Why were the Britons so easily subdued by the disgusting Anglo Saxon tribes? Were Britons really that backwards...

Why were the Britons so easily subdued by the disgusting Anglo Saxon tribes? Were Britons really that backwards? Are they racially inferior?

Other urls found in this thread:

nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

How many academic books have you read on the subject? What books did you read that lead you to the conclusion that they were "easily subdued"?

The Anglo Saxons retained their language and culture while the Britons lost it and disappeared in most of Western England. So that obviously means they were subdued.,

You realize the Bretons in France and the Welsh are remnants of the Britons right?

Also the Anglo-Saxons retained their language up until they were cucked by the French Normans. Before that they'd literally almost lost it all to the Vikings... Like, do you even know about the Great Heathen Army that dumped on the anglo-saxons.

I know that King Alfred the GREAT raped the shit out of those smelly snowniggers.

878 best year of my life.

But that's not the fucking point. How did the Britons lose almost all of England with the exception of Cornwall(they lost it eventually though) to a bunch of Germanic refugees who were fucking starving because they could not grow enough crops in Denmark?

Brittonic regions got swallowed up by Anglo-Saxon chiefdoms/kingdoms. But it took like 600 years, and Britons were also faced with Gaelic invasions in the north.

There was crazy infighting among the britons. It wasn't like they were unifed against the Anglo-Saxons, they were originally came as mercenaries until they decided to take it for themselves

Anglo Saxon reporting in, there might have been some cuckolding and cock blocking involved as well.

>racially inferior

>weird fagets wearing dresses come from across the sea, but they have cuhrayzee technology, so whatever
>the fagets leave, but then others come
>what could possibly go wrong?

>nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

Friendly reminder:

>Data from many sources have shown that humans are genetically homogeneous and that genetic variation tends to be shared widely among populations.

>Race remains an inflammatory issue, both socially and scientifically. Fortunately, modern human genetics can deliver the salutary message that human populations share most of their genetic variation and that there is no scientific support for the concept that human populations are discrete, nonoverlapping entities.

Then how to explain variance between population in physical features?

It is basically sayinf that 0 is close to 1 is close to 2 is ... is close to 1000, thus 0 is close to 1000

Your dick is therefore kind of close to a mediocre 6 inches.

...

>racially inferior
There are not distinct biological races, but social races, and intellectual prestige, see Mexican intellectuals being smarter than white trailer trash
>easily subdued
You realise Anglo-Saxon means more than just Anglo and Saxon culture uniting right
>Britons that backward
Not really just poor and reliance on Rome had diminished a warrior tradition

They were not united so the anglo-saxons fought them while they were fighting among themselves.

Why was the British Isles so easily subdued by the Normans? Were they really that backwards? Are they racially inferior?

Why was Normandy so easily subdued by the Norse? Were they really that backwards? Are they racially inferior?

Look:The Anglo-Saxons were mercenaries under the Romans, but when Britannia was given up, the Anglo-Saxons were the best soldiers left on the Island and decided, instead of returning to their endangered homeland, to get a good portion of their own people over.