Norman conquest

Was the Norman conquest of England a French invasion where France fucked England and can claim all it's achievements or was it an invasion from what would've been a separate country who set up in England as the new English people? Did the Normans integrate into English society?

the norman conquest should be seen as a dynastic feud, much like the 100 YW, the nation state has not occured yet, nor has the idea of a nationality resurged but the idea of foreigner has remained.
Many Anglo-Saxons worked with the normans at first because they saw them as a way to advance their own goals, much like the Roman 'conquest' of Greece, which was just Athena flipping the bird to Epirrus. It's only when William puts his norman subjects first that you get the old lords rebelling and then getting throughly BTFO
The Normans are deeply responsible for the english identity, moreso than the danes of the great pagan army, or the cornish.
Much like how the Dutch and Huegonots were essential to the creation of a british identity

Given that most of the monarchs were born in England and held most their power in England, what do you think?

>posts wikiepedia screencaps of their tomb effigies in france
checkm8 lindy

>can claim all it's achievements
What the fuck do you mean by this? Even if England was thoroughly frenchified it still became a totally independent state that had a dozen or so wars with France. Are you making some ethnic claim?

the normans were mostly germanic scandi/vikings that settled the north coast anyway and mixed with the local population. they were basically english/anglo anyway.

I.E. in Greater French maps should England be in there or not
THIS, they were basically one population that split into three then became one
FunFact, much like the lizard league which hoped to move Danzig to Polish hands there was a movement in the 1500's for Normandy to go back to the English

Weren't they in France long enough to be French?

in 1066, the ruler of paris was still called king of the franks

I'm talking about normans though. From a modern perspective, they'd be french. If you wanted to be a nationalistic frenchman you'd say "ha we sure showed those bongs in 1066"

From a modern perspective would the people of brittany be bretons or french, Normandy was very independent in it's affairs, as shown by sheltering an english claimnant when the king of france was trying to stay on good terms with the norwegians

Normans were not French

>speaks French
>looks French
>dresses like a Frenchman
>intermarried with French nobility for generations
>considers themselves French
>bows to the King of France
>"Nuh-uh, their great-great-grandfather was a Vikang, which means they wuz vikangz too!"

You must be an American.

>>conquered massive tracks of land around europe over a sporadic period using their sea faring prowess

yes totally french, typical of them to raid and conquer coastaly.

Nobody was bowing to the King of the Franks at the time of the Norman Conquest. Paris was irrelevant until Louis the Fat sorted out shit.

No. This is a bizarre, modern notion. For instance, we look at the modern state of Italy and think they and only they should 'take pride in' the Roman Empire, as it's 'their' achievement. Of course, the Romans (as in actual Latins) settled throughout their Empire.

Then we have the laughable situation with Greece and Macedonia, arguing about who gets to claim Alexander III of Macedon as 'their' Great figure. I think it's fairly obvious that modern Macedonians have Ancient Greek ancestry.

The Normans were not French. It would be like saying the French fought the Hundred Years' War against 'the British'. The Normans spoke French and were thoroughly Gallicised, yes. But they were a distinct state.

Also, the Normans didn't settle in huge numbers immediately after the conquest, but there were certainly many thousands of them and more arrived from Northern France in the couple of centuries that followed. You'll see claims that 'the Normans left no genetic legacy in Britain', though given that they were descended from two groups (French and Scandinavians) that have historically been amongst the biggest contributors to the British gene pool, this is impossible to tell.

Linguistically, Norman French had a big impact on English. This is more easily explained through the gradual drift of Norman-descended Francophones into lower levels of society, rather than - as Veeky Forums would have you believe - the eternally-oppressed Anglo-Saxon underclass attempting to ape their Glorious Gallic Lords.

Anglo-Saxons were very well respected in Europe, and the Normans didn't arrive determined to enforce an anti-English system. It was the repeated rebellions by the English that led to harsh laws and the crushing of dissent through extreme force.

Haha now i can show those damn frenchies what-for!

>The Normans spoke French and were thoroughly Gallicised, yes. But they were a distinct state.
I guess the Prussians, Bavarians were also not Germans since they had distinct states.

>monarchs were born in England and held most their power in England
But they didn't. Most English monarchs were well aware that England was dirt poor and spent their time in Normandy or Aquitaine. Richard Lionheart, for instance, barely spent a year in England in his entire life, and only because he sometimes just had to go there. Legend says he sometimes forgot he was king of England.

Point is pal, there was already a france back then, but not a Germany back then.

Yeah, Richard was a bit of a douche and king john got the bloody blame. England wasn't dirt poor though and the average peasant made more money in England than France. The reason the kings needed England was because it's financial system and coinage was the best in Europe.

not french

there were no french

And Normandy was part of the French kingdom, which is why Philip II had the right to confiscate it.