Were Normans french ?

Bongs are all butthurt when people say they were conquered by the french in 1066.
Were the normands really vikangz when it happened or is this another episode of eternal anglo revisionism just like with Waterloo?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_conquest_of_southern_Italy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veliky_Novgorod
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

yes, they were french

eternal anglo revisionism as usual. Guillaume the conquerer was the Duke of Normandy, you can't make more french. Even better, the Normands signed a pact with the anglos swearing to not help the vikings looting England. And we even protected their royal family, bringing them safe in a normand caste when the vikings were everywhere in bongistan.

fuck theses ungrateful peace of shits.

here are the names of all the barons and generals who commanded the fleet to invade the perfide albion in 1066 :
Robert de Conteville
Odon de Conteville
Guillaume, comte d’Évreux
Roger II de Montgomery
Robert, comte d’Eu
Hugues d'Avranches, vicomte d’Avranches
Roger de Beaumont
Hugues II de Montfort-sur-Risle
Foulques d’Aunous
Gérald le sénéchal
Gautier Ier Giffard
Nicolas de Normandie
Rémi de Fécamp

ALL theses names are 100% french, and still commonly used nowaday.

Révisionnisme anglais comme toujours.

Norman's were ethnic Viking settlers who adopted French culture and language. They were always kinda separate and different from the rest of France until recent history.

The Normans were Danish Vikings allowed to settle there as a buffer against Viking raids. They were culturally French.

Hence 'Norman' -Norseman

Either way I'm not ashamed to be invaded by them. The French were our great rivals and we gave each other a good fight for hundreds of years and ended up basically calling it even.

France was pretty solid back then look at the Battle of Tours -They pretty much saved Europe.

By the time of the conquest they already mixed heavily with franks and bretons.
pic related the Guillaume genealogical tree.

>ladies and gentlemen american education

Franks = Germanic tribe. Saxons = Germanic tribe. Bretons =Celtic tribe, English Celts = Celtic tribe. Basically just intertribal warfare.

Yes. Literally the only people who say they were Nordic are anglohiles and other butthurt Germanic like Varg.

they were sicilians

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_conquest_of_southern_Italy

Normans weren't really French. Normandy is sorta like Quebec. It's its own thing but still French. Celts were all over Europe, but Romans came and killed most them. Then Vikings came and killed the ones who survived. Then moors came and fucked the ones that fled (Spain/Portugal). England the Celts were killed off or mixed with the Romans, then later the Anglos & Saxons. Then they got their asses handed beat by the Normans. French was actually Court Language of Medieval England. It wasn't until Late Middle Ages/Early Reinssance did it fall out of favor for English.

Only partially. They were culturally French with perhaps some of their Viking traditions mixed in. Some bred with the natives in Normandy.

...

they were french.

The vikings didn't repopulate normandy 200 years prior to the invasion. They settled there amongst the french.

Same thing with the Franks or the Romans, they didn't repopulate Gaul, they just ruled it.

They couldn't have been viking because vikings cant conquer shit.

They were vikings that took over Normandy.

The French identity developed much later.

No, Normans were not Franks or Gauls, technically French, but still separate.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veliky_Novgorod

I know very well Normandy as part of my family is from there and you're full of shit.

They were not French because French wasn't a thing at the time. They were Vikings heavily mixed with Frank's.

You realise the Franks only ruled over Gaul and the Gauls they didn't repopulate it?

Also Rollo was from Norway not Denmark. Danes settled Northern Normandie, Norwegians and Irish-Icelanders the South (Cotentin).

t. Mabire and every historians.

Knowing that Ango Saxons and Britons are superior I can't figure out how it happened.

;French' didn't exist back then. France didn't exist back then.

They were a settlement of Norsemen who had adopted the local language and cultural traditions but still retained much of their own distinction. There were their own culture.

In later centuries, intermarriage between England, France and Normandy blurred these distinctions however. The Plantagenet dynasty was French however. Having a Norman elite who spoke Norman-French and then intermarrying with French families and leaving the English throne to centuries of French speaking rulers obviously shaped English culture and the language especially.

So to conclude, nothing was simple back then, nation states as we know them didn't' exist, ruling noble families were much more the medium of power and they could be international. If you consider 'nation' to be a cultural entity, like the French speaking peoples at the time or the German speaking peoples etc.

Norman settlements across Europe and beyond

>French turning a blind eye to brigands in their ports and coasts, letting them raid England

And its still happening in Calais for example.

yeah, this.

"France" was Norsemen in the north, the Frankish in the centre/near Germany/in the south.

there's a reason so many DNA tests lump together German/French

When you get baptized you take a christian name, they would of been french names too.

Technically they were Norwegians , but whatever , it's been 1000 years , they're well integrated to French culture

>italy

WE WUZ ROMAN VIKANGZ

The Gauls still live in France. They stopped calling themselves Gauls and call themselves French and probably didn't keep track of an distinction between them and Franks, and Goths, etc. who they mixed with.

They were Normans, i.e. mostly French with some Norwegian. The first Normans were obviously fully Norwegian, but they mixed with the local population, and became more and more French.

This is present in historical literature. This is also a common behavior among viking setlers.

>Sweden--Racemixing degenerates since 700 A.D

>Norman
>Nordman
>Northman

The name means "men of the north". They were viking settlers.
Unlike the English, the Franks let the vikings mind their own business, and eventually they were integrated into what later became France.

>hold up
>*eat garlic
>so youz be sayin
>*read La Chanson de Roland*
>zat we wuz...
>*build castle*
>we wuz vikings
>*pray to Mary*
>WE WUZ VIKINGS AND MERDE ?!

WE WUZ KANGZ

There were a bunch of settlements in UK too. Ireland had many, like Dublin. There were some big ones in England as well, such as Norfolk and York, i.e. Jorvik.

The Sicilian 'vikings' were very interesting. They were Normans who managed to conquer all of southern Italy, they fought against Byzantine Empire, and later they were one of the bigger players in the first crusade.

The Normans were mostly French, in the modern sense. It's just that some Vikings settled there and mixed with the French like the swedecucks they really were.

Normandy is a part of the core ethnic French territory of the Parisian basin.
It is not at all a region with a strong regionalist and differentialist identity.
Normans were indeed French, to say anything otherwise would be like saying the French are Germanic (Franks/Burgunds).
This does not mean England should have an inferiority complex towards France.
But they should not forget that their upperclass was French-speaking and that that was the prestige language.
To see the profoundly elitist Brits who respect nothing but money and power burst into anti-elitist and proletarian discourses against their "effeminate" medieval elite at the slightest mention of this fact is quite amusing and quite telling.

Franks mixed with the locals too, however contrary to the vikings the population movement was much much larger (the initial invasion in 406 talks about 100 000 franks defending Gauls and around 100 000 crossing the Rhine, seeing the genetical trace today it is safe to assume it reached more than a million in a century) since Gauls is estimated to have around 12 millions people in year 400.


At the origins, before the roman conquest, the gallic tribes in Gauls were often fighting the franks over the Rhine.
They then fought the gallo-romans, who kept them in check and blocked their invasions.
After 300 the romans began to pay the franks to serve in the roman army and defend the Rhine from other germanic tribes (sometimes reaching pretty high positions into the Empire).
By that time the franks were influenced a lot by romanization, the most concrete example is that Clovis was the first leader of a germanic tribe to convert to roman christianism (=/= arianism) in 496 which made the fusion of the gallo-roman and franks relatively easy when you compare with the goths in Spain and the lombards in Italy.

How can Sup Forums be so autistic?

the queen of england is german but the people of england are english

Rollo was a viking but the people of normandy are still french.

Why is it so hard for you fucking imebciles to get it through your thick skulls? Mixing between conquered people didn't happen as much as Sup Forums think it did.The Spanish/Portuguese are not moors, they're celtiberian. S. Italians are not arab, their greco-roman. The normans are not vikangz their -gallo-celtic.

The only example of large scale mixing was the britons and anglo saxons.

In the UK an area became known as the "Danelaw", because vikings had such control over the area that the English dukes had to accept that the vikings had their own laws there. They were eventually repelled after many years though.

The vikings fighting for the Byzantines were called "Varangians". Basically, the vikings were the most advanced fighters at the time, and the Byzantine emperor gathered a group of them to be his personal bodyguard unit.

Some fighting instructor (cant remember his name), theorized that the vikings became such deadly fighters due to a technique with their shields, where they would use them as a weapon, with the actual sword/axe working then attacking exposed parts of the enemy.

They can be frenchified, like Wilhelm->Guillaume etc

>the queen of england is german
This isn't the early 1800's. The British royal family has married native Britons to that point that they're totally British.

>The vikings fighting for the Byzantines were called "Varangians". Basically, the vikings were the most advanced fighters at the time, and the Byzantine emperor gathered a group of them to be his personal bodyguard unit.
No, no, I meant completely different people. The house of Hauteville were Sicilian nobles who came originally from Normandy, and maybe Norway. They fought actual wars against the Byzantine Empire, who still tried to claim Italy for itself.

I've understood that Varangians were chosen because they tended to be loyal.

We used to do that to all foreign names in Finland too. George => Yrjö, William => Viljami, Charles => Kaarle, etc.

Vikings gaining control over Normandie, mixing with the locals = more French than Scandinavian.

This is what happened every place the Vikings gained control. Too few in numbers had had no reason to genocide.

Pretty much this, I'd be ashamed if we got invaded and lost to the current post-Charles de Gaulles cowardly cheese-eating surrender monkey French. Based France died with Napoleon.

>interpreting medieval history through post-19th century nationalistic lenses
Just fucking stop doing this.

>France even existing back then
>Implying the region then even spoke Parisian French outside of Paris

England has been a thing far longer than France has been a thing.

>England has been a thing far longer than France has been a thing.
>What is Francia?
England was a collection of little kingdoms when France was an empire spanning across all of western Europe. France might not have been very centralized, but it certainly has existed longer than England.