Why do I see Anglos insisting that Normans weren't French anytime they are brought up...

Why do I see Anglos insisting that Normans weren't French anytime they are brought up ? Can't they live with the fact that they were conquered by a vassal of the Kingdom of France ?

I literally do not give the slightest shit and the fact that French people are so bereft of their own achievements they have to live through us is sad beyond belief.

normans are NORDIC
france belongs to the NORDS
fuck off southron

Thats not the point though, Im content with my cunt's achievements. The problem is with the UK posters who cant accept the fact that Normans were indeed French.

the normans were way more alpha than the sissy french which is why people get triggered when the connection between the two is made

But if I take the Sup Forums poster base as an example, it seems that sissy is the future, so what now ?

>It's the fall of 1066.
>Two separate Norwegian invasions of England occur.

good post
old norse is a strong, masculine language
french is for girls

Trying to forget how yours went ? :^)

>so what now ?

Because thinking that way is representative of a mutt-tier understanding of both our genealogical history and that of France.

REEEE
IT WAS AN AMBUSH

DELET

They were slightly different from the average Frenchman at the time as they were decendents from Norseman but I will concede that they were French,

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter. Almost all Northern Europeans (Celts,Germanic, some Slavs) are derived from the same people group thousands upon thousands of years ago so it doesn't make much difference.

Still waiting for an acceptable argument as to why the settlement of a few thousands Danes at most radically changed the genes and culture of region that was estimated to have almost a million inhabitants at the time.

Why are the French so perfidious? They attacked Harold just weeks after he had to slug it out with Vikangz.

wut

>some Slavs
Why only some?
All Slavs are indo-european

When some Brits claim that the Normans weren't French, they point to the fact that Normandy was raided and conquered by some Danes 150 years earlier, so the argument they have to defend is the one I wrote in my previous post.

At that point the French weren't even French, so the basis of your argument is nonsensical.

You know what I mean when I say French, dont play dumb.

you could say the same about the Danelaw

No, I don't.

You're basically arguing against the migration and resettlement of lands by different and new peoples. It's a really stupid argument that just completely ignores history.

What do you mean ? Do people claim Eastern England is Danish ?

Why do I see Frogs insisting the Franks were always French and that they had no effect on their language?

Exactly. The Frog argument is completely spurious.

Thats not what I say, my argument is that in this instance, the impact of the migration and resettlement was secondary 5 generations after the fact.

Eastern Slavs have intermixing with finno ugric groups. South Slavs have intermixing with god knows what. That doesn't mean I'm saying they're not European or not white but they just have a different ancestry to us.

Indo-European is just a language group and not all Europeans come from the same ancient peoples. Some parts basically are e.g British, Irish, Northern French, German, Dutch, Danish etc.

I dont claim Franks were French, I claim they were our political ancesters.

So then, by your own logic, how were the Normans French when they themselves were a migrant population?

Don't particularly care desu, I live in England and my area was never conquered by the Normans or the danes

How come you arrive at this conclusion after everything I said ? The Dane migration was of a few thousand people in the 10th century, but it was estimated that at the time, the region of Normandy was inhabited by 800 000 people (not Danes). So the Danes impact was on the ruling class since Rolor became duke of Normandy but even then there was 5 generations of intermarrying with locals between him and Guillaume.

Right, so they weren't French, because the French as a people didn't exist yet.

Your logic completely contradicts itself though.

Where ?

You say on the one hand that the Normans were French, and then in the next breath claim that the Franks weren't Danes.

What ?

See, even you can't understand your own contradiction.

Well this is going nowhere.

Exactly. The argument is a non-starter because the logic is faulty.

> we wuz norsemen
William the Conqueror died from injuries he got fighting the Kingdom of France in the Vexin.
William's eldest son was denied the English throne after falling out with his father, this suggests to me that the Kingdom of England was more important than the Duchy of Normandy.

I still dont understand what your counter point was

That's more your problem than mine.

>dont understand the argument of your opponent
>"haha you lose xd"

>the Normans were totally French you guys, Danes settling there had nothing to do with anything
>Saxons settling in England mean the entire country's Germanic, btw

I didnt make that point.

...

You brought up the Saxon invasions, I didnt talk about it.