how is the norman invasion of England relevant? Did it do anything major other than change the English dynasty?
>>390286
>the changing of a dynasty in the Feudal era was irrelevant
>>390291
i know its relevant, but what specifically changed, in terms of public policy for example
>>390311
Technologies, arts, and language from mainland Europe began to flood into Britain, since it was relatively isolated before then. It also set up French history through the High/Late Middle Ages, as well as England, because it allowed there to basically be two French dynasties, and two French kingdoms to challenge each other.
>>390311
>what is the hundred years war
>>390324
>since it was relatively isolated before then
>>390325
explain anon
im shit tier at this, how did the rise of william mean anything for france? werent normandy and france seperate states?
>>390357
Okay, it wasn't some vast wasteland of barbarians with no language who lived in mud huts and ate their own shit. But Saxon England really wasn't as close to the political entities of the Continent as they were to each other.
>>390375
>how did the rise of william mean anything for france? werent normandy and france seperate states?
No, Normandy was a part of France and viewed as part of the rightful clay of the French king. William was the actual owner of Normandy though, but still a vassal to the king of France.
Of course, William got his own kingdom in England. And you can't have a king be a vassal of another king, so William became independent of France, keeping Normandy with him. This alone caused tension between England and France, as they both had rightful claims on the land.
Shit gets more complex a few hundred years later on, as due to a bunch of marriages and complex inheritance laws, the Plantagenets, the ruling dynasty of England, were actually able to claim the entire kingdom of France as their rightful clay. And so the Hundred Years War began.
>>390286
it stopped Britain form dicking around with northern europe in exchange for dicking around with western europe
>>390375
The concept of "France" at the time was very vague. There were French states such as Normandy or Burgundy, while at the same time there was one man or family who ruled over a Kingdom of France. Now, any French king, which both the king in Paris and the king in London would be known as, would style themselves the King of the French. So when you have two kings with the exact same claim over the exact same culture, you run into disputes.
>how is an event that changed the historical direction of the most important country in the history of mankind relevant?
Anglo-Saxon England, with the exception of Aethelstan's reign, was basically an Scandinavian country. The Norman invasion changed that. For one, that's extremely important.
Besides, it wasn't only the "English dynasty" that changed. The entire ruling class was replaced, the entire governmental culture and language, it was a huge shift. Not to mention the genocidal policies the Normans enforced in the North.
>>390485
>the most important country in the history of mankind
>>390286
>invasion
>relevant
>major
>change
>dynasty
Brought us those words.
>>390496
>capitalism
>liberalism
>industrial revolution
>scientific revolution
Everything began in England. It wouldn't be so if they were just another Norway.
>>390521
200 years of dominance trumps all of history?
kek
>>390525
Considering how much changed in these last 200 years, compared to the previous 6000 ones? It does.
I understand where you come from. Rome, China, India, they were all important in their own ways, but none remodeled the entire world the way England did.
>>390525
Nothing prior to the modern era is really history. Until class consciousness on a massive scale became possible there was no historical development.
>>390291
The changing of the dynastic is fairly irrelevant, happened a fair few times, point is more the culture the new dynasty forced upon the Saxons.
>>390286
It not only replaced the ruling dynasty but pretty much all the landowners, nobles and high ranking clergy, especially after the harrying of the north. It rapidly introduced continental military tradition and agriculture, as well as construction and various other innovations, something that was underway during the time of Edward the Confessor, who spent a lot of time in Normandy while Cnut was in power, though much more gradually.
It mirrors in some way British colonialism centuries later, which would rapidly introduce technology to distant lands, though in a very brutal fashion and in the long term they probably would have adopted the technology anyway.
>>390412
William was Independent as King of England, but a Vassal of the King of France as the Duke of Normandy.
The 100 Years War was not totally on William.
Phillip IV burned the Templars. By divine retribution, all his sons died with male heir. So, his nephew, the Duke of Valois and the son of his daughter, the King of England fought for the French throne.
>>390421
William didn't consider himself King of France.
There was usually only one King of France, but most of the times he was not really powerful and was mostly a "first among equals".
>>390554
Thanks for the chuckle
>>390286
(1. changed the tax code (doomsday book)
(2. pretty much set their relationship with France up until WWI
(3. Became a lot more unified, lot of England was unified by Wessex but there were still kingdom feuds and viking territory, the Normans kinda took care of those, and it was very useful when dealing with guys like the Welsh and Irish
(4. Technically gave England Normandy
>>390286
England didnt really have any castles untill the Norman invasion. Lots of old hill forts but proper castles were a tool of the occupation. You could ride out in force with your heavy calvary to extort goods from the locals then shut yourself up behind the walls if the peasants tried to attack.
>>390286
It's been mentioned generally but the reason English has so many French words (Most English people could read French and as long as they understood the context they could understand what it is generally saying) is because of the Normans.
Weren't Normans basically vikings our at least descendants of vikings.
so basically the vikings have been fucking the anglo-saxons for a long time.
>>391668
Except this time they spoke French
>>390466
William WAS a clusterfuck family feud, all by himself. He was the bastard son of a nobleman and a tanner's daughter who had a stick the size of a redwood up his ass and is the reason the English language is such a mess. He was a self-righteous prick and a mistake in many, many ways. The Harrying of the North was him channelling a sperglord who lost a game. Fuck that guy.
The unification of England and introduction of castles was basically a way of keeping pissed-off peasants away from the nobles while grabbing more land for themselves. That was all pretty commonplace medieaval tactics, but William managed to make it a lot nastier.
If anything doesn't make sense, it's probably because I'm getting drunk rn.
>>390286
It changed the entire fucking english language fool.
>>390286
It made it french.
England was for all intents and purposes a French colony for the following three or four centuries.
What is known as England after that, its noble houses, its institutions, its laws, its culture, were all born out of that.
>>390286
Massively changed the laws, administration and established aristocracy (which basically vanished). People were not ethnically influenced by the Normans at all though.
>since it was relatively isolated before then
Nah. England was one of the strongest and most centralised countries in Europe and a lot more centralised and wealthy than the "king" of France who had little power outside the Ile de France. There had been ridiculous amounts of links ever since like 570 AD.
>two French kingdoms to challenge each other.
Doubt.jpg
>>390286
Apart from everything else, the normans are why gernanic words for objects tend to be of common items whereas romance words are for posher items.
Like the difference between chair and stool, for example. Stuhl and stoel are chair in german and afrikaans, but stool in English is a particular type of wotkmans chair with no back.
