Ironic events in history

Have you moved to England, married an English woman, named your kids Nigel/Nigella, started wearing a three piece English wool suit and started attending Church of England services every Sunday and telling people that you are English when asked?

>integrating gained territory is colonialism
Guess Rome was just a really good colonial power then.

You know, the word French also comes from Franks....

>No it didn't. It was not a country.
>hurr they were called kings of the franks instead of kings of france
Francia had existed for centuries by the time of the Norman conquest.

>Normans
>French

Why are Gaul subhumans always trying to claim Germanic rulers and kingdoms?
>OUI WUZ CHARLEGMANE AND SHIEET

They were Normans, not Franks.

Why are Saxon subhumans always trying to claim Frank rulers and kingdoms?
>WIR SIND KARL DER GROSSE UND SCHEISSE

>A nobleman pressing a claim to a throne.
>"""Colonization.""""

>Normans
>French

Britcucks are the ultimate European rape babies. They are mongrels who got enriched by nearly every country in northern and western Europe.

The Normans were fucking cool, its amazing what Christiantiy can do to sheep fucking barbarians.

Anyone know the kind of sword bottom left is?

You might want to look up what the word "Colonized" means. Because last I checked, the Norman Conquest didn't lead to resources or even political will being siphoned away from England and brought to France.

Are you retarded? You can count on one hand the nations in Europe more homogenous than British people.

They're labelled as knight and page in the first crusade, can't tell you more.

It does look like a typical arming sword to me, though.

>They're labelled as knight and page in the first crusade, can't tell you more.
>It does look like a typical arming sword to me, though.

Thank you so much, i can't make out the german inscription.

Charlemagne was French

I don't think it's historically inaccurate to describe the Normans as french, domiciled as they were for some centuries in France but it is an over-simplification.
>even though they spoke French, had French names, dressed in the French fashion, adopted the French religion and referred to themselves as French when distinguishing themselves from the English
t. civic nationalist.
None of these would make them ethnically French, not to say they weren't as there was a substantial amount of marrying and raping those with greater claims to indigeneity, but it's perfectly possible for someone to speak, act, dress, worship and identify as something without them being that thing.

By that point they weren't. They had been intermarrying with locals for generations. Anyways the bulk of the invasion forces wasn't even Norman.

Even by blood they were thoroughly Frenchified.

>referred to themselves as French when distinguishing themselves from the English

Proofs? The Normans at that time actually had a strong Norman identity, separate from the French identity.

The Bayeux Tapestry and William the Conquerer's charter for London.

>The Bayeux Tapestry

created by an Anglo-Saxon

>William the Conquerer's charter for London

addressed to Anglo-Saxons

Therefore, they only show us that the Anglo-Saxons viewed them as French

>created by Anglo Saxons
>on the orders of a Norman

>addressed to Anglo Saxons
>from a Norman

Type XV

If the Normans were as French as the Byzantines were Roman

French identity didn't really exist. The Normans were still vassals of the french king, and that's what mattered the most at that time.
I don't know if the normans were french, but Brits seem desesperate to prove the normans had nothing to do with the french and refer to them as vikings. It's obviously false, the english language is full of french words, and the norman invasion linked England with continent, for better or worse.

And? It reflected the attitudes of Anglo-Saxons

Here, read a few pages on the question of Norman identity

books.google.com/books?id=TrlQdhmoRLUC&pg=PA32

>Normands are vikings
Normands are French that mixed with Nordic and were ruled by a Nordic noblity
But they were cerainly not Vikings

>France didn't exist at that time in 1066
Anglo revisionism never end

the proud history of anglos
>native britons
>raped by romans
>raped by germanic peoples
>raped by vikings
>raped by normans
>raped by muslims

Soo what your saying is that the Normans are in fact French?

No it was just revenge if the briton's against the anglos, 1/3 of William's army were breton who themselves decend from the britons who left during the anglo takeover, its why king Arthur is so big in britianny

Correct, the franks were a Germanic group, they were Norman French :)

Dutch is Germanic

>Guess Rome was just a really good colonial power then.
Is this not a well-known fact? The very word "colony" comes from the Romans.

>muh haplogroups
>implying everyone from R1b is a member of the same nation
Are you retarded?

>spoke a Germanic language
>French
French people didn't even exist at the time. Franks were a Germanic people that no longer exist.

>CHARLEGMANE
Because Charles le Grand was French...

You are retarded, by the time William invaded England, the Normans had assimilated, and the Vikings swore loyalty to the French king

>Europeans didn't magically spawn on the British Isles
>Europeans actually had to travel from the mainland and settle there
No fucking way.

I don't know why, but Germans and Frenchmen arguing about whether figures from the dark ages and medieval period were German or French amuses me to no end

>the Vikings swore loyalty to the French king
Nominally.

By all means, The Duchy of Normandy was virtually independent.

Hell the Duchy can't even control its own people: Norman adventurers ran all over Europe looking for fights & land.

>England would have conquered France if not for a literal, irrefutable,act of God

its ironic because most historians are atheist and ignore it

lol, a subject is still a subject, wageslave.

Will my genetics mutate to those of an Englishman if I do that?

There's such a thing as "Nominal," nation-state cuck.

You can call a cunt a subject all you want but when he does his own shit most of the time and you can't tell him off of it or get him to obey you, he de facto isnt.

>Cucking your son for reversing the thing your father did that made everyone mad

a stance of personal view. i believe a man a slave unless he removes his shackles. you say a man is free if his shackles are long and he needn't listen to his master.

I'm new what is this

>raped by germanic peoples
>raped by vikings
>raped by normans
Redundant post tb.h

*Because Carl the Great was Germanic...

>hur personal view.
>spouts personal views.
It isn't really a personal view.

Going by your shitty example, you can believe a man a slave all you want, but if he doesn't give a shit about you, acts independently, earns his own wage, and refuses your commands, a slave is what you don't have.

Besides, this is a shit argument. By the time the Normans had their own Kingdoms, they truly were their own dynasty, and not some bootlick of the French King. If anything they started messing with the French line of succession. That's as stupid as saying the Kingdom of Sicily and some of the Crusader States were """"French"""" Colonies just because their rulers were born in France when nobody turned England, Sicily, nor the Outremer into fiefdoms for the French throne.

>not having read the song of Roland

>French identity didn't really exist
I fucking hate this meme so goddamn much

same, to what are you referring

They were French, some of them with a little of viking muh heritage.

>normans were not french
>anglo-saxons are british

Nice logic.

yet you don't view them as french

Too humiliating, I guess

my ancestors :)