Aside from the language what other impact did the Normans have on English identity? Also what is the modern English opinion of the Normans? Do they see them as their ancestors or just medieval oppressors?
>>296520
Normans (Danes, aktschully) btfo the english when they first arrived on the islands. The english where so terribly afraid of them they gifted Rou countless shit as to appease him and avoid butcheries.
I'm not english myself but for what I've read and know they should see them more as "oppressors" of sorts.
>>296557
>Normans (Danes, aktschully)
Do you really wanna start it again?
>>296606
Start what?
Normans where originally Danes that raided england under the command of Rou
>>296557
We don't, because lists of english kings tend to start with william the first .
for sure, they were oppressors to start with but it's been so long that no one really sees them as that, save for some insane people who think you have to be able to trace your lineage back to before 1066 to be considered English.
>>296618
Apart from Scandinavian, the Normans spread Turkic as well as Iranian genes. They were feudal lords over Gallo-Romans.
Consider Richard III, last of the true Normans, he had Alan/Sarmatian DNA.
>>296672
What memery is this?
>>296703
would you care to expand?
>>296635
>>296672
sauce for this claim?
>>296703
Probably some misguided idea about haplogroups
>>297929
Danes = Not Cavalrymen
Normans = Cavalrymen
Normans were known for their prowess with the HORSE. The Horse was their main weapon. The Alani were famous for their superior Cavalry
Before the Invasion over the Rhine by Vandals and Alans, the Romans deployed Alans to the Normandy region.
We know that the Alans settled in France after the Vandal invasion.
Some Alans settled in Gaul while the others went to Spain with the Vandals
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goar
The Alans were in Armorica (modern day Brittany and Normandy), their Cavalry was seen as the best in the Gaul and the Franks used them as allies against the Burgundians and the Visigoths
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_I#Frankish_consolidation
> In 500 Clovis fought a battle with the Burgundian kingdom at Dijon but was unable to subdue them. He gained the support of the Armoricans (Alans, Gallo Romans, Britons) in the following years, for they assisted him in defeating the Visigothic kingdom of Toulouse in the Battle of Vouillé in 507, eliminating Visigothic power in Gaul. The battle added most of Aquitaine to Clovis' kingdom[8] and resulted in the death of the Visigothic king Alaric II.
We know that the Alans were settled in Armorica.
This is only some of the Source.
>>297939
Haplogroup Q = Hunnic/Turkic
Look at the map, Q settles around Normandy.
Also the Normans settled Southern Wales famously along the Severn river. Look at the Map, they correspond to that exact region.
>>296520
Not much
Normans didnt rule for long (1066-1154)
Most of the cultural (and linguistic) changes actually happened during the Plantagenet rule (1154-1485)
>>298358
>inb4 the Plantagenets were French meme
>>297939
Alans spread Haplogroup G into Europe late with the Barbarian invasions, it was already in Europe from ancient times, but another group came with the Alans.
But the Alans were not a homogeneous group, they also would've spread other genes too.
Richard III DNA
> http://dienekes.blogspot.ie/2014/12/remains-of-richard-iii-identified.html
>>298382
Yeah, they totally werent French but Angevins
Just like Churchill wasnt British but English, Bush isnt American but Texan and Columbus wasnt Italian but Genoese.
>>298358
The Houses of Lancaster and York were definitely English. There's a clear departure from French starting with Henry IV.
>>298426
They were genetically French
If we're talking about culture, you may as well consider 1066 Normans as 100% French
>>298443
Obviously we're talking about culture. Genetics don't matter at all especially when it comes to royalty.
Alani migration in pic related
>>298445
Sorry that is not a refutation.
>>298454
Whereabouts the Line of the Plantagenets comes from.
>>298454
>Sorry that is not a refutation
And haplogroup chart autism isnt valid evidence retard
>>298480
>And haplogroup chart autism isnt valid evidence retard
2015 and still using ad hominem.
>>298449
Then why do people keep claiming Normans were vikings while all they had linked with them was ancestry?
>>298358
The fuck is this?
The Plantagenets were Norman as could be. They were raised in Norman culture, their Knights were Norman, and their culture was Norman. Plus they were all still in direct line to Rollo.
>>298358
>Canute
>English
>>298526
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugues_du_Perche
> He was also one of the first known ancestors in male line of the Plantagenets.
>>298358
>saxons
>English
Fucking retard
>>298526
The Plantagenets were as French as it gets
Also, there was no such thing as "Norman culture" in 1154.
Actually, even by 1066, the Normans were pretty much just French with distant (two centuries) Danish ancestry
I never understood this meme to claim that Normans were pure vikings and absolutly not French while they were like 90% French and 10% Viking (both genetically and culturally) by the time they became relevant in 1066
>>298561
>implying that French was a single uniform culture and language in the 11th century
What is with French people and willfully ignoring their own cultural and linguistic history? Normans had their own fucking language for god's sake. Not to mention the Occitans and Poitevins.
>>298587
>Normans had their own fucking language for god's sake.
No they didnt, you mong
They spoke Old French with a few words having a different spelling
It's like calling the current American dialect of English a different language
>>298587
>>298684
Btw, before you post some retarded wiki link
>Norman (Normaund, French: Normand, Guernésiais: Normand, Jèrriais: Nouormand) is a Romance "language" which can be classified as one of the Oïl languages along with Picard and Walloon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_language
Now let's see what's an "Oil Language"
>any of the Old French dialects, spoken in the north of France during the Middle Ages
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/langue_d'o%C3%AFl
So yeah, Normans didnt have "their own fucking language".
They spoke a dialect of Old French, just like Americans, Canadians and Australians speak a dialect of English
>>298721
>just like Americans, Canadians and Australians speak a dialect of English
No you retard, not 'just like'. There is barely any variation between Canadian, American, British, etc English. On the other hand, languages like German have tons of different regional dialects which can be nearly incomprehensible even to their fellow countrymen. It depends on the language
>>298721
>Americans, Canadians and Australians speak a dialect of English
None of those are dialects though. Those are fucking accents.
GET
OF
MY
ISLAND
>>299324
*OFF
>>296520
They were then and now seen as medieval oppressors, which they kind of deserve seeing as they killed half of the population of Northumberland. The theme of the norman yoke appears constantly throughout history to symbolise how much they fucked everything up.
As for identity many of the Norman lords married English women in order to secure their claims to land. However an English national identity didnt appear among the rulers of England till the early 13th century when King John lost all of France and Louis the lion Invaded England. Even then they still mostly spoke French till the late 14th century.
>>299095
>There is barely any variation between Canadian, American, British, etc English. On the other hand, languages like German have tons of different regional dialects which can be nearly incomprehensible even to their fellow countrymen.
I imaging the same would be the case travelling around England at the turn of the last century. More so than now, and I still have great trouble with regional UK dialects as an Australian.
>>298561
I know, hence why I was saying they're Norman. Which is just high Anglo-Frankish culture.
>>296520
The Royal family
Place names
They became the upper class
They basically caused the 100 years war and the constant rivalry with the French
They built a shit load of churches
They generally improved the country and modernised it as much as you could in that period
We don't see them as ancestors or oppressors really. We see them as pretty good, they did a lot of good things and they probably took England to greatness. A lot of people don't realise that they ruled over a lot of Europe too. We don't like to think of them as French for obvious reasons, we always affirm that they were settled vikings, but really they were very "Frenchified"
>>298392
babbys first genetic foray
I hope you realise that Y dna Haplogroups don't always represent the general populations genetics.
There's places in Africa where the Indo-European Haplogroup is up to 90% but they're still full blown black men. It's the Y DNA, a single chromosome, only.
>>300132
R1b-V88 is not Indo-European.
>>296618
No they weren't, wtf.
They came from Normandy in France. You're thinking of the Danes that ruled part of England before.
>>300134
Sure it isnt
The Normans founded what we know as England. Almost nothing from pre-Norman "England" survived. They refounded the institutions and laws, and replaced the entire aristocracy.
Perhaps most importantly, they made England a cultural satellite of France, which had a massive impact on English history.
>>300132
You are a mentally defective retard, you should die a slow and painful death.
>>300146
You realize R1b is about 20,000 years old and only a specific subclade was spread by Indo-Europeans?
>>300152
>In many areas of society there was continuity, as the Normans adopted many of the Anglo-Saxon governmental institutions, including the tax system, mints and the centralisation of law-making and some judicial matters; initially sheriffs and the hundred courts continued to function as before.
>>300132
So I heard you work for BI? I'll take the bait nonetheless.
> Ancient Ethiopian genome reveals extensive Eurasian admixture throughout the African continent.
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26449472
> Here, we present a 12.5x coverage ancient genome of an Ethiopian male ('Mota') who lived approximately 4,500 years ago. We use this genome to demonstrate that the Eurasian backflow into Africa came from a population closely related to Early Neolithic farmers, who had colonized Europe 4,000 years earlier. The extent of this backflow was much greater than previously reported, reaching all the way to Central, West and Southern Africa, affecting even populations such as Yoruba and Mbuti, previously thought to be relatively unadmixed, who harbor 6-7% Eurasian ancestry.
> Ancient west Eurasian ancestry in southern and eastern Africa.
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24550290
> we also find evidence for two admixture events in the history of Kenyan, Tanzanian, and Ethiopian populations, the earlier of which involved populations related to west Eurasians and which we date to ~2,700-3,300 y ago. We reconstruct the allele frequencies of the putative west Eurasian population in eastern Africa and show that this population is a good proxy for the west Eurasian ancestry in southern Africa. The most parsimonious explanation for these findings is that west Eurasian ancestry entered southern Africa indirectly through eastern Africa.
>>300159
Nice job showing how BTFO you got.
>>300184
Then you should know it's wrong to call R1b-V88 Indo-European.
>>300191
It's MRCA mutation is about 7-5KYA
>>300197
Source?
>>300197
By the way, a 7000 year old hunter gatherer found in Samara, Russia was already P297 positive, so I doubt that.
>haploretards shitting up thread when Y-DNA marker is literally worth jack shit in determining genetic makeup
>>300289
muh matriarchy
>>300223
>>300271
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2987365/
> Phylogenetic evidence and coalescence time estimates suggest that R-P25* chromosomes (or their phylogenetic ancestor) may have been carried to Africa by an Asia-to-Africa back migration in prehistoric times.
> The R-V88 coalescence time was estimated at 9200–5600kya, in the early mid Holocene.
pic related, burials in Egypt and Germany with identical burial patterns, shows a macro culture? Surely.
Daily Reminder that Alans and Huns practiced Artificial Cranial Deformation.
>>296520
>Normans
I don't think they really affected anywhere. They went to Ireland, became Hiberno-Normans and sided with the Gaelic chiefs against the Anglo-Normans more often than not.
>>299223
Some words are spelled differently and some expressions are different
That's exactly the only difference there was between Old French and Norman as well
Calling it a different language is retarded
>normans were vikings and not french after 200 years of being in france and christians
>norman viking did the invasion all by themselves
>>300439
What? Stop embarrassing yourself retard.
>>300137
Are you even serious? Normans weren't exactly... native to Normandy, you know?
>>300545
You forgot my favorite meme
>Normans were vikings and not French after 200 years of living by French culture and mixing with the French
>But somehow they became English as soon as they conquered England
>>300137
Normans were originally a bunch of Danes who were granted a swamp after being defeated by the French at Chartres in 911.
After that, they adopted French culture, converted to christanty and interbred with the locals
By 1066, when they conquered England, they were way more French than Danish, both culturally and genetically speaking
Englishman here, Honestly we just think of them as new "Upper managment" that lasted a little while. Their main contributions were long lasting reforms and additions to our culture.
I personally believe they added the finishing touch to the English "national personality" that'd see us through the next 1000 years or so.
>>300601
They also fucked your language to the point you can't make a sentence without a French word and made some French expression your national motto (or maybe it was the Plantagenets?)
>>300630
Would hardly call that "fucking" considering how ugly most other Germanic languages are
>>300137
Check your history, mane.
Normans where only called normans once they settled in normandy, but they where fucking danes commanded by Rou, that was kicked out from his homeland and started to kill and pillage like an angry mofo.
>Normans came from normandy
Top cock. Normans where vikings. Norman was just a name.
I dont even think Rou knew of that name in his lifetime, that's just how they where known.
>>300090
>implying the Normans made any scholarly contributions that even approach what the Anglo-Celtic monks produced
u wot.
>>300125
Or you love the Normans as you're descended from them.
Where the hell did this idea about the Normans improving England come from? The Old English had a far superior form of taxation (the geld) and the system of shires and hundreds weren't in Normandy. The Bastard liked it so much he retained them but tweaked it to Norman overlordship.
The Normans and Plantagenets only contributed to castles, heavy cavalry, centralized power, and bringing war to England's Celtic neighbors. Especially Ireland since before Henry II. The Anglo-Saxons had good relations with the Irish. The kings of Northumbria married Irish princesses for instance and learned from its monasteries.
Oh and accompanying their French-speaking kings to kill and lay waste to other French speakers in the mainland. They especially maintained this annual sojourn in the 14th and 15th centuries.
The English don't identify themselves with anglo-saxons and see normans as people who invaded, the anglo-saxons themselves were foreign invaders.
The English see themselves as a kind of French-Celtic-Roman-Norse-Germanic mongrel race that combined the best elements of those peoples and became something else entirely.
>>302373
It astounds me that British textbooks gloss over the Anglo-Saxon period which was more than 600 years. Much of English concepts and institutions were rooted in Germanic customs but there's hardly any acknowledgment of the Old English. This is the ultimate victory of the Normans and Plantagenets over the people they brutalized into submission.
Fucking Arthur is more recognized as a king than Alfred the Great. A fictional notion of Romano-Briton defenders that got romanticized by a Frenchman in the High Middle Ages.
>>302373
>>302571
We aren't taught much if anything about the "dark ages" period. We are roughly taught that it was Celts Romans Vikings Normans. The Angles, Saxons and others who invaded after Rome fell as pretty much unknown. We somehow just magically became Anglo Saxons.
That is of course if our schools even decide to teach anything other than WW2 and the Tudors.
>>302590
I bet that's a conscious part on the nobility who are descended from Norman and other mainland families following the Conquest. They own much of the prime real estate. And there hasn't been an a monarch of Anglo-Saxon ancestry since 1066.
>Saxons didn't marry until they came of age at 16
>Entire village gets together and builds you and your new wifes house
>Feast long into the night with your Saxonbros
>Normans invade
>Girls as young as 6 getting married off to some old lord
>Records of an 11 year old girl dying giving birth to a Norman lords child
Normans a fucking shit.
>>302690
No the education department of the government decides it but theyre all dumb shits with no historical knowledge so they just decide the obvious stuff should be taught, a load of kings and WW2.
>>302737
Seriously? Sauce on this?
They were just Medieval rulers.
I don't think anyone views them as our ancestors really. Which is why we always refer to English affairs as "Anglo" and such.
Nobody really cares about the Normans though. They are just another group that invaded us.
>>303796
There's only been 5 groups that have invaded us so they are kind of important.
>>300137
youuu fucking retaaard
>>302231
>heavy cavalry
It boggles my mind that the Anglo-Saxons didn't reach out to their continental cousins to learn equestrian warfare. The Saxon dynasty of Holy Roman Emperors fielded cavalry in the 10th century against the Magyar invasions. The Anglo-Saxons had links to the German states so it's not like they couldn't establish contact.
An Anglo-Saxon army equipped with heavy horse wouldn't have been forced to fight in Hastings so soon after Stamford Bridge. In fact, Fulford Gate might have been an English victory if they properly deployed cavalry in support of archers and infantry.
I wonder if the Old English could've learned to adapt the Welsh yew longbow early on? Longbowmen would've decimated the Norman invaders if they had 1000 of them.
>>303860
The Anglo-Saxons were always more Scandinavia oriented.
>>298358
>Mary & William
>Scots
They should be classified as Scottish & Dutch instead.
