3 ms·

The question was about the Battle of Hastings in 1066. Since the battle and the period following it are pretty well documented, there's no need to look for mode

The question was about the Battle of Hastings in 1066. Since the battle and the period following it are pretty well documented, there's no need to look for modern examples - we know what happened in England/Britain after William/Guillame won, and the results were absolutely transformative. Your summary of "the main outcome of a war" is completely disconnected from what took place in England after 1066.

rixed 8mo ago
I believe his point was that it was transformative for the elites (who are the one writing history) but not so much for society in general. A refreshing point of view; I also believe we tend to inflate the influence of war and politics and agency really in history.
- PaulDavisThe1st 8mo ago
  If that was their point, then their point is completely wrong in the context of the War of Hastings. Do you and the GP really not know anything about how William/Guillame's victory tranformed England, for everyone? The very language we're writing in at this very moment is a direct consequence of that victory.
  - rixed 8mo ago
    I believe we all agree about the facts, just not about what constitutes an "important change". Most people lives were unaffected; most people kept their language, their traditions etc. For contrast, compare with: the third Punic war, setting foot on America in 1493, the industrial revolutions... Some of us have just decided that's where we draw the line: An event that is important enough to wipe out and replace the whole ruling class but that does not change, one way or another, the way people live, is not "important".
    - PaulDavisThe1st 8mo ago
      There are multiple time frames to be considered. It is true that in the immediate aftermath of Hastings, life for most folks continued on largely as it had before. But in the longer term both the administrative structure of the country (which very much affected individual folks' lives) and the language were significantly changed. I don't see a reason to privilege one of these over the other. You could make the case, for example, that WWII was of little consequence because Germans today live much the same sort of life that they'd have been living if there had been no WWII. That's not clearly a false claim about people's lives, but it doesn't really serve the purpose of understanding the consequences of war very well.

rixed 8mo ago

I believe his point was that it was transformative for the elites (who are the one writing history) but not so much for society in general. A refreshing point of view; I also believe we tend to inflate the influence of war and politics and agency really in history.

PaulDavisThe1st 8mo ago
If that was their point, then their point is completely wrong in the context of the War of Hastings. Do you and the GP really not know anything about how William/Guillame's victory tranformed England, for everyone? The very language we're writing in at this very moment is a direct consequence of that victory.
- rixed 8mo ago
  I believe we all agree about the facts, just not about what constitutes an "important change". Most people lives were unaffected; most people kept their language, their traditions etc. For contrast, compare with: the third Punic war, setting foot on America in 1493, the industrial revolutions... Some of us have just decided that's where we draw the line: An event that is important enough to wipe out and replace the whole ruling class but that does not change, one way or another, the way people live, is not "important".
  - PaulDavisThe1st 8mo ago
    There are multiple time frames to be considered. It is true that in the immediate aftermath of Hastings, life for most folks continued on largely as it had before. But in the longer term both the administrative structure of the country (which very much affected individual folks' lives) and the language were significantly changed. I don't see a reason to privilege one of these over the other. You could make the case, for example, that WWII was of little consequence because Germans today live much the same sort of life that they'd have been living if there had been no WWII. That's not clearly a false claim about people's lives, but it doesn't really serve the purpose of understanding the consequences of war very well.