Did the Normans fuck everything up?

Anglo-Saxon society seems like it was much better for ordinary people than after the Norman conquest, when the bastard William stole all the land.

They reconnected England back to the continent after centuries of living as one of the last places on earth where Ancient Germanic life was being practiced.

>Ancient Germanic life was being practiced

Anglo-Saxon England was a fascinating and enlightened society ruined by the filthy barbaric continentals.

>Ancient Germanic life
We have a fucking retard over here.

It basically was ancient Germanic
>MUH PEERS
>MUH FREEMEN
>MUH SHIELD WALL AND NO CAVALRY.

Feudalism wasn't really ancient Germanic.

...

>Before the Normans arrived, Anglo-Saxon governmental systems were more sophisticated than their counterparts in Normandy.[105][106] All of England was divided into administrative units called shires, with subdivisions; the royal court was the centre of government, and a justice system based on local and regional tribunals existed to secure the rights of free men.[107] Shires were run by officials known as shire reeves or sheriffs.[108] Most medieval governments were always on the move, holding court wherever the weather and food or other matters were best at the moment;[109] England had a permanent treasury at Winchester before William's conquest.[110] One major reason for the strength of the English monarchy was the wealth of the kingdom, built on the English system of taxation that included a land tax, or the geld. English coinage was also superior to most of the other currency in use in northwestern Europe, and the ability to mint coins was a royal monopoly.

FUCKING NORMANS REEEEEEEEE

Fuck off retards

kys

outside of religion
(and these were a recently converted folk mind you they wrote Christian poems in runes and happily syncretised shit)

they were VERY germanic.

They still traded with the mainlanders u retard

Everyone point and laugh at the retard.

Why do Romanceniggers ruin everything?

justify yourself nigga

That guy is right. You're the retard.

...

Would the eternal anglo as we know it ever came to be if they never got conqured by Normans?

FUCKING NORMANS
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

The thing is that they destroyed Anglo-Saxon culture and language which was at the time unique among all of Europe. Otherwise the Normans were good for England and the Isles.

blame the flemish

>MUH SHIELD WALL

every culture had some form of shield wall sunshine. That's why shields even fucking existed.

Normans pretty much destroyed the more freer Saxon system of government in favor of meme Feudalism from the continent.

If the Normans had not centralised the English government then it would have been no where near effective in helping the crusades actually capture Jerusalem
Also you would not have the underlying institutions allowing for Pax Brittania
And who gives a fuck about the common man, he will die anyway and not free from sin might I add, whilst only adding faeces to the system

>I hate order and stability

Order!=tyranny
>without the Normans the first crusade would have failed
>implying this is a bad thing

>Thank you for shitting on my face, my lords. I loooooove to be a slave and so does everybody else, so we the nation can have ''''order'''''' and '''''''stability'''''''''

>having the audacity to speak to your betters
Are you trying to get executed by the Normans user?

The Normans made the English government less centralized

>Gee, I sure do love not having a fire cuz the lord says the forests are for him and his men only and he won't give estover so i'm fucked! better starve to death with my family or set the house alight

>muh god sez it okay even though the bible stops after the 1st century AD you fucking moron

>swarthy fucking frenchmen
>betters

>If the Normans had not centralised the English government
The Norman descended houses were pretty powerful, they fought both politically and militarily with the King.
Also

Me granddaddy is a druid.
Some frog tries something with me, he gonna get fooked

English participation in the 1st Crusade was minimal.

>all dictators were evil
>feudalism is modern day capitalism
I mean why wouldn't you take bridal virginities not like they outnumber you and could have a revolt, also possible excommunication if you go to far

>bible stops after 1st century CE even though book of revelations is literally set in the future
>good crusades fail
Gee I sure like wars over two or three duchies rather than taking the holy land for Christendom and removing heresies
>lords backing kings in a pseudo elective monarchy is better than a direct hereditary monarchy where the heir is groomed his whole life for it
Also doomsday book reformed taxes
>normans weren't crusading
>who cares about siege engines
English identity isn't a thing until after 100 years war user
>wealth of kingdom
England was one of the least taxed places for most of its existence because it simply wasn't developed at the time, or when it was developed and was turning over large profits we had colonies to get money from

>lords backing kings in a pseudo elective monarchy is better than a direct hereditary monarchy where the heir is groomed his whole life for it
Yes, especially when your heirs are William Rufus and Henry I.

of course. The autism of the germanics combined with the venal nature of the Frogs combined to create the beady eyed anglo.

Reminder that the Norman invasion had 0 (zero) impact on normal, everyday people.

>becoming a feudalistic society didn't affect normal people

. . .

False. And that's talking immediately only.

> My archbishop and landowner's landowner are now Normans.
Wow. It was nothing.

>first thing normans did after landing was raid a few towns, looting them and burning them
>0 (zero) impact on normal, everyday people.

Still relatively nothing.

(You)

Reminder that the Normans were not French

>Ancient Germanic life
it has to b8

hi Lindy

The Bayeux Tapestry that is contemporary to the conquest of England say otherwise

and William the Conqueror disagree

strawman
Edward the confessor never called himself an anglo-Saxon, and Henry's first wife did not spell it catherine
see above

Explain?

>Edward the confessor never called himself an anglo-Saxon,

William called himself and his troups "French" tho, and people saw them like that too

Test

do the dukes of normandy later identifying as normans not french make this void?
osterone

Billy the Conqueror's kids were assholes, even by the standards of the Middle Ages.

If I identify as woman trapped in a man's body, does that make it true? They were from France, they spoke French and they followed French customs. The Normans were French.

The fact are that 99.999% of the Normans were just French who became vassals of the Northmen after the King gave the Northmen what would later become Normandy, and that the Northmen themselves were swiflty absorbed in the Ethnos, and finaly, that by 1100 it must have been hard to find any full-blooded Norman or even quarter-blooded Norman.

the norsemen didn't have too much of an influence on the normans in the long run but what did they have?

You know Parisian French does not become the norm until much later, ironically the Hundred Years' War is what kills off basque and Occitan culture
Don't call him Willy, he was a man's man not your not gay bf Nicky II

it might have been better or worse for the average people, but much better for the nation as a whole
>huge reforms of the legal system (including fiscal incentive for the courts) led to MUCH more strict adherence to law
>took a complete catalog of England's properties and owners, which was never done before
>centralized power more in order to cuck unruly and possibly rebellious barons and cease baron infighting
>ordered the building of a nuts amount of churches
>travelling judges/courts led to less corruption of the court due to a lack of the court's investment in local disputes
>left a fuckton of anglo gains on the continent in france for later