Why don't they teach at schools that France has conquered England before and drastically changed their society forever?

Why don't they teach at schools that France has conquered England before and drastically changed their society forever?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >immediately capitulated to the dukes and forgave all war debts and crimes
    >supposed reign earmarked by increasing anglo individualism and discontent with the Church culminating in anglo world dominance
    france waving the eternal white flag

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Holy cope

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >cope
        indo europeans require genocide to be snuffed out, the limp wristed frankish roman catholic larpers claiming absolute divine power through marriages held no actual power. It's why the germanics were so successful integrating into england because they followed the indo european idea of warrior peasants

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          It must be why a frenchmen can read instinctivly 50% of the English language, it's because of the Germans!
          Joke aside England is a failed french colony that fricked up everything simply by wanting to be what they are not; a power that can unite Europe, like the superior France did.
          England never had an empire in Europe, while the Frenchs, Germans, Italians, Russians were able to do it, so these are the key nations or Europe, like it or not, and the others have to submit.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >uh well we married into power and uh, changed the language a bit
            didn't real lol

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >never had an empire
            Technically, they were as much of an empire as the German one; they just never called themselves an empire. The English conquered at least four different nations outside their central homeland. They conquered and controlled the Irish, the Scottish, the Scottish Gaels, and the Welsh. Meanwhile the Germans controlled Polish, French, and Danish areas. The English also conquered and controlled, at different times, strategic areas like Gibraltar, Malta, the Channel Islands, heligoland, Calais, Normandy, Bordeaux, the Balearic Islands, and Corsica. Then they had the largest and wealthiest empire just generally around the world, and that’s where their influence was.
            >England is not a key nation in Europe
            Just a lie and a cope. The history of Europe since the 1700s has been molded by England and its been dictated by England since it won key wars against France. What a stronk empire you have, poor, contained and starved out in Europe.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Incredible that so many people here have not read about the 19th century and the French revolution

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            The napoleonic wars were the last sperg out of an arrogant power permanently relegated to second fiddle. It was over after the Seven Years War, Pierre. Napoleon lost and Britain shaped the peace.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Its rather ironic because France historically leaned on its numerical superiority rather than its quality as fighting men, similar to the Russians, England is also much like this, bullying superior men like the Gaels through sheer number.
            The English wont admit this, but you take away their number and their list of conflicts are a series of defeats.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            cope

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, OP's statement isn't 100% accurate
            The reality is that a French region conquered England (which is even more humiliating)

            It used to be perfectly legal to murder an Englishman under the Normans.

            But it was an official caste system with Normans consisting 90% of thr nobility even up until the 19th century

            I learned that French was the language of the English court for over 300 years and had a kek.

            Wait until you learn that French was the languages of basically ALL the courts in Europe until the Napoleonic wars
            Hell it even remained the language of all diplomats everywhere until WW2

            You were saying?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Angevin Empire
            >Named after the house of Anjou, a French royal family
            It’s literally French people on both sides, moron

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's the whole point of this insanity; you had one French dynasty based in Britain fricking with a French dynasty based in Gaul. Where the Duke of Normandy (and when that was lost, the Duke of Gascony) was a King of England yet also had to swear fealty to the King of France as homage to their Norman and later Gascon lands. All this stemmed from the bastard son of a Norman duke who thought England should be his and caused centuries of bloodshed between the English-speaking and French-speaking peoples despite having no past enmity.

            Oh and the people of Normandy would suffer during the HYW tremendously. Casualties amongst civilians note that due to raids and deprivations, hundreds of thousands died from warfare, hunger, and disease. So Normans should spit on William's grave.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            So what is Spain now German because they were ruled by the Hapsburgs?
            Are Turks ackually Persians just because that was a prestige language in the Ottoman Empire?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Those are distinguishable. In those examples you gave you have a ruler of German origin. That’s it. Whereas here you have
            >French king
            >all French nobles
            >all administration in French
            >main power center in France
            >knights and generals are French
            You wouldn’t call the Spanish empire indigenous just because they ruled over a bunch of South Americans, or claimed a local title for legitimacy, if they had done that.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, and Scotland's administration was done in English by people with Anglo-Saxon surnames
            It was still Scotland
            Or was the Hundred Years' War a British Civil War? lmao

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It was still Scotland
            Lmao they were, and are, literally Anglos with a funnier accent. If Lincolnshire broke off tomorrow and formed the kingdom of Lincoln, they would still be Anglos and Lincolnite would be a pointless label. They are Scottish because a bunch of cosmopolitan French speaking people decided they’d have some power of their own rather than much less power under the French speaking nobles of England.
            >Or was the Hundred Years' War a British Civil War? lmao
            If you’re going to call it anything like that, it was a French civil war until maybe around Richard II and Henry V, when the nobles became anglicized and started speaking English as a first language. But the whole impetus for the Hundred Years’ War was the complicated web of marriages between French noble families. You had one French speaking noble trying to take the throne of France from another French speaking noble. It wasn’t England vs France. It was one French guy versus another using the power of their respective holdings, in England and France, to fight each other.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Weird cope for the fact nobody at the time described it as such, nor anybody in the last 600 years lol

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            It’s not a cope at all. It’s just a fact. The hundreds years war was a contest between tw dynasties of French origin for the throne of France. Go ahead, cite any other source that says it was anything but that. Both sides spoke French as a first language until Henry V, except the grunts pulled from Wales and England.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Go ahead, cite any other source that says it was anything but that
            Yeah, literally any contemporary chronicler who describes 'the English' and 'the French'

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            That’s not a gotcha. Just like they say Scottish and English during the Scottish wars of independence, but that’s for simplicity’s sake. You know all the nobles worth anything had land in both countries and spoke French? Nah, but they totally weren’t French and were 100% the same as who they ruled over. Just like a Somali moves to Sweden and gets Swedish citizenship. He’s 100% a Swede. You’re actually moronic.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            You sound pretty mad now lol

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >haha I’ve been a moron and now you’re treating me like a moron
            No shit

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But the whole impetus for the Hundred Years’ War was the complicated web of marriages between French noble families. You had one French speaking noble trying to take the throne of France from another French speaking noble
            This statement alone proves you know nothing about the hundred years war, try reading actual modern historians, not pop histories that regurgitate long-discredited views.
            Edward III never wanted to be King of France, it was just a tool to create a legal loophole to allow the flemish to side with him instead of getting interdicted by the pope for rebelling against their leige and something to trade away for consessions. The man was also elected holy roman emperor and turned it down because he prefered to just be the king of England.
            Only Henry V (who spoke English as his first language) legitimately had the desire to become king of France

            That’s not a gotcha. Just like they say Scottish and English during the Scottish wars of independence, but that’s for simplicity’s sake. You know all the nobles worth anything had land in both countries and spoke French? Nah, but they totally weren’t French and were 100% the same as who they ruled over. Just like a Somali moves to Sweden and gets Swedish citizenship. He’s 100% a Swede. You’re actually moronic.

            >Just like a Somali moves to Sweden and gets Swedish citizenship. He’s 100% a Swede
            Because the entire English nobility in 1337 were fresh off the boat of course? You might as well claim Americans are actually british, there's a greater time difference between 1066 and 1337 as 1776 and today

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            The English nobility still spoke French, were segregated from the commoners by class, and had lands all over Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and France. Maybe some only had lands in England and there were different laws, but there are different laws between 50 US states and there aren’t 50 American ethnicities. It’s it’s not like the British channel was as big of a gap as the the fricking Atlantic Ocean. They were still marrying back into France, where some still had French lands and French family connections, up to and beyond 1337.
            >Americans are actually British
            They’re literally just a cultural offshoot of Anglos with some broader European admixture.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Angevin Empire
            >Named after the house of Anjou, a French royal family
            It’s literally French people on both sides, moron

            Btw the map has dates and shows clearly that England was the latest addition to a Western French empire that started in Anjou

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            It was and wasn't.

            England was prestigious for the fact it gave Henry II the title of kingship and its resources were nothing to be scoffed at. But obviously the pride was in the French lands and yes the nobility and senior clergy were largely French descendants. However, the tail could wag the dog too. The Angevin kings of England couldn't afford to piss off their English-speaking subjects and had to make some degree of concession to their dignity and pride. And the exchange went both ways; the English language and culture was heavily salted with French and Latin influence while the Normans and other French learned the English ways and customs. William Marshal's autobiography even notes there's a distinction between Normans of Normandy and Normans based in England.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Marshals biography is a glorious insight into the machinations of the wild Angevin court

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            One of the most interesting people who lived

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Joke aside England is a failed french colony

            England is to France what America is to England
            A colony that eventually broke out, surpassed them and made them their b***h

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Is this Black person for real? I thought William basically buckbroke the entire English nobility and imported his own goons?

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        William II curled up into a little ball and told the british they could do anything they wanted as long as he was still the king in exchange for fighting off his brother

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          The British didn't even exist then. They were buck broken Anglo-Saxons and a thousand years of continental rule later they call themselves British and English.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >They were buck broken Anglo-Saxons
            yeah, the british, lol. and I mean legitimizing the Normans by fighting off William II's brother was a conscious decision on their part. This sort of "deal" they made with the Norman king for returned rights is echoed throughout British history, later in things like the magna carta

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      less than 10% of land-holders were English in the Domeday book recorded in 1067.
      The English became essentially non-citizens or an underclass in their "own" country.
      At least the Britons made holdouts in Wales and Cornwall, the English were conquered wholesale and capitualted at the racial level within a single year.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Because William made the Anglos seethe by introducing private property/feudalism to England.
        Anglo-Saxon England was very tribal in nature, most earldoms were not privately owned, but "folkland", clan property, so they were co-owned by the tribe, and land could not to be sold or transferred, which is why women could not inherit.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Uh Thanes privately owned their land bro

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Anglo-Saxon England was very tribal in nature, most earldoms were not privately owned, but "folkland", clan property, so they were co-owned by the tribe, and land could not to be sold or transferred
          It's sad what the Normans did to England, and even sadder that some think it was a good thing.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          how did Anglo-saxon women own land then you fricking stupid c**t

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            they didn't

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wulfrun(a) (c.935-c.1005[1]) was a Mercian noblewoman and landowner who held estates in Staffordshire.
            Today she is particularly remembered for her association with Hēatūn, Anglo-Saxon for "high or principal farm or enclosure", which she was granted in a charter by King Æthelred II (Æthelred the Unready) in 985, and where she endowed a collegiate church in 994. By 1070 this had become known as Wolvrenehamptonia – Wolfrun's heaton – now the city of Wolverhampton, the sixth largest district by population in the West Midlands.[1]

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wynflaed (died c.950 or 960) was an Anglo-Saxon noblewoman, a major landowner in the areas of Hampshire, Somerset, Dorset and Wiltshire.[2]

            Interesting, but think those are unsual.
            That's bookland in contrast to folkland, which was primarily held by the clergy.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wynflaed (died c.950 or 960) was an Anglo-Saxon noblewoman, a major landowner in the areas of Hampshire, Somerset, Dorset and Wiltshire.[2]

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          There was no private property in William’s England. William was the sole lord paramount by allodial title, which basically means he owned 100% of the land. Every one else, from peasants to dukes, simply held the land as a tenet for the The Crown. Someone, could hold a “right” over the land, which basically means you have the right to hold that land for the Crown, but no one had a right to own any land.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yup. This was one of the main complaints. How do you command loyalty if at any time you can kick some dude out of his hereditary holdings? Also taking ownership of all the land and the forests is laughable in a country where that's where a lot of food comes from. Thankfully norman/french rules were quickly phased out as the normans were forced to side with the british on virtually every issue which is funny because prior to the norman invasion "england" didn't even really exist yet so quickly was this supposed superior culture dissolved

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yup. This was one of the main complaints. How do you command loyalty if at any time you can kick some dude out of his hereditary holdings? Also taking ownership of all the land and the forests is laughable in a country where that's where a lot of food comes from. Thankfully norman/french rules were quickly phased out as the normans were forced to side with the british on virtually every issue which is funny because prior to the norman invasion "england" didn't even really exist yet so quickly was this supposed superior culture dissolved

            The State can take anything from you today, therefore there is no private property.
            your concept of property coming from law is absurd.
            property comes from what a man can hold

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Are you Balkaner or just generally full schizo?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            You are mentally ill if you genuinely believe abstract political structures determine whether or not you "own" something.

            Answer me this, without force, why obey the law?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            I see you as a delusional schizo, one of the dumbest people imaginable, I'd literally pay money to not have to talk to you. The only reason you ended up here is because no other place on the net tolerates braindead morons like you.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >individualism
      is a cancer which sooner or later kills every ethnic group afflicted by it.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        greeks were hyper individualistic city worshipers that thought the only virtuous actions were killing and thinking about stuff, and their philosophy has lasted until today as near irrefutable

        you're just mad cause bad

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          ok but greeks as a people were conquered into irrelevance and ethnically cleansed from most of their former territory. who gives a frick about whether an idea survives when its creator does not.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            he says posting on a computer

  2. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm pretty sure every English kid learns about the Norman conquest of England at school, anon. I certainly did.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      They never brought up the Harrying of the Norf though, suvven bastids.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's when roight proppa bri'ish historiography starts though, 1066 the battle of Hastings.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      [...]
      IQfy has a knack for making the dumbest questions imaginable.
      Imagine someone making a thread asking "why don't Americans learn about George Washington at school?" That's OP.

      I don't know why his/ is such a low I board, my guess is lack of flags and id's make it /misc/ light and all the I 85ers post here every now and then.

  3. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    nordic warriors battled over the lush isles for centuries

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      The Nordic regions are the shittiest part on the UK though lol

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Love how Danes are depicted as similar to Anglo-Saxons but vastly different from Normans

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Because they were. The Normans adopted Christianity and assimilated into Frankish culture

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          The Normans were good churchmen, terrible Christians. They committed the Harrying of the North and weakened Byzantium for decades when they were beset by the Seljuks on the other side.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Though they consider excellent military force in sellsword

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Indeed. The Normans arguably defined Christian Europe in the 11th and 12th centuries alongside their eastern contemporaries, the Seljuks did for the Muslim sphere.

            I admire them for their daring (a legacy of their Viking forebears), but fricking over England and Byzantium is a huge stain on their reputation. Their conquest of Sicily and southern Italy is overlooked despite it being nothing short of amazing.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Normans look so cool

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      was this the basis for the mutt meme

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        no, it was in 2017 an Anglo made a thread on /misc/ using US Census data showcasing America being only 56% of European descent, /misc/ memed this into EVERY American only being 56% White instead of the actual the United States Population is 56% of Euro descent.

  4. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    They literally do though? The Norman conquest it taught in schools

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      I'm pretty sure every English kid learns about the Norman conquest of England at school, anon. I certainly did.

      IQfy has a knack for making the dumbest questions imaginable.
      Imagine someone making a thread asking "why don't Americans learn about George Washington at school?" That's OP.

  5. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    I learned that French was the language of the English court for over 300 years and had a kek.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Wait until you learn that French was the languages of basically ALL the courts in Europe until the Napoleonic wars
      Hell it even remained the language of all diplomats everywhere until WW2

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        I was reading a book about the Scottish wars of independence, as I noted earlier in the thread. And, I was genuinely surprised to read that all the nobles of Scotland and England were addressed in French during the Great Cause. It’s so funny that it gets framed as some nationalistic war for independence when all the nobles were cosmopolitans speaking French and owning land in both countries.

  6. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    school curriculums are completely determined by the two in pic related

  7. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Those weren't frogs but Nordic warriors who ruled over them

  8. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Normans were Vikings who the French were too scared of so they gave them a sizable portion of land.

    An Anglo-Saxon Germanic losing to a Nordic Germanic isn't a dub for France. We also learn about this in school and about the much cooler Harold Hardrada.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Only one-third of William's army was Norman and that third was basically French at that point.

  9. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Last time I checked, Normandy =/= France.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, but the Normans had basically become Frenchmen by the time they invaded England. The nobility of England then spoke French until Edward III began shifting towards English.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        True, but OP implies France conquered England, and that England was subject to the king of France, which was never true

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          i think installing your own kings on a foreign land and ruling over it and doing so for hundreds of years counts as conquering

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            French kings did not "install" Normans in England, they had nothing to do with it. In fact, French had attacked William prior to the invasion, and after William died, he continued attacking Normandy.

            I don't think you understand how little power French kings had over the Normans. Normans had to supply 10 knights every year for 40 days of military service, that's it, they did not even pay (regular) taxes.
            So, you could argue Normandy is only part of France nominally.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            look nigel i know you're still upset about events that happened a millienium ago but you need to accept the fact that your ancestors were france's b***h for hundreds of years

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, OP is baiting. But it’s also a little bit more complicated than that. Feudal obligations were weird. While the kings of England ruled England in their own right, they still had to go pay homage to the French king for their French holdings and land. It was very common actually, and it’s hard to say one was subject to the other in clearly defined lines. It was more like a Webb of allegiances. For instance, someone could own lands in Scotland, England, and France and pay homage to each king to own those territories. They could also end up fighting for either king in different situations. So, the English kinds paid homage, but they were also powerful enough to tell the French kings to frick off, sometimes.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            You are confusing fealty and homage.

            Fealty relates to the fief, while homage relates to personal allegiance. So, a person could pay fealty to different people, while they could only pay homage to one person.
            Similarly, tributary states paid homage, but not fealty.

            Kings of England never paid homage to France, as a duke of Normandy they paid fealty to France.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            I could be mistaken. One of the books I read recently about the Scottish wars of independence specifically used the term homage.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because Edward literally annexed Scotland

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, it talked about one of the Edwards having to go back to France to pay homage to the French king for his French lands. It was mentioned in so far as it distracted him from the situation in Scotland.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Some writers use them as synonyms, even wikipedia statement is errondeus it has
            >Edward passed through Italy and France, visiting Pope Gregory X and paying homage to Philip III in Paris for his French domains.
            Last clause confirms it means fealty, because you can't pay homage for territory, only to a person

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Understood. Are there any books or sources I can read to get a real understanding of these terms and how feudal structures worked?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Feudalism by François Louis Ganshof, I think.

            In my understanding, it is all about land ownership versus servitude.

            You can compare fealties to renting an apartment, in both cases you are a tenant, while the other party is the "lord" of the property you hold, and you agree to pay rent. Much like you can have multiple apartments and different landlords, you could have multiple fealties.
            While, homages, could be compared to employers, when you pay homage you become a vassal of the liege. This means that you are expected to be faithful to him and only to him, in exchange, the liege is responsible for your action, so if you do something crazy to a third party, your liege will be held accountable for your actions. It also had some restraints, like your liege would have to approve your marriages, etc.

            Homages were more common than fealties because every servant paid homage to their master.
            So, these two things get grouped together, because most nobles were minor landholders and only had one lord, thus they paid homage to him, in addition to fealty, becoming their "liege lord".

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah, OP's statement isn't 100% accurate
          The reality is that a French region conquered England (which is even more humiliating)

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >England was subject to the king of France
          The actual started the whole Hundred Year's War, France claimed they were still subjects as the Duchy of Normandy even if England is not a subject and the English king had both titles.
          This ecalated to the English King trying to take over the French throne as well, but they finally Anglified halfway through the hundred years war, making it pointless

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not really true.

            In 1200 decade, France conquered Normandy, and tried to take Aquitaine, but failed. England spent the next 50 years trying to take Normandy back, while France failed to take Gascogne.
            In 1250s, England denounced Normand, in exchange, France allowed them to keep Channel Islands and Aquitaine.

            And relative peace continued until 1310 when the direct of line of Capetians died. Edward was happy as duke of Aquitaine and king of England, and acknowledged Philip VI's claim to France
            However, it became a dick-measuring contest, Philip gave sanctuary to Edward enemies and vice versa.
            Philip VI was so wienery, he demand Edward to hand his enemies over, which Edward refused. Thus, Philip broke the truce and declared Aquitaine forfeit.
            Edward replied by claiming the throne of France.
            Though Edward had no interest in France, he did it just to frick with Philip, thus when he captured Philip's son in Poitiers, he only asked for a ransom and aknowledgement that Aquitaine would not be part of France anymore.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        ???? france has never, not a single day in its entire history since antiquity had a french aristocrat.
        solely franks

        french are vasconics, gauls, gascons, etc, not franks

        and normans were danes mixed with frankish, breton and flemish aristocracy, the turds coming out my ass are more "french" than a elite that practiced a different lawsuit as peasantry (leges barbarorum) for 14 centuries until its abolishment in the gaulish revolution, where gaulish peasantry chanted to their masters to return to "the forests of franconia"

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Literal schizo babble

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            this is what french bois were done by frankish bvlls

            This. The few kingdoms associated with the local stock of france were systematically dismantled and replaced by a frankish aristocracy. Who identified their rulers as "roman enemies"
            Eg: odo of aquitanie and the duchy itself
            >One theory suggests that he was of Roman origin as contemporary Frankish chroniclers refer to his father as an enemy Roman.[4]

            Afterwards during frankish invasions of the duchy of aquitanie with pretentions of independence:
            >aquitaine underwent during these years intensive destruction of urban, economic, military and intellectual centres. Pepin's forces destroyed up to 36 monasteries.

            >Pepin turned now his attention to Aquitaine, initiating a cyclical military campaign that lasted for eight years

            >Charibert campaigned successfully against the Basques

            >The autonomous and troublesome duchy of Aquitaine was conquered by the Franks in 769, after a series of revolts against their suzerainty. In order to avoid a new demonstration of Aquitain particularism, Charlemagne decided to organize the land within his kingdom.

            >After the Carolingian conquest, the duchy ceased to exist as such, whose powers were taken over by the counts (dukes) of Toulouse, main seat of the Carolingian government in the Midi, represented by Chorso and, after being deposed, by Charlemagne's trustee William (of Gellone), a close relative of his.

  10. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    England never stretched like that into Scotland
    0/10 effort
    Even Bede specifically records the Borders
    Further by the 10th century Lothian was ruled by gaels

  11. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Also by then the Borders were also under Scottish control

  12. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Uhh.... they do? Were you not paying attention, or you went to some ghetto school?

  13. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    France really getting occupied by Germans on three separate occasions and coping by stealing Norman achievements

  14. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because it wasn't "Frenchmen" but pic related that conquered England

  15. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's not exactly france because the Normans moved there from somewhere in Scandinavia within a century or so before they invaded so if anything theyre really invaded by Vikings with French influence

  16. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    These threads never read like an inferiority complex.

  17. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >France

  18. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why are frogs so insecure? You have a great history but you will always be 2nd to England.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >the people that created socialism to cope with england being better than them are insecure

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      85% of their history was under geramans/dutch/franks (including this part)
      the other 15% was warmongering of an italian manlet succeded by BBC insemination

      why do you think

  19. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >"France conquered England"
    >Image is called "Normans"
    >Image only cites the Duchy of Normandy
    >It is called the "Norman Conquests"
    Die.

  20. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    It used to be perfectly legal to murder an Englishman under the Normans.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Eventually, one way to get away with murdering someone was by claiming that he was an Englishman. This went on for a long time until the Normans and the English had mixed so much that there was no way to distinguish each other anymore.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        But it was an official caste system with Normans consisting 90% of thr nobility even up until the 19th century

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Unofficial*

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >with Normans consisting 90% of thr nobility even up until the 19th
          No, even by the tudor period the vast majority of the English nobility didn't have Norman origins, but were rather jumped up merchants and gentry. The whole "90% percent of wealthy Britons have a Norman name" or whatever the figure is, comes from them making their surnames sound more french in order to present they weren't upstarts. It's something that still happens in today's England occasionally

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            That figure was based on them looking at the prevalence of a certain number of surnames at Oxford and Cambridge, with lists of the ten 'wealthiest' names and ten 'poorest' names somehow the conclusion. There were at least 2 Norman surnames on the 'poorest' list, as well as the name 'Cholmondeley' which is an exceptionally-rare surname associated with the eponymous marquessate

            Surnames don't correlate directly with ancestry anyway, especially paternally. The modern 'Percy' family of Northumberland, for example, are actually 'Smithson' in the male line

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Normans consisting 90% of thr nobility even up until the 19th century
          They were Normans by then you spastic. The differences between the Normans and English would be negligable within a few centuries of Norman conquest.

  21. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Why don't they do a thing that they do?

    I am once again reminded that most of IQfy and IQfy(nel) in general is now third worlders squatting over a rice bowl in their shanty hovel.

  22. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    luv me angleterre
    simple as

  23. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    1066 and its aftermath is one of the most consistently and exhaustively taught events that aren't WW2 in the history curriculum. What a bizarre thread.

  24. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    At what school don't they teach this? We covered the Normans in middle and high school history.
    T. Deep south American

  25. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Did you know the Irish conquered the world, as part of the British Empire?

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      yeah, why?

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Proof?

  26. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    same reason they don't teach how the dutch conquered them in 1688

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >same reason they don't teach how the dutch conquered them in 1688
      I learned about it at college.

  27. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    This is not even the first or even the tenth time that I have witnessed a poster here just learn about 1066 and present it as if it were a novel discovery instead of the single most well-known event of the entire Middle Ages along with the Fall of Constantinople. Especially puzzling as the English see themselves as historical winners, so they have no inferiority complex towards the Normans, and indeed see them as in some way semi-English, which is not at all a recent view but one that developed gradually across the Middle Ages until their Norman heritage was forgotten entirely.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >This is not even the first or even the tenth time that I have witnessed a poster here just learn about 1066 and present it as if it were a novel discovery instead of the single most well-known event of the entire Middle Ages along with the Fall of Constantinople.
      This is true.
      I don't know why they act like this.

      >Especially puzzling as the English see themselves as historical winners, so they have no inferiority complex towards the Normans, and indeed see them as in some way semi-English, which is not at all a recent view but one that developed gradually across the Middle Ages until their Norman heritage was forgotten entirely.
      This is all true for the most part.
      I've seen a few other English people talking about the 'Norman yoke' and how we wuz oppressed or some bullshit but it comes across as a weird, fringe, and fabricated grievance; like they just want something to seethe about or to gain some victim points.
      It's even sillier when you consider that every English person has Norman ancestors, so those seethey types are getting angry about one group of ancestors putting the boot on the other ancestors' necks almost one thousand years ago.

  28. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    same reason why they never told the world the truth of what israelite land did after ww2

  29. 4 months ago
    Radiochan

    They... did? Did you never learn about the Norman Conquest?
    (Normans weren't really "French" anyway, they were Norseman the King of France gave territory to in exchange for no longer raiding France)

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >(Normans weren't really "French" anyway, they were Norseman
      Not really sure that's true by the time of the conquest of England.

      The Bayeux tapestry calls the Normans 'Franci' in several places
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayeux_Tapestry_tituli
      >HIC CECIDERUNT SIMUL ANGLI ET FRANCI IN PR[O]ELIO/Here English and French fell at the same time in battle
      >HIC FRANCI PUGNANT ET CECIDERUNT QUI ERANT CUM HAROLDO/Here the French are fighting and have killed those who were with Harold

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        The Domesday book (written by Normans in England right after the conquest) also refers to the Normans as French
        People who claim they werent are just being dishonest

  30. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >"invade" england
    >create french/english claims
    >constantly capitulate rights to the english in exchange for loyalty
    >eventually they start claiming land in france
    >france constantly crying about english kings claiming land in france
    >war
    man the french were moronic

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      This is why I dislike French enmity towards England when it was a bunch of Frenchified descendants of Vikings that caused the centuries of bad blood between the Kingdoms of England and France. No Norman Conquest handwaves away the Hundred Years War and the previous Norman/Plantagenet campaigns in France.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        those people are the ancestors of the english, considered themselves englishmen, were referred to as englishmen, etc
        hundred years war was the most important century in the history of western europe, fact

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >those people are the ancestors of the english, considered themselves englishmen, were referred to as englishmen, etc
          Only begrudgingly after a long time. Being considered an "Englishmen" amongst the post-1066 nobility meant you were a descendant of a Conquest companion and owned lands in England, but you didn't associate yourself to the churls. They might have spoken Old (and later Middle) English, worn their hair longer and had mustaches like the English, but Norman and French culture was held in higher esteem. Some might have had an English ancestor (whether real or manufactured to attain an air of legitimacy), but that was only seen as a posh trinket.

          >hundred years war was the most important century in the history of western europe
          It finally cemented the idea of French and English nationalism as a nation-state and identity after centuries of Anglo-Norman/Anglo-Plantagenet cross-Channel rule and squabbling.

  31. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    They do. Next question.
    >t. Covered the Norman invasion before we started out GCSEs

  32. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    National identities, especially the “French identity”, really weren’t a thing until the 1200s-1400s… until the Albigensian Crusade in Languedoc. That was when the Capets had true mastery over the demesne (domain) of france. Pretty much all barons accepted in the vicinity accepted the Capets as king. Before then, they flip flopped between the Capets and the Angevins.

    Also nobody every talks about Louis the Lion. He was a French king who literally was invited to England and crowned in Westminster Cathedral as King of England.

  33. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Feel free to name me a Capet or Valois (Except Louis VIII as he was disputed while being Prince of France) who was King of France and England or owned more land in England than the King any King of England. Can't name any? Didn't think so.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Capetians were still greater

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >(Except Louis VIII as he was disputed while being Prince of France)
      That's silly to exclude

  34. 4 months ago
    Anonymous
  35. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >create thread to poke fun at english anons
    >actually learn a lot of interesting stuff about the event

    It's an abstract feel.

  36. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Colonize a remote island
    >Give them a law, a religion, a language
    >Give them kings and nobles
    >Give them everything
    >...
    >1000 years after they are still eating pudding
    sorry the experiment has failed.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >>1000 years after they are still eating pudding
      What's wrong with 'pudding'?

  37. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    First celts mass raped britons. Then romans mass raped britons. Then Danes and Dutch mass raped britons. Then vikings mass raped britons. Then french mass raped britons.

    Truly the protagonist of history :DD

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Majority of Modern NWE is R1b L21 from Ethnic Britons.
      The majority of Autosomal DNA in the English is non-Native while the majority of Y DNA is Native.
      They are the Japan of the West.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Then they raped poos into seething submission, calling every white man a "sir"

  38. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Why don't they teach at schools
    I don't know what school you went to, but the Norman invasion was taught along with all the changes they made to England.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      OP went the Mogadishu Community High School

  39. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    If you ask an English person to name a famous year, almost everyone will either say 1966 or 1066. If you find a door with keycode entry and try those numbers you'll have a coin flip's chance or getting in. The idea that the Norman conquest isn't taught is baffling.

  40. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Theres some people that are Anglophobes that over-exaggerate the Normans impact on England, they didn't change England as much as these people assume. A lot of things are falsely attributed to them like the development of middle English.
    Some of the statements itt are just nonsensical, for example saying Normans brought a system of governance and administration. It was the other way around. The Normans had no system of their own so adopted the Anglo-saxon system because it was the best.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *