Anglo Saxons

>english influenced by norse languages
pretty funny :)

>404 Saxon losses not found

This isn't even good b8...

>he really wishes it was norselish

:-DDDDDDDD

>>english influenced by norse languages
>similarities between similar peoples means one is a leaf and another is a branch instead of both coming from the same trunk
>he judges wins and losses by battles and not campaigns
non-strategist detected

>missing so many points this hard
Didn't realize I was on /pol/.

They were poor warriors compared to the Vikings.

The art, literature, and metalwork that's come down to us shows that they were a very civilized people.

Unfortunately being civilized doesn't help much when you have the pale niggers known as Vikings raiding you constantly.

Please don't use the N-word.

The Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were not unified. They were zerg rushed by a large, mobile force and lost consistently until Wessex said fuck you and stopped them. The Battle of Edington was the turning point and led to a peace treaty and several Danes converting to Christianity. I'd say on equal terms, the Anglo-Saxons and Danes were mostly evenly matched.

winning wars > winning battles

Edington and Stamford Bridge were pretty decisive battles for the Anglo-Saxons

>inb4 Godwinson lost against the Normans

We're discussing Danes, not Normans. Also, the Normans were losing at Hastings until the Anglo-Saxons fell for the feint meme and broke ranks.

What, known?

Also, the K-word, both D-words and the H-word except in the strictest technical sense.

>We're discussing
Battles. And Normans. You can't change what the OP is no matter how much you'd like to. The Saxons lost their share of decisive battles, which is what gave rise to Danelaw.

>they were winning until the Normans decided it was time to stop pretending to lose

Are there any sources or accounts of Scandinavians simply asking the Anglo-Saxons if they could settle and farm their lands?

Anglo-Saxons relied on the shieldwall too much, and were awful fighters once it broke because most of them were simply farmers with no warrior heritage.

Vikings and Normans were warrior cultures. Normans had their knights, their cavalry, and their superior military society. Vikings were superior individual fighters who happened to also be better at using the shieldwall tactics the Anglo-Saxons used.

Long story short, the Anlgo-Saxons never stood a chance.

>I'd say on equal terms, the Anglo-Saxons and Danes were mostly evenly matched.
I disagree. Anglo-Saxons never invaded Denmark.

Angry Anglo-Saxon detected
Give it up Echbert, you lost

It's a complex tale:

>The fall of England and the Norman Conquest is a multi-generational, multi-family succession problem caused in great part by Athelred's incompetence.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxons#Conquest_England:_Danes.2C_Norwegians_and_Normans_.281016.E2.80.931066.29

It's way too hard for Veeky Forums and /his to deal with.

So yes, of course, in proper Veeky Forums style, the answer is:

>LOL ANGLO SAXONS SUCK AT TEH FIGHTINGS RITE GUIZE?

A farmer society vs two warrior societies.

>Anglo-Saxons were hired by the Britons as mercenaries and conquered the land themselves
>Farmer society

After hundreds of years

>improve

you mean debase aelthred

dont choke on all that anger, alfred

England was one of the first unified countries in Europe in the early 10th century. When it did unify, it kicked the shit out the Vikings of Jorvik, the Welsh, the Scots and the Irish.

>Are there any sources or accounts of Scandinavians simply asking the Anglo-Saxons if they could settle and farm their lands?

The last time that happened was in the dying days of the Roman Empire in the west, and look at what happened when they got hungry for more land.

They unified and then bent over for the Normans.

>anyone with commonsense is from /pol/
I guess its better than here.
Sure thing, my coon friend.
>I disagree. Anglo-Saxons never invaded Denmark.
??
>leave shitland and settle somewhere else for 400 years
>get invaded by the descendents of the homos who refused to leave
>>"LOL SAXONS NEVER RETURNED TO THE SHITFEST THAT WAS DANEMARCH ANGLO BTFO!"
Kill yourself, my man.
>random farmers forming militias resist armies for 3 centuries before being rushed and outnumbered by 2 forces of veteran warriors
And England still has Anglo in the name. Saxon men are of superior stock than Franko-Scandi niggers.
>t. crying Danes who are forced to live as hobos while I drink tea in the green meadows of Sussex
"Cucks"

>gets conquered several times by either scandis or by their descendants in france
>"c-cucks"

The problem with being a centralised kingdom is that once you lose your leader and army, you're screwed.

>Why were the Anglo Saxons so consistently defeated in battle by the Danes/Vikings and Normans?
>Was their militia system inferior?

Basically, yes.

Are you fucking retarded? Chaucer's English is inchoherent to modern speakers.

And secondly, modern English is bastardized with Norman french. Too many goddamn french words to be anglo saxon.

Thank the bastard.

>Chaucer's English is inchoherent to modern speakers.
C'mon, it's not that bad. It's pretty understandable with a little practice

Chaucer's English was already full of French shit.

>all that autism in one post
We're reaching critical levels of denial.

>Chaucer's English is inchoherent to modern speakers.

What kind of plebery is this?

You have to remember Normans were based around knights and mercenaries, professional soldiers, while Norsemen were a warrior society where all men fought.

Saxons were mostly poor farmers with a handful of "professional" fighters in the King's service. They weren't really a match for their neighbors.

Because they lacked a military tradition like their neighbors. Both their conquest by the Danes and the conquest by the Normans improved their military traditions. Without those conquests, Britain wouldn't likely have emerged as a military power.

lack of horses

The Saxons weren't fighters, they were more a farmer race.

How's that?

They were behind the continent in terms of tactics.

Here bygynneth the Book of the tales of Caunterbury
Whan that Aprille with his shoures soote,
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote,
And bathed every veyne in swich licóur
Of which vertú engendred is the flour;
Whan Zephirus eek with his swete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in the Ram his halfe cours y-ronne,
And smale foweles maken melodye,
That slepen al the nyght with open ye,
So priketh hem Natúre in hir corages,
Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages,
And palmeres for to seken straunge strondes,
To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes;
And specially, from every shires ende
Of Engelond, to Caunterbury they wende,
The hooly blisful martir for to seke,
That hem hath holpen whan that they were seeke.

>incoherent

Why is there soot on shores? Did a volcano erupt?

Anglos don't really have a great record at battles.

>Saxons won some battles
>must mean Danelaw and the Norman Conquest never happened

jesus christ...

They won in the end.

I guess it did help that most of their "victories" consisted of raiding monasteries and ungarrisoned piss poor villages strucken by famine and a plague

>he wrote in English

Why did the vikings not conquer ireland/scotland the way they did with england?
They founded the major cities we still have in ireland (cork, limerick, dublin etc) but never went further then that for any major time.
Was it because of the obvious superiority of the gall óglaigh?

Why do the Irish have red hair?

touched by fire
source: GRRM

>GRRM

English that is diluted with French. Face it, little man. Your Anglo ancestors were cucks who watched as their wives were bred by big Norman cocks. Norman aristocracy ruled England for centuries and created the English you speak. Old English was entirely Germanic.

I find it funny how insecure Anglos get about their racial defeat. I bet they don't even know that Anglo Saxon individualism was born out of their attempt to cope with the conquest.

...

i-it is still called english though

...

The gall óglaigh were originally vikings, it literally means "foreign warriors".

Facts don't matter to Angloboos.

>similarities between similar peoples means one is a leaf and another is a branch
No, they're both branches of Germanic languages, but Anglo-Saxon belonged to the western branch, while Old Norse belonged to the northern, and there are many words in English which are not derived from West Germanic roots but were loaned from Norse.

>muh muh Anglo-Saxons were the fiercest Germanic warriors
>t: 30% Anglo-Saxon DNA

They all look the same if you ask me.

>30%

Awfully generous, user.

A little low actually

>An examination of Y-chromosome variation ... found that in England 50% to 100% of paternal genetic inheritance was derived from incomers originating in the Germanic coastlands of the North Sea.[91]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain

and it's a germanic language

not celtic
or romance

>he wrote in a language influenced by its Norse and Norman conquerors
Really activates my almonds...

>all norse men fought

that's how it's like in Skyrim?

Why vikings couldn't defeat Wessex? What made that one kingdom bitchslap them?

>muh haploautism

Confirmed for not knowing shit about genetics and seriously believing the 71 genes on the y-chromsome determines ethnic makeup and not male line ancestry solely.

SNP analysis like posted >>>>>>>> /int/ tier haplogroup circlejerks.

>while Norsemen were a warrior society where all men fought

No they weren't. Most of them were farmers as well or just ordinary people. That's like saying all Americans are Marines or all 14th century Englishmen were longbowmen.

The Weirod produced more skilled warriors, but not in a high enough quantity to compete with the numbers of the Vikingrs. The Fyrd was simply not good enough, and the Weirod was too good.

>Also, the Normans were losing at Hastings until the Anglo-Saxons fell for the feint meme and broke ranks.
Feints were actually very difficult to pull off in ancient and medieval times; with poor communication, a feint can often lead to a mass rout during the confusion and a catastrophic defeat as a result.

This is bullshit tho

Saxons haplogroup(I1 and not R1B-U106 which Gaul Belgea) is merely 30%

That's supposed to mean "sweet showers". Kinda incoherent, if you ask me.