How did they do it, Veeky Forums?

That's an other mancha.

Is La Manche from where Don Quixote's rival hails?

No, it wasn't

To add to other points.
The pope supported William's claim, consequently lots of adventurers flocked to his banner (also prompted by the promise of land). The Normans had a reputation for being successful conquerors (Sicily) and had cutting edge military tech and techniques.

The durability of their succes can be attributed to their capable war machine aswell. But they also introduced French style feudalism to England modified by their own pragmatism. They set up a comprehensive system of counties and border-marches supported by sturdy fortifications.

The Normans also allowed some of the Anglo-Saxon nobility to keep their land if they proved loyal. So Norman rule brought a lot of benefits (mostly security) to England and the locals didn't have much reason to resist beyond a certain point.

>the whole of the British Isles

Top kek. Probably best to stop posting.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_invasion_of_Ireland

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_invasion_of_Scotland

>Normans had a reputation for being successful conquerors (Sicily) and had cutting edge military tech and techniques.

Nope
The Normans were nothing in 1066, their other conquests happened AFTER they had conquered England, mainly thank to the wealth and power England earned them as a colony

You know the Normans in Sicily weren't the same people who conquered England, right?

The pope had conferred the lordship of Capua on Richard d'Aversa and the Duchy of Apulia on Robert Guiscard in 1059. Although technically that isn't on the island of Sicily proper so I could have been more clear.

Yes they were
Plenty of Normans who took part in the conquest of England didn't settle there
Some went back to France, and then went adventuring in the Mediterranean, accidentally conquering Sicily in the process

So name them or give a source to back that up?

Also how did they get access to England's wealth and power if they didn't settle there?

This is what happens when you mix Vikings warrior heart with superior French crossbow and cavalry

The rest of the world was no match for this mighty combination

>after the conquest of England (...) accidentally.

Roger the Hauteville proclaimed himself count of Sicily after conquering Calebria and Messina in 1061 senpai.

William gathered soldiers from all of France, including many bretons, flemings, aquitanians and so on. It's not like it was only normans participating in the conquest

Wire transfer
William sent each of them money on their bank accounts

This is wrong, he used PayPal.

Fools. Everyone knows William took the unusual move of paying his troops with Bitcoin.

Probably because your map is shit

youtube.com/watch?v=FW4RKp23Z4M

Wrong, tard
The old Normandy is the one on OP map, see And anyway it's still much smaller than Britain (btw, Normans conquered Wales too, so no need to exclude them)

Troops were employed from all over France as well as foreign mercenaries, furthermore harald hardrada lead an invasion to the north, severely weakening the English forces.
Finally at the battle of hastings the English held firm with a shield wall that wasn't breached by the Normans, when it seemed all hope was lost and the Normans were fleeing, one contingent of the English army broke from the shield wall and the Normans turned about, the rest, they say, is history

Both inaccurate exaggerations
1066 Normandy actually looked like pic related

Still humiliating af for England tho

See Before you make assumptions about 'humiliation'.

In middle ages France was by far the most populous area in Europe, Britain was still kind of hinterland.

William had claimed Maine for his son a couple of years before the invasion so it was definitely in his personal sphere of influence. (Just like the Duchy of Brittany btw).

It was literally all thanks to William the conqueror. He's a VERY powerful person and single-handedly destroyed the English army in a wave of his hand

Don't forget Odo who gave strength to the boys with his "club"

It's actually so unfair, the Normans had super saiyans. If they didn't, England would've invaded France

...

notice that the Normans are described as "FRANCI"
this should put to rest anyone saying that they were Norsemen or some shit

What did you change?

Horses

The English had them as we'll, they just rode to the battle and dismounted to fight.

Horses

...

Horse(e)

Btw, why didn't Sub-Saharan Africa ever domesticate zerbas while Europe domesticated fucking aurochs?

Majority of Sicily was already in Norman hands by 1066.

Wales was conquered only 200 years after the conquest by Edward I.

Fun Fact: Napoleon was descended from Normans settlers in Sicily

In the end, Napoleon was indeed French

>in Sicily
Napoleon was from Corsica

You only needed to win one battle back then. Very few societies could withstand a single defeat. Rome (especially) and Persia were unique in this regard. It wouldn't be until the 1700s that states started to be able to last more than one battle, and those were small scale affairs

His family were Genoese petty nobles who came utltimatly from Sicily

This is what England and Normandy looked like back then brainlets

>danish
Normadie came to be under the Norwegian viking gange Rolf.

Well, if only the earliest patrineal ancestor matters then i guess the Normans were indeed Scandinavians which in turn makes Napoleon a Scandinavian.

That's wrong, tard
This map is from the end of William's reign in 1087

In 1066 pre-invasion Normandy was less extended (it extended in the 1077 counts revolt) and (obviously) England wasn't his yet

TIL Napoleon was actually Danish

>ITT: almost everyone bitching about the borders of Normandy and avoiding the actual topic at hand

I like how Anglos behave as if Normandy being extended of a few km2 than on OP pic would make it any less humiliating for them

It was still a tiny swamp many times smaller than Britain

You literally haven't read the explanations in the thread have you?

There have been posts talking about it.

1) William's army was not only made of people from Normandy, but also of many bretons, flemish and french.
2) It wasn't a conquest as in, the normans came and invaded the whole land and genocided the local population ; William could legitimately become King. Harold was killed at Hastings along with his brothers. There were still some rebellions but once all the anglo-saxons major nobles were killed off it wasn't hard to just seize their assets and offer the lands to french nobles who fought at Hastings.

Also Normandy wasn't a tiny swamp it was the richest region of France, hence why France and England fought so hard to control it.

>hence why France and England fought so hard to control it.

Is this nigga serious?
France and "England" didn't fight for it
France and the Normans/Angevins (who owned England as a colony) fought for it

>The Angevin dynasty were not also "Kings of England" and using England as their main source of wealth when Normandy could not be controlled
>England in the HYW wasn't England, it was not english soldiers who landed on France to commit to the chevauchées

A high level of discourse is expected.

By your logic it should be Angevins and Capetians, capetians held france as a colony

no, those were probably just britons who called themselves english

And the french are gauls who call themselves franks ? Why are they so obsessed with the G*RMAN WARRIOR ?

Fuck all of you people are polluting this site

Actually, most soldiers used by the Plantagenets in the HYW were recruited locally from their French possessions (much easier than bringing troops from the sea)
Only Welsh longbowmen and knights (nobles from Norman and Angevin families) were brought from the isles

the franks are just celtised and later cimmerianised pannonians who call themselves trojans

For some reason everything here has to be nationalised with "haha England was French colony" it's actually really tyring and no one else believes it

>the delusion

>1) William's army was not only made of people from Normandy, but also of many bretons, flemish and french.
This. In Hastings, the duke's army was made up of 1/3 of Normans, 1/3 of (Eastern) Bretons, and 1/3 of a blend of warriors from Flanders, the royal dominion of the French king, etc.

Yes it really breaks my balls. I want to have a good thread about the middle ages and the conflict of the Angevin and the Capets, but you can't have a fucking thread on this board without some retards coming in to spam
>"normans were french !!!!"
and shit like that.

And I'm french, it's just that I don't feel so insecure about my nationality that I feel the need to demean an entire country and its population by claiming that my ancestors from 800 years back were the best.

>Make Normandy smaller than it really was
>Pretend it was a swamp and not rich farmland with control over the Seine
>Leave out that William also owned Maine
>Ignore the fact that William was the fucking heir to the English throne
>Calling Normandy French

Litetally stop. Every single source sites it as 'English and French', it's just French /pol/acks that feel the need for "muh generalisation".
>HYW was French civil war
>American revolution was British civil war
>Napoleon was Italian
Etc.
No one gives a shit about your revisionism, but it's ruining threads

>Pretend it was a swamp and not rich farmland with control over the Seine

Normandy is literally a swamp at the estuary of the Seine river tho

Your a swamp

The saxons had just finished defeating a huge danish army and had to fight a full sized normal army not long after that. The odds were stacked against the saxons.

>the saxons

The Anglos*

Wars back then were usually decided by one battle that BTFO one side's army completely and then the other side marching into the capital and winning.

The English throne was already in dispute. Harold dying at Hastings pretty much left it open for whoever could get to London first and proclaim himself king.

they were more often decided by a shitload of sieges

Veeky Forums: where brainlets pretend to know about history

Anglos are saxons

The word anglo finds it’s origin in germany.

Based vikings

WE

They had one good archer

It's not revisionism, it's the fucking truth.
You can argue the truth is uncomfortable and it's better to use "england and france" to discuss the hundred years french war of succession, but your country is fucking french, this is a fact.

>French helds France as a colony