- This topic has 8 voices and 52 replies.
-
Posts
-
Well another explanation can be that the Carolingians didn't have any Navy to secure their coasts especially against the Vikings… Am I wrong ?
Hi Aetheling! You could be right; I haven't heard that the Carolingian rulers commanded any kind of extensive navy at all. But it seems to me that they had the opportunity to send troops up into the Scandinavian countries to wipe out some Viking villages. That would have been a more proactive way to address the problem than the defensive strategy that they instead adopted.
Well another explanation can be that the Carolingians didn't have any Navy to secure their coasts especially against the Vikings… Am I wrong ?
The Carolingians were primarily a land power, they had neither the need or technology for an extenzive navy. It is a question of resources and where to use them. I would submit that the defensive strategy employed by the Carolingians was actually the correct one because the Vikings did not pose an existential threat to the Carolingian Empire as the peoples that shared a contiguos land border with them did. Yes, the Viking raids were destructive, but they were also localized. the vikings did not initially seek to conquer and occupy territory and by the time they did the Carolingian Empire was already in decline. As it is the Franks did a pretty good job of assimilating the Vikings that settled on the mainland. William the Conquerer was onyla few generations removed from his Viking forebears but had been fully frankified by the time of his conquest of England in 1066.
I fully agree with you Phidippides and Scout: Franks and other Germanic tribes came from the East, where there is no sea nor needed skills for naval battles. As you said it was not until William the Conqueror, of Viking lineage, that an efficient navy came in use. Furthermore, William's ancestor, Rollo was allowed to settle in what became later Normandy: a buffer state to prevent and protect West Francia against Viking raids.
William did not have an efficient navy, he had a transport fleet. He did not need a navy because at that time England had no navy and had no effective way to stop him from landing. That being said, the invasion fleet William assembled was the largest fleet Europe would see for several hundred years. I have read that he had as many as 500 vessels in his fleet. the more curious thing about the invasion of England is that William brought a prefab fort with him that he erected on his beachhead to defend his beached ships while they were unloading. From my understanding the fort was an engineering marvel at the time.
Well, the Normans were from Viking lineage, they kept an efficient navy even if England didn't have one at the time. The reason why they could settled in Normandy was that they were there to protect West Francia against other Norse ppl. That fleet was not for transportation only, I think. About the prefab fort, where do you see that ? There is enough in England to build a motte-and-bailey.
I got it out of the book 1066: Year of Conquest, by David Howarth. I can cite the page when I get home and look it up.
Page 26 in Castles of the British Islesby Plantagenet Somerset Fry; indicates that one of the first acts of William was to build a motte castle. He also speculates that the wooden components may have been pre-fabbed in Normandy and transported in with the invasion (citing evidence as early as the 12th century of pre-fab towers). He also cites the Bayeux Tapestry as illustrating the construction.
