Anglo-Danish Empire

Might as well call it the Anglo-Danish-Norse empire cause Norway was a part of it too then

He's right you know. Cnut was a Dane first and probably preferred dealing with his Norwegian kingdom then the English one.

What do you think happened to the Anglo-Saxons after William the Conquer took the throne ? Anglo-Saxons became the peasant class while the Normans where the ruling class for over 300 years.

Cnut was Married to an English woman, died in England, was burried in England and was king of England first. He had nothing to do with Norway. Although you are correct it is officially the Anglo-Scandinavian empire, but Anglo-Danish is better descriptive of the empire.

People get this bootybothered over an easy shorthand for the Danish empire that included the Angles.

The Angevin empire's French holdings were much richer, more populated and more profitable than Norway would be.

How powerful would you say the Angevin king would be in Europe? Second to the emperor?

>Cnut
>canute

Who thought that was a good idea?

>Angevin Empire

No, it was French Empire. Anglos were irrelevant peasant niggers.

I know you're joking, but some legit believe this so I'll clear this up. The kings were the king of england and they had been in england for 200 years so they were english. It is an english empire

The True Born Englishman
BY DANIEL DEFOE
Thus from a mixture of all kinds began,
That het’rogeneous thing, an Englishman:
In eager rapes, and furious lust begot,
Betwixt a painted Britain and a Scot.
Whose gend’ring off-spring quickly learn’d to bow,
And yoke their heifers to the Roman plough:
From whence a mongrel half-bred race there came,
With neither name, nor nation, speech nor fame.
In whose hot veins new mixtures quickly ran,
Infus’d betwixt a Saxon and a Dane.
While their rank daughters, to their parents just,
Receiv’d all nations with promiscuous lust.
This nauseous brood directly did contain
The well-extracted blood of Englishmen.

Which medly canton’d in a heptarchy,
A rhapsody of nations to supply,
Among themselves maintain’d eternal wars,
And still the ladies lov’d the conquerors.

The western Angles all the rest subdu’d;
A bloody nation, barbarous and rude:
Who by the tenure of the sword possest
One part of Britain, and subdu’d the rest
And as great things denominate the small,
The conqu’ring part gave title to the whole.
The Scot, Pict, Britain, Roman, Dane, submit,
And with the English-Saxon all unite:
And these the mixture have so close pursu’d,
The very name and memory’s subdu’d:
No Roman now, no Britain does remain;
Wales strove to separate, but strove in vain:
The silent nations undistinguish’d fall,
And Englishman’s the common name for all.
Fate jumbled them together, God knows how;
What e’er they were they’re true-born English now.

The wonder which remains is at our pride,
To value that which all wise men deride.
For Englishmen to boast of generation,
Cancels their knowledge, and lampoons the nation.
A true-born Englishman’s a contradiction,
In speech an irony, in fact a fiction.
A banter made to be a test of fools,
Which those that use it justly ridicules.
A metaphor invented to express
A man a-kin to all the universe.

For as the Scots, as learned men ha’ said,
Throughout the world their wand’ring seed ha’ spread;
So open-handed England, ’tis believ’d,
Has all the gleanings of the world receiv’d.

Some think of England ’twas our Saviour meant,
The Gospel should to all the world be sent:
Since, when the blessed sound did hither reach,
They to all nations might be said to preach.

’Tis well that virtue gives nobility,
How shall we else the want of birth and blood supply?
Since scarce one family is left alive,
Which does not from some foreigner derive.

>I know you're joking,

And here begins the Ancient Pedigree,
That so exalts our Poor Nobility:
'Tis that from some French Trooper they derive,
Who with the Norman Bastard did arrive:
The Trophies of the Families appear;
Some show the Sword, the Bow, and some the Spear,
Which their Great Ancestor, forsooth, did wear.
These in the Heralds Register remain,
Their Noble Mean Extraction to explain.
Yet who the Hero was, no Man can tell,
Whether a Drummer or a Colonel:
The silence Record blushes to reveal
Their Ʋndescended Dark Original.

By Based Daniel Defoe

> so they were english. It is an english empire

Conquest, as by the * Moderns 'tis exprest,
May give a Title to the Lands possest:
But that the Longest Sword shou'd be so Civil,
To make a Frenchman English, that's the Devil.

By Based Daniel Defoe

I don't disagree with this, however it's like saying Americans aren't American unless they are native American. I'm not talking about racial Englishness as it's a melting pot, it's just that if you use this logic for defining who is English, when will it end? We're all African? We're all German? We're all middle-eastern?

This is kind of hypocritical for you to say and irrelevant to the argument. Why don't you just apply this logic to the French as well while you're at it? Daniel is right, but it's got nothing to do with this. The Angevin empire is an empire consisting of England and parts of France, It's not incorrect to call it an English empire.

Cnut was the son of Svend Forkbeard, a Danish king who conquered England, who was the son of Harald Bluetooth, a Danish king who made the first written claim over all of Denmark, who was the son of Gorm the Old who was also a Danish king.

He became King of England because he was chosen by the Danish army in England to rule after his father Svend Forkbeard, who had just won England by conquest, had died. The actually English king, Ethelred who had fled the country when Forkbeard invaded then tried to come back and got rekt. Then Cnut returned to Denmark to claim his rightful throne after his father.

HEY GUYS WE TOTALLY WEREN'T CONQUERED BY DANES. XDD

IT WAS ACTUALLY AN ANGLO-DANE KINGDOM LOLXDD

It's funny how the Anglo-Saxons dominated over Britons, but when actual Norsemen came from Scandinavia they were denominated to the role of peasants. So much for the powerful Anglo-Saxons.

It was almost as great as the Cherokee-Anglo States of America

Actually Cnut won the throne of Denmark off his brother and his father didn't finish the invasion of England as he died before then. I never denied he was Danish, i said he had nothing to do with 'Norway' in my post.
Most of the reason the Anglo-Saxons were easily conquered was a lack of unity between the disparate kingdoms. I never denied England was conquered by the Danes, but it is true the kingdoms were unified, like England and Wales.

It's actually called the North Sea empire you giganiggers

>French rule over England thus it is an English Empire

Is Achmed English too ?

In the era of Henry II, I think so, but that is not 100%.

The only certainty on strength was that the Holy Roman Emperor was the most powerful man.
After that it is harder, since there were many strong kingdoms.

The Byzantine Empire was having some kind of revival and the King of Sicily was extremely powerful as well. In Spain the Reconquista was going strong.
But I think at his best, Henry II was more powerful than the Byzantine Emperor or the King of Sicily.

It's been raped way more than Denmark.

>Greeks, Romans, Germanics, Normans, Bretons, Huns, Alans and Moors
>France

Nice delusion, there is no such thing in French genepool, meanwhile, English are 40% French.

You have poor reading comprehension, it says Brits share 40% of their DNA with the French, not that Brits are 40% French.

Not only that but I'm not sure what that is even supposed to mean since with share 96% of our DNA with chimps.

Nor can I find this"startling claim" reported in the Russian Times in the original paper it claims to be reporting on.

nature.com/articles/nature14230.epdf?referrer_access_token=yZD95VMtlfQm-HOqzKIaPNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MiE0_B2kFTYAb64eH_EPxJeiJzg7Mfl6MEBC6p_EUzUl2TurV2pYso8RmPYSTSQGwVtnFDRIQV0ef7PxcIDxD_S_37penFNxeYZKVgOKTcEnGZ1MbA1AM81cWbyDY3u0-NHiAuuO9DoO14AOEu26Pv0UZk-Kc9Qf2mQ-EHJ1u-vtE0oQoHhMB1Q9BMsLej9_8=&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com

>British DNA is 40% French

Please explain me this part since i have a poor reading comprehension

>share 40%

It says that you ARE 40% French*

It says British share 40% of their genes with the French. You could as easily say the French are 40% British.

>It says that you ARE 40% French*

No it doesn't.

>You could as easily say the French are 40% British.
Nope
This article is clearn you are :

40% French (Normands, Angevins, Gauls)
30% German(Anglo-Saxons, Danes)
30% Native (Britons, Welsh, Irish, Scotts)

It doesn't say any such thing, like I say the biggest problem here is that you can't read.

t. Nigel Pierreson (This name exist btw, kek)

t. failed school

t. failed pre-school

Not him but he is right

I love this board

You are aware that headlines are inaccurate and not usually written by the person that wrote the article and that is NOT what it says in the article.

I can't believe I am also having to teach you the basics of reading media sources as well.

Not to mention I have already supplied the research paper which says no such thing.

>french is a pure ethnic group
>british is merely a collection of bits and bobs
hahahahahaha that's why you don't get your history/genetics from the media

If English DNA is 40% French due to the Normans and Angevins what percentage of the French is Italic (due to the Romans) and German (due to the Franks)? I always thought Normans and Angevins were not significant to the aboriginal English population but just a small ruling elite and that Romans and Franks were not significant to the French population that were mostly Celtic, but just a small ruling elite.

Come along chaps let's not be hostile. We're just discussing the great events of history and there's no use in arguing over purity of ethnicity.

>French population, despite of its crucial geographic location for repopulation movements of Europe across time, it has been insufficiently characterized at the genetic level, especially for Y-chromosomal DNA variation. In order to make a genetic structure characterization, we have analyzed the Y-chromosome diversity of 558 male individuals, scattered along 7 different French regions: Alsace (Strasbourg), Auvergne (Clermont-Ferrand), Bretagne (Rennes), Île-de-France (Paris), Midi-Pyrénées (Toulouse), Nord-Pas-de-Calais (Lille) and Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur (Marseille). A total of 17 Y-chromosome STRs and 27 Y-chromosome SNPs were genotyped for each individual. Even though we find that most of the individual populations in France were not differentiated from each other, Bretagne population shows population substructure, an important fact to be considered when establishing general population databases.

>Even though we find that most of the individual populations in France were not differentiated from each other,

Unlike Brits, we are a pure-breed untainted by foreign admixture

t. genetician

>what percentage of the French is Italic (due to the Romans) and German (due to the Franks)?
0.00X%
Because French were always more numerous than other Europeans

Your nobles were mostly Frankish and they were a significant minority of the population before the French Revolution.

He didn't though. Norway fell out of his possession by the end and the Danes were stewing precisely because he was spending too much time in England, leaving reagents to manage his Scandinavian possessions. Also, by the end of his reign ALL of his advisors were Englishmen.

...

The 'French' figure will also reflect pre-Roman migration between Britain and France. Iron Age cultures in Southern England often have material similarities with Northern French societies that they don't share with, say, North-West England or the Scottish Highlands.

The Normans were few in number, at least compared to the millions already in Britain, perhaps numbering 10,000 or so. Many merchants, etc, certainly arrived from France in the 3-400 years following the Norman conquest, amongst them not only Normans but Franks, Bretons and other French-speaking peoples. This will undoubtedly have contributed to this figure.

Latin genetic input will have been limited in Northern France.

ITT: delusion of french shitskins. There is no such thing as French genes, you're all mixed retards. Not even Germanic Franks could outbreed a shitskin from you.

Also most of his Earldoms in England he granted to Anglo-Saxon nobles. Furthermore the bulk of his military force towards the end of his life were devoted Anglo-Saxons, it was they who helped him conquer most of Scandinavia.

He was quite the Anglophile: m.historyextra.com/article/bbc-history-magazine/8-things-you-probably-didn’t-know-about-king-cnut-viking
See number 7

We killed 90% of them and the few that managed to flee never returned
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_emigration_(1789–1815)#The_first_.C3.A9migr.C3.A9s

They were also more vulnerable. Ain't nobody attacking Norway.

>Lives in England
>Marries the widow of an English King
>Marries another woman (Mercian noble) literally giving her Norway...
>Proclaims himself "King of all England and Denmark and the Norwegians and of some of the Swedes"... maybe it's alphab-
England, in-particularly Wessex was one of the most prosperous places in the world.

>anglo-saxons sailing to scandinavia to raid and pillage

The tables have turned

>france
>ethnically unified

top lol

Genetics ended the debate

French are pure (see )
Anglos are half-breed mongrels (see )

>French are pure
Pure shit more likely.

...

You're shitskins trash. French are literal mongrel and no amount of copypasting will change that.

>French are literal mongrel and no amount of copypasting will change that
I believe that's the point I was making with the post you responded to, user

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME, I AM SO FUCKING SICK AND TIRED OF NORTHERN EUROPEANS THINKING THERE THE MASTER RACE,THE ROMANS WERE BUILDING EMPIRES WHILE GERMAN AND CELTIC FAGS WERE CHILLING IN MUDHUTS.

>My name is Anders Pietersen, I'm from Minnesota and my favourite food is pickled herring
>However my great-great-grandmother was from Sicily so I think I'm Marcus Aurelius

That's what your post says to me, pal

I am of Italian and Portuguese descent so yeah Southern European, I don't have any Germanic,Celtic,and Slavic Genes, I don't need that shit.

Aww fuck. I'm too drunk. Sorry user.

>Thus from a mixture of all kinds began,
>That het’rogeneous thing, an Englishman:
>In eager rapes, and furious lust begot,
>Betwixt a painted Britain and a Scot.
>Whose gend’ring off-spring quickly learn’d to bow,
>And yoke their heifers to the Roman plough:
>From whence a mongrel half-bred race there came,
>With neither name, nor nation, speech nor fame.

Firstsly, you're a mongrel race

>And here begins the Ancient Pedigree,
>That so exalts our Poor Nobility:
>'Tis that from some French Trooper they derive,
>Who with the Norman Bastard did arrive:
>The Trophies of the Families appear;
>Some show the Sword, the Bow, and some the Spear,
>Which their Great Ancestor, forsooth, did wear.
>These in the Heralds Register remain,
>Their Noble Mean Extraction to explain.
>Yet who the Hero was, no Man can tell,
>Whether a Drummer or a Colonel:
>The silence Record blushes to reveal
>Their Ʋndescended Dark Original.

Secondly, you're ruling class is made up of French
END OF THE DISCUSSION

...

WHY ARE YOU SO ANGRY? No one is claiming northern european superiority, there's no such thing as a 'superior race' in Europe, but you can't act as if Anglos have done nothing.
>Biggest Empire in history
>you know the rest...

It was the Danish/ North Sea Empire, you Anglos were just Knut's cocksleeves

>Angles
>Saxons
>Jutes
All came from Denmark.

That aside, did you even read the other posts or have you just come to spout rubbish?

we wuz French
newscientist.com/article/mg22530134-300-ancient-invaders-transformed-britain-but-not-its-dna/

>The first wave of arrivals crossed by land bridges, when sea levels were so low that Britain was attached to what is now northern Germany. This wave was dominated by people with genomes most similar to modern-day inhabitants of northern Germany and Belgium.

Germans confirmed Pre-Indo-R1beans

> In parallel, migrants from the west coast of France were arriving by boat. Traces of the combined DNA from all these three pioneer settlers forms the basis for the genetic-make up of all white Britons.

French confirmed as Bell Beaker/Yamnaya Indo-R1beans

Forgive me for I was wrong, this fellow seems to have fallowed with the Viking tradition of embracing the culture of your new home.

Unlike the Normans.

>anglo-danish

Check out this anglo cuck, guys. That's like saying the II French Empire was the Franco-Algerian Empire lel.

t. Frog

Turns out the /pol/acks who shitpost on Veeky Forums are all buttblasted non-whites with the sourest of grapes over England and it's history. Who would have guessed?

One can almost say it was an anglo-saxon empire

it's mostly buttblasted French

The Hansa was the best North Sea empire.

The artcile clearly fucking says that we share 40% of our DNA. It doesn't mean we are 40% French only that we share the same ancestors. The same goes for the 30% German part.

My point still stands for mongrelposter. The full-blooded French have never given a shit about racial purity.

BASED alt-history retardation

Didn't they almost entirely abandon it, with the Danes supplanting them in Jutland?

>Invasions of the Germanic tribes.

Yeah, I thought Jutland was invaded by Danes and that was what drove the Angles, Saxons and Jutes to England in such large numbers
Pre-5th century where were the Danes? To the South in Germany or on the [modern] Danish islands to the East?

(Logic says on the islands of course)

>Angles and Saxons sailed in a straight line
>Jutes lived in the North yet they sailed south

Was it autism ?

Danish is a melting pot culture of old Norse...

Arsghhaarggaahhar

>it's like saying Americans aren't American unless they are native American.

interesting