Battle of hastings

Bump im fairly curious myself

>>371445

Because the Anglo-Saxons/English themselves weren't wiped out?

>>371445
because the vast majority of people are still descended from anglo saxons

>>371445
>arent english people not actually english people, just normans? Why is it still england and not just land of the normans?
Because the French were always the ruling class
Most of the population remained Anglo-Saxon

>It was completely conquered and anglo saxon england was wiped out
False
I explained why above

>>371471
only* the ruling class I meant

>>371470
>>371471

>most people were anglo-saxon

That's not actually true, although it was thought as such at the time.

Latest genetic tests seem to indicate that the majority of the English genetic stock comes from the people who were around before the Celts showed up.

>>371485
that study is not a good one my man

>>371471
>>371485
I CANT TELL WHOS ENGLISH ANYMORE

>>371489
Do you have an actual objection to Sykes's methodology?

File: image.jpg (24KB, 220x164px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 220x164px

Does it matter? The anglos had shit architecture to start with, for fucks sake look at their royal palace

File: image.jpg (47KB, 478x718px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 478x718px

>mfw this thread wont have a conclusion

>>371510
1) are they brown?
2) do they go to a mosque?

If yes, then they're English.

Because it was still called England.

Why is Italy not Lombardy?

>>371445

There was already a Normandy, so they keep the England name.

Because Normans aren't very good at asserting their culture, they assimilated into the native culture for the most part. The Normans that invaded Ireland did the same thing.

>>371603
>>>/int/

>>371445
>arent english people not actually english people, just normans?
what? Do you think that the Normans literally killed everyone in the country?
>>371485
>That's not actually true, although it was thought as such at the time.
you're right but you know what they meant, they were culturally what we call Anglo-Saxon if not genetically

File: Brit11.png (26KB, 726x526px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 726x526px

>>371664
>>>/prayertime/

Only the ruling class got replaced. They either died at Fulford, Stamford, Hastings, or the revolts afterwards. The survivors lost their lands and wealth so they went into execution to Ireland, Scotland, Denmark, and especially Byzantium. Quite a few Englishmen served in the Varangian Guard.

The Anglo-Saxons did lose a good amount of people in-between 1066 and 1087. The Harrying of the North as well as the uprisings by Eadric the Wild, Hereward the Wake, and Earl Waltheof cost many lives. Not to mention the Danish invasions.

The Normans and other foreigners (Bretons, Flemings, etc.) were no more than 25,000. And they were usually men so they forced intermarriage with English heiresses to inherit lands "legitimately." Thus the Normans mixed with the English.

And the English refused to become Norman. They retained their language though they eventually adopted continental names. By the 13th century, most Anglo-Normans thought themselves as "English" though it would take another century and a half for English to become the vernacular again.

File: engli.png (84KB, 799x528px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 799x528px

>>371655
They actually were very bad at assimilating English culture
The kings spoke only French for centuries after 1066, giving England a French motto (that it still have to this day) and injecting millions of French words in English language, changing it forever

>>371665
After the spanish conquered aztec lands in 1519 nobody continued calling it "land of the aztecs"

>>371684
>varangian guard
>after the vikings were defeated
Senpai what

>>371489
It's not that far-fetched. The Britons most likely assimilated with the Germanic invaders. The founder of Wessex, Cerdic, has a Brythonic name. There couldn't have been a massive influx of Angles, Jutes, Saxons, and Frisians to wipe out the Romano-Britons. New evidence even points out that they were already there as mercenaries and farmers before the final withdrawal of the legions.

Imagine being a Briton farmer in what's now the Midlands. These pagan Germanics are roving around. If you become one of them, you won't be enslaved, you can have the status of a freeman with weregild. You just have to speak their lingo and take up their customs.

And Old English contains trace elements of Brittonicisms so there was 2-way exchange like Cerdic's name. Briton women who took up with Germanic men would've had an influence on their sons and daughters

>>371696
a pie chart of this ranking words by how frequently they are used would be better, people are more likely to say "pig" than "swine"

>>371728
>It's not that far-fetched
exactly
It's certainly far more likely than the idea of a genocide. Recent archaeology is also suggesting that the end of 'Roman' culture was far more of a steady transition than just 'turning off the lights'. The dark earth found in strata from the early post-Roman period, for example, is not just empty shite (as previously assumed). Micromorphological analysis shows that towns and other sites with 'dark earth' were still inhabited.

>>371719
The Byzantine's mercenary guard of Vikings received a ton of English after 1066. The Italo-Normans invaded the Balkans in the 1070's which pitted axe-bearing Anglo-Saxons eager for payback against Normans.

Exiled English received a welcome in Norway since Harold Godwinson's merciful treatment to Hardraada's son and soldiers were appreciated. It's a real shame a Dane or Norwegian king didn't mount a successful ousting of the Normans. The Anglo-Saxons would've vastly preferred a Scandinavian monarch because they already had experience under Canute the Great.
Old English and Old Norse was mutually intelligible enough to get by. The Scandinavians had a similar culture to the English than the Norman aliens.

Because Anglo Saxon people mixed with Normans and formed the English

>>371728
>>371748

As the guy who mentioned it originally, what really surprised me wasn't that either the Normans or the Saxons had minimal genetic impact, it's that the Celts too, seemed to be a minority of the genetic impact.

The Celtic elements that preceded them and eventually turned into the Romano-British probably had a similar process happen when they took the island from the "natives".

>>371741
>a pie chart of this ranking words by how frequently they are used would be better

No it wouldnt
The "most used words" are pronouns and prepositions
Sure there are several of them in every sentence, but they're far from the most important words

The truly relevant type of words, those that give the sense to a sentence, are verbs, adjectives and nouns
And among those, Germanic and French words are at 50/50 occurence level

Most people think French words in English = shit "Rendez-Vous or "Hors-Doeuvre", but many common basic words are actually French.
Forest, river, mountain, city, country, people, place, point, use, number, color, large...etc
You will hardly ever find a sentence free of French word

>>371709

Neither did Charles declared himself Huehuetlatoani.
But when his grandad took Napoli he declared himself king of Napoli.

>>371760
>it's that the Celts too, seemed to be a minority of the genetic impact
that's because the Celts aren't really a genetic reality. Celtic is a material culture and language group more than anything

>>371760
Exactly. Very rarely does whole-scale massacres happen in olden times. The Seljuks spread Turkicness across Anatolia, the Magyars had their Germanic and Slavic subjects conform. The same applies to Celts overrunning Britain and Ireland.

>>371784
Actually most turks descend from the Native Anatolian's, Phyrgians, Pisidians, etc

>>371784
>Celts overrunning Britain and Ireland.
didn't really happen lad
British and Irish material culture are pretty different to the La Tene culture on the continent. There wasn't a big 'break' in British material culture in the time of any Celtic expansion.

ass

>>371526
>The anglos had shit architecture to start with, for fucks sake look at their royal palace
Anglo kings occupied Roman palaces actually.

Earls got the Mead-halls.

>>372726
Except they didnt
Anglos didnt occupy roman palaces, they preferred to stay in their own shitforts instead of basking in former glory of the once mighty roman empire, its well known they would stay out in the rain instead of staying in roman buildings

>>371471
The Normans weren't french you kek. They didn't show up to Normandy and say 'wow it's already named for us'.

>>371445
>It was completely conquered
no. they got new bosses, that's about it.
>and anglo saxon england was wiped out
even bigger no, lel.

>>372830
>Anglos didnt occupy roman palaces, they preferred to stay in their own shitforts instead of basking in former glory of the once mighty roman empire, its well known they would stay out in the rain instead of staying in roman buildings
this is a myth
see my earlier post:
>>371748