What was their Problem

What was their Problem

They were snowniggers

> s-stop oppressing superior Mediterraneans

>Ruined perfect Anglo-Saxon england and contaminated it with disgusting french and eventually caused english deaths in 100 years war
>Ruined Byzantine Sicily adding to Byzantine decline and eventually fallen under >H>R>E yoke
>Ruined the first crusade and decided to stay in Antioch
>Failed in retaking Libya from muslims
FUCKING NORMANS

>and eventually caused english deaths in 100 years war

Wat.

>Ruined the first Crusade.

Wat.

>and eventually caused english deaths in 100 years war
Anglo-Saxons didn't have any interest in France before normans conquered them.
Eventually the Norman monarchs interbred with french anjou creating angevins who desperately wanted to unify English and French throne, causing 100 year war.

>Ruined the first Crusade.
Bohemond was a greedy fuck who betrayed Alexius and after taking antioch abandoned the Crusade
The goal of crusade was to return Byzantine land back but Bohemond as a greedy fuck ruined everything.

1) The HYW has nothing to do with normans or feeling of bloods. It was Edward III (The first english monarch who knew how to speak english) who declared war, claiming himself King of France, but accepting with the Peace of Brétigny to release his claim on the crown in exchange of Normandy and most of old Aquitaine. So it was nothing more than a feudal war, a feudal war which increasingly built the "french" and "english" nations and patriotic sentiment, something that was inexistant back then.

2) All of the crusaders were more-or-less greedy, and all of them refused to give the lands back to the Byzantines after they did nothing and sent no reinforcements on their sieges.
Tancred of Hauteville and his normans were present at the siege of Jerusalem in 1099, and the First Crusade ended up as a latin victory.

You seem to have a grasp on History that is limited to either memes or the idea of blood. But you need to understand that personnal sentiment of the leaders is much more important than any other concepts.

Well England's wasn't involved with french affairs at all before Normans conquered them and became kings.
William was still de facto vassal of the french crown and was intact with french noble affairs.
After Angevins inherited England they started to inherit more and more french countries which eventually caused HWY.

Before 1066 England was somewhat isolated from Latin affairs to the point of Papal see not being that important in england. The only foreign interaction they had, were with Denmark and Norway.
If normans failed conquering England, Anglo-Saxony would stay isolated from France, never trying to invade France.

>Failed in retaking Libya from muslims

They never wanted to, they just conquered and raided the north African coastal areas and cities for the african booty.

Also, they literally retook Sicily from the Muslims with like 250 knights and some Lombards.

Don't you think it is a bit easy to compare the situation in 1066 when it was still a time of Motte-and-Bailey castles, where the Gregorian Reform didn't take place, and the Renaissance of the XIIth century didn't take place ? The normans who came to England simply built England, with their language and then the rule of their monarchs. If you start with the principle of "if the normans didn't invade !" then you just enter into the deep, deep territory of uchronia which is not a realistic view on History.
Scotland was never invaded by France and yet it was influenced by France because the two nations interacted. Just like polish nobles influenced the french nobles. What makes you think that, even if William didn't invade, then no one else would have toppled the anglo-saxons ? Or no war would have begun between France and England ? Or that England, because of the Gregorian Reform, would have never fallen under the Pope's authority and felt the changes of the Latin world that Gregory VII gave ?

not the guy you were replying to buy
>What makes you think that, even if William didn't invade, then no one else would have toppled the anglo-saxons
In general terms its more a matter if England would be more like Germany/Scandinavia or France. People forget that the North of England was still filled with Anglo-Norse lords until William genocided them in his Harrying of the North. So England would have either retained its Germanic Anglo-Saxon roots or become even more Scandinavian under Hardrada
>Or no war would have begun between France and England
most of the medieval wars between the two were predicated on dynastic politics related to England being ruled by Norman/French dynasties, along with the awkward situation of how the king of England was technically still paying Homage to the king of France for Normandy. So while there's still always the chance for the same dynastic issues to arise through marriage, I doubt it would have happened in the same manner or protracted ambitions.
>Or that England, because of the Gregorian Reform, would have never fallen under the Pope's authority and felt the changes of the Latin world that Gregory VII gave
The Anglo-Saxons were pretty good Catholics most of the time so I don't think they would've changed that much

That pic is so childish

They were America's blueprint for foreign takeovers.

Do It Again William

>Byzantine Sicily

It was under mudslime rule for over 200 years during that time.

250 professional warriors filled to the brim with religious zeal and seeing death in battle a real and noble ideal, not to mention fully clad in heavy armor with finely tempered swords, maces, daggers, and lances with the best bred horses in all of Europe.
Against?
unarmored untrained peasants who see dying in battle as an ideal as well.
Normans had the weapons and equipment to justify their mindset.
muslims didnt.

SEETHING

You forgot the egyptians

>le Muslims didn't have armor

What did user mean by this?

If anything it minimizes the Normans accomplishments.

Says the Veeky Forums poster.

>Be Norman.
>Be Not a First Son of a Norman noble.
>MFW no inheritance.
>Band together with fellow no-inheritance people.
>Go out to the world and have adventures as hired soldiers.
>See """"Free Land?"""" Make it into a state.
England is something else entirely, it was a succession dispute. But most Norman hijinks was due to inheritanceless young nobles.

the Norman's came on to the worlds stage and left it remarkably quick. They do have quite a list of accomplishments in that brief time however. It's a shame they couldnt build something to last.

Bump

No u

>that nigga eating a chicken leg in the back

#3 should of been munching on it

>never trying to invade France
Anglos never tried to invade.

>be anglo
>get frenched

eternal BUTTHURT

Here Sicily refers to southern Italy, which were shared by Byzantines and Fatimides.

>cucks muslims and muslim enablers
where is the problem

>skipped out on white girls to chase African booty
Mah niggas

Anglos are not 100% Anglo

these guys just got outclassed

>Normans
>French

here we go