Normans

>>3316772
they spoke some form of lingue de oil which is a dialect close to french as opposed to occitan in southern france.

>>3316772

They refer to themselves as French in the Bayeux Tapestry and London charter.

>>3316772
Why can't they be both?

>>3316772

They were as French as anyone else in France. Genetically and culturally.

>>3316781
This is just language though. The franks in Gallia for example adopted gallo-roman pretty quickly, but that didn't make them gallo-roman however.

>>3316783
Did they do the Bayeux Tapestry though?

>>3316785
>>3316800
How about the norman (north man) blood? Clearly they don't bear this name for no reason?

>>3316815

Yeah, Rollo and co. were Scandinavian in origin, but Rollo's children were half french, and the mixing wide widespread and went on for generations. They were still Normans, but they were genetically as French as anyone else in the region.

>>3316819
>but Rollo's children were half french, and the mixing wide widespread and went on for generations.
Do you have proof for that? They could have been staying with other northmen, or maybe bretons.

>>3316815

They commissioned it and would have specified what they wanted it to say.

>>3316827
Poppa of Bayeux was the Christian wife or mistress of the Viking conqueror Rollo. She was the mother of William I Longsword and grandmother of Richard the Fearless, who forged the Duchy of Normandy into a great fief of medieval France.

Dudo of Saint-Quentin, in his panegyric of the Norman dukes, describes her as the daughter of a "Count Berengar", the dominant prince of that region, who was captured at Bayeux by Rollo in 885 or 889.[4] This has led to speculation that she was the daughter of Berengar II of Neustria. Despite the uncertainty of her parentage, she undoubtedly was a member of the Frankish aristocracy

>>3316827

Yeah, he married Poppa of Bayeux, who was French.

And people already lived in Normandy, French people. They mixed.

Not sure why you're trying so hard to deny that they were French, Lindy.

>>3316840
>>3316834
If she was the daughter of Berengar then she would have been Breton.

>>3316834
>Poppa of Bayeux
Wait, I thought Rollo was given the hand of the daughter of the king Charles, Gisèle, as part of the treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte?

>>3316840
I am french, I don't know much about the subject and I thought asking the question an english would ask would make me have more answers (but in a more polite way so this thread doesn't derail)
i'm just trying to make sure we're not thinking they are something they're not by forgetting questions we wouldn't have asked ourselves

>>3316867
Gisela is fictional.

>>3316868
You mean she didn't exist at all or the union with Rollo is fictionnal?

>>3316874
The union is fictional. If it was real then they didn't have children together.

>>3316860
Berengar isn't a Breton name, for starters.

The mother of Richard I was a Breton captive.

Normans got frankiziced, the spoke a dialect of French closer to French than Occitan, the became devout Catholics.
They assimilated and became French.
Even when they were kings of England they were still French

>>3316860

If. It isn't known. Meanwhile, the next several generations have the Normans regularly and indisputably mixing with the local French populations, adopting a variation of the language, and considering themselves French.

>>3316867

See above. They mixed with the locals, creating a genetic link, adopted the culture and language, and considered themselves French.

What more do you want?

What about the rest, the soldiers for example? The normans already had many settlements on the shore. They could have bring women with them perhaps

>>3316928

In small numbers they did. For the most part, there were local women to pick from. There would be zero reason not to.

>>3316772
the decended from vikeings so by blood no, but they considered themselves french

>>3316975
Read the thread

A sub-sect of Franks who originated as Danes, Norwegians, Anglo-Danes, and Hiberno-Norse. They eventually lost their mother tongue and assimilated into the greater Gaulish culture, but retained their own distinct identity.

Not even an Anglo, but there's a reason why the successful invasion of 1066 is called the Norman Conquest of England. Or why the Norman Kingdom of Sicily came to be. The Normans were very much like their Viking forebears only they fought on horseback and became devout Catholics. Otherwise, they still had the Scandinavian wanderlust for land, glory, riches, and adventure. It wasn't the Capetian kings who subjugated the Anglo-Saxons or carved out one of the richest polities in the Mediterranean.

The 11th and 12th centuries were undoubtedly the age of the Normans. They were also heavily involved in the Crusades along other Franco-speakers. Having too many sons and so little land to spare in Normandy is what fueled their expansion overseas. There's even a plausible theory that had the First Crusade not broken out, the Reconquista of Iberia would've had more Norman participants.

>>3316772
By 1066, they were pretty much entirely French culturally, and over 80% French genetically

>>3316996
Using the term "Frank" past the 9th century (or even worse, the term "Gaul" in that same era) is a proof of great uneducation

The Franks were an European people that, in the 9th century, separated in two different people: French and Germans
By the 11th century, Franks were a long gone past

>>3316860
>Béranger
>Breton name

Nigel pls

>>3316772
Considering they spoke a slightly different language and the weakness of the french crown it'd be better to just call them Norman.

Better to have Norman and Angevin kings rather than just going lol France.

>>3317051
This post is even stupider than the one you replied to. Kill yourself you fucking dummy.

>>3317063
>>>3316772 (OP)
>Considering they spoke a slightly different language
They didnt
They spoke Old French with a few different spelling
Saying it was a different language is like saying Americans don't speak English

>and the weakness of the french crown
Politics =/= Ethnicity
The Norman conquest of England wasn't a conquest by the Kingdom of France, but it was still a French conquest
Just like the CSA were not part of the USA but were still Americans

>Better to have Norman and Angevin kings rather than just going lol France.
Angevins were pure French btw, without any excuse possible
So even remaining in denial about Normans don't spare England the humiliation of having been ruled over by Frenchmen

>>3317068
You sure showed him

File: English are 45% French.png (1MB, 1902x983px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1902x983px

There is no need to debate if the Normands were French or not, because the Normands still exist and they're French.
The Normand Conquest made it so that nearly half of the "English" are French btw

>>3317075
>Saying it was a different language is like saying Americans don't speak English
Dialects play a very large part. Not many english speakers can understand me despite speaking the same language. Mostly compatible with differences.

It was a conquest primarily done by the Duchy of Normandy with backing of other places. It's still an important distinction to make in the end.

I'm not English by the way so no need to try and do that shite on me.

>>3317096
>There is no need to debate if the Normands were French or not, because the Normands still exist and they're French.

Your argument is dumb tho
People can be replaced or change overtime
For exemple, Ancient Egyptians were white phoenicians while current ones are brown arabs

>>3317051
There was still remnants of Frankish culture in 911 when Rollo and his followers settled in modern-day Normandy. But yes, by the end of the 10th century, French as we know it became the lingua franca of much of western and northern France.

>>3317111
>People can be replaced or change overtime
Which is what the French did in England

England was colonized by French early on, first the Norman Conquest, then the Hugenot immigration, then the French noble migration, and finally the economical migration that started from the XXth century to present day

All these migrations made it so that English are genetically more French than Anglo-Saxon

>>3316772
Vikings by blood, French by culture

>>3316783
Do they?

I'm not saying you are right or wrong but I would be genuinely fascinated by something supporting this.

>>3316772
I don't think it matters, Britain has always been a nation of immigrants and enriched by foreign culture.

File: Sans titre.png (29KB, 1130x246px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 1130x246px

>>3317239
here you go

>>3317234
>Vikings by blood
not after the first generation and especially not at their peak

File: bayeux.jpg (321KB, 908x1184px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 908x1184px

>>3317285
You know, Pierre, you could have directly used the English translation

>>3317234
>Vikings by blood

Rollo's son (2nd generation) was already only 50% "viking" by blood
So William, seven generations of interbreeding later, must have been like 10% "viking"

>>3317428
Why would he do that?

>>3317234
>Vikings by blood
how the fuck can you be viking by blood, you fucking moron?

viking is a profession, just like cleaning shit from the stables of being a farmer. there was no viking race.

File: 1066.jpg (242KB, 907x748px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 907x748px

>>3317428
Nice edit, faggot
Here's the REAL translation

>>3317472
*Scandinavians you asshole. Every fucking idiot knows that "viking" in this case relates to Scandinavians. But you still have to point it out to show how you are "smart" or "wise". Kys.

>>3317472
the correct term to use was nordic rather than viking

>>3317487
Or "Danes" given that original Normans were Danish
But anyway by 1066 they had like 10% of Danish blood left

It's Guillaume le conquérant not William the conqueror

>>3317428
sorry i'm too autistic to change the language...

>>3317476
Good post

>>3317476
fucking kek

File: 1409221465339.jpg (49KB, 394x386px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 394x386px

>>3317476
>ANGLORUM ETERNALE

>>3317111
>For exemple, Ancient Egyptians were white phoenicians
Calm down lads, this one's a little mentally challenged

File: laughing-meme-wallpaper-21.jpg (156KB, 1920x1440px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1920x1440px

>>3317476

>Normans were French after 190 years
>But they were still French after 400 years of living in England

What did the gayest country in Europe mean by this?

>>3316772
they were viking swedes that were noted for their specific ability to blend many aspects of their culture with the french culture, and could very well have been a regional culture of france by the time willy went to england

>>3318435
normans entering france had to submit/assimilate to the culture of the french nobility due to being overpowered by french neighbours
normans who conquered england became the new nobility and therefore dictated the culture of the nobility to be their own

one case is submitting to the culture of the institutional power, the other is having the ability to dictate what the culture of the institutional power will be

File: 2ad.jpg (129KB, 506x780px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 506x780px

>>3318435
Except it reseted in 1154 when the Angevins (pure Frenchmen without Norse ancestry) succeeded to the Normans in ruling England

>>3318512
That was just the royal family. The nobility and clergy were still Norman.
>>3318487
>overpowered by French neighbours
Didn't happen. France was a complete decentralized mess in those days. Normandy enjoyed a lot of autonomy.

>>3318435
Context was drastically different
In 911, the Normans were a bunch of failed vikings who, after being defeated by the French king, were offered a tiny swamp in exchange for vassalage and protecting the coast
They had to assimilate to local language, culture and religion

Now the Normans (now French) in 1066 England were conquerors
They were the ones who imposed their culture and language, which explains why they didn't assimilate until centuries later

>>3318463
No such thing as Swedish vikings in history, and the Normans came from Denmark

Originally the Normans were nordic vikings that settled in modern day Normandy
Over time they became basically indistinguishable from the French

>>3318613
>nordic vikings

As opposed to Chinese ones?

>>3317482
Because "viking" is a fucking profession, you dumb momo. Not a race. Do you think all Scandis were Viking?
>>3317487
>>3317493
Norse and Pagan was used most for Scandinavians.

>>3316772
Why the fuck are you showing Anglo-Saxons? Normans didn't like to fight on foot like their Scandinavian ancestors. They preferred charging on horseback with lance or sword and didn't utilize the Dane axe anymore.

>>3318512
The Angevins were true Frenchmen so you can definitely state the Plantagenets as being French. The House of Normandy only lasted 88 years so it's really a moot point to argue whether the Normans were French or not.

>>3318634

Felix Agelaci was a Asturian noble who went Viking after being exiled by his king.

>>3320576
Sorry i just typed "normans" on google and this was the first image

>>3320576

>every single Norman at Hastings was a mounted knight

Pseuds pls go

>>3320576
Not every Normie "miles" was a rich cavalryman.

>>3316783
wiliiam of jumiege said they called themseves normans

>>3318435
>the gayest

>>3316815
No they commissioned the tapestry and the English women that made it put in little quips against William the Bastard

>>3321650
Denial isnt just the name of a river