 'Anglo-Normans', or 'Anglo-French' or even the 'Cambro-Normans' coming to Ireland is simply ahistorical. The invaders called themselves English (Engleis, Angli), were called Saxain (=English) or Gaill (=foreigners) by the Irish, and for the next seven hundred years were designated as English in the historical literature. Contemporaries never described them as Norman, Anglo-Norman or much less Cambro-Norman. Only in the late nineteenth century, and largely on grounds of political sensitivity, was the identity of the English invaders fudged by these non-historical terms. This is not merely a matter of semantics, for the cultural identity, if not always the national origins, of the invaders was indisputably English." (p. 34[2]) Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

And that quote is about the only part of the book that backs up your "claim". Very shaky ground. The Banner talk 00:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems pretty solid to me - but would need some other sources too. We try to reflect scholarly consensus so we need to be sure this is the overarching widespread consensus and not a fringe opinion. For what it's worth it makes sense to me, but I'm not a professional historian. WaggersTALK 08:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't really understand The Banner's reasoning. Academic history isn't a democracy and so arguments are assessed on merits and not popular support. Wikipedia isn't a democracy either, but we do often reduce scholarship to democracy, which sometimes contradicts how academic research works. So, I can see Banner rejecting my proposal on the grounds of common usage, but calling my claim 'shaky'? The two historians cited here analyzed primary source material and both independently concluded that Norman terminology does not appear in any literature until the late 19th Century. What's 'shaky' about that? Who are the historians who've objected to this analysis?

I think you'll find that historians who still use terms like 'Anglo-Norman' are doing so out of convenience, but not because they're preoccupied with Medieval identity or the historical nature of language. Here's Art Cosgrove reviewing Michael Richter's The Interpretation of Medieval Irish History:

"I agree with both Professor Ricther and Dr Ellis that the term predominately used by the settlers or newcomers to describe themselves was 'English'. When the editors were considering the problems posed by nomenclature for A new history of Ireland, ii: medieval Ireland, 1169 -1534 Professor F.J. Byrne made the point that, for centuries, historians and political writers, English and Irish, nationalist and unionist, were content to speak of 'the English conquest' of Ireland. Only in the late 19th Century, by analogy with the Norman conquest of England, did 'the Norman' invasion of Ireland become the preferred term." (p. 105[3])

So now we have F.J. Byrne, Art Cosgrove, Michael Richter, Steven Ellis, John Gillingham and Thomas Bartlett all making the same point. How many are needed? Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

And we have the common use that says something different. Sorry. The Banner talk 18:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

So now it's common use. Before you said it was only one quote, and before that you said it was only one chapter in a book (a whole chapter!). Do you think that an entire book will be written about this one thing? Or that historians who use "Norman" terminology out of convenience and are not even concerned with nomenclature are going to disagree with the half dozen scholars cited here?

Common use rules exist mainly so editors avoid obscure language that may have ambiguous meaning. Look up "Old English in Ireland" or "the English in Medieval Ireland" and you'll find that this phrasing is used as often as pseudo-historical Norman terms. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Personally I don't find this compelling. Whatever the ethnic origin of the foot slogggers, they were led by a bunch of people with French-sounding names. But my opinion doesn't matter and neither does this article - this isn't a discussion for this talk page - take it to the Anglo-Norman Invasion of Ireland and try it on editors there. They might have views... Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Anyone who knows anything about Medieval Europe knows that it consisted of multi-lingual societies where language did not fix neatly to nationality as it did in the era of nation-states. There were at least 3 languages in use in Medieval England -Old English, Old Normand French, and Latin -and none of them implied foreignness or said anything about how people understood themselves (even Anglo-Saxons Frenchified their names, which in some cases was as simple as adding a "de" before the placename). For whatever it's worth, here's another source backing this claim (p. 182[4]).

But okay, I figured the "Norman" invasion of Ireland article was a more appropriate venue. And I didn't expect this to get anywhere anyway. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)