How did The Normans Conquer England? 

11 minutes ago; 8 likes. Sock-puppet accounts or people who know you always post early, and like what you say, but don't show their face?

@@scintillam_dei Dude people just get notifications, it ain't that deep

Vikings used boats to sail in on the Seine river to raid Paris itself. This was an extreme vulnerability and he secured it. The Normans paid tribute in money and warriors to the King, so there was no real downside.

Typical French surrendering...

Im pretty sure the nickname back then meant not simple minded but eh well like straightforward or something like that

IT'S OVER WE'RE SO BACK

Damned cheaters.. I hate it when my opponents don't take their hits!

Like an 11th century Undertaker.

And then Harold got the Ps2 Alternative ending of revenge of the sith LMFAOOO

@@fristlyextras5002 lol exactly

It led Normans losing Normandy in the end. Irony.

@@sadettinarslan5324 they didnt need it anyways tbh XD

@@venezuelaanimations3732 they so didn't need it that after losing it in 1204 they've tried to take it back 4 times until the end of the 100YW

The normans were anywhere except in normandy lol

@@GarkKahn Exodus: Norman edition

Hello does anyone here believe in Jesus?

@@connorlancaster7541 yes

@@netclips6370 Praise the lord he is beautiful. Do you obey Jesus?

@@connorlancaster7541 creepy much?

@@connorlancaster7541 nope, I’m a pagan

Missed the point completely, the North of England was under the rule of the Vikings ie Norway and they had the entire region named as the Danelaw, so Harald did not have to bring an army from Norway he used the army he had here. The movement of an army is based upon the amount of time a carthorse can travel, they carry the food and water, if you move faster than the pack you run the risk of starving your soldiers. The English pretender, Harold , had sworn allegiance to William years before, had travelled up from the South of England with his army , fought a battle and then had to travel as fast as they could back down South. The loss of manpower and an army that was diminished in both numbers and strength were never going to be enough to overcome William

@@phillvenn I think you're getting a bit muddled. Harald absolutely sailed his army over from Norway, and the Danelaw had long gone by that time.

So true

Isigny is in Normandy

You must be suffering so badly with this bad cough mustn't you...

Genocide is all they did

There really wasn't a complete reorganisation of English society. The majority of nobles and clergy were replaced with Normans and new castles and Romaneque churches were built but the majority of the core governance structures such as the law codes, court systems, currency, minting system, and general societal structure remained the same.

Read the book Hereward the Wake, it tells of the last of the English warriors and how the church failed the people and sold out to the Normans. Its an excellent starting point as t follows Hereward and also Williams movement across England and Wales / Ireland

​@@phillvennis it a novel or an essay? Thanks

NORMANDY BEFORE 1066 by David Bates, NORMAN CONQUEST OF THE NORTH by William E Kappelle, THE NORMANS: POWER, CONQUEST AND CULTURE IN 11TH CENTURY EUROPE by Judith A Green (released Feb 2022 - and all her older books are expensive collectors items) EMPIRES OR THE NORMANS: MAKERS OF EUROPE, CONQUERORS OF ASIA by Levi Roach is being released on 23rd June, 2022 - and his biography of AETHELSTAN is the best one available. NORMAN RULE IN NORMANDY, 911 - 1144 by Mark Haggar. I'm yet to find a copy of the Haggar book at an affordable price and the Roach book isn't out for a month, the other three are excellent.

Noted! Will do from now on! Thank you.

colonizer! (haha - but really the poor English were brutally treated by the Normans...)

@@fordprefectiii The ruling class was wiped out but I'd argue that most of the English were better off under the Normans. They abolished slavery, created the rule of law...

Nah I disagree. As someone just learning about this history for the first time, there's already a lot of information to take in. Labelling all the other kingdoms would remove the highlighted focus on what @Knowledgia is explaining and make it much harder to understand. Maybe a link could be provided to a map of the other kingdoms instead?

haha mine too... had a "possibly" down syndrome ancestor almost become king of england before being beheaded.... for being a "traitor"

Could you give a brief synopsis of how you discovered that?

@@joshuataylor3550 basically following the history of the surname. It's rather English and unique. Unlike my real surname that is also unique but can only be traced back to the 1750s before being lost (this account doesn't reflect my real name), my mother's surname has a rich history in England. Some were local Lords - not big wigs but rather big among their community. That made research much easier due to nobility keeping better family trees than the common folk. But found that they were originally from Normandy, with a real Norman surname, before changing it after the invasion. Pre invasion gets tricky as then their family tree starts talking about Scandinavian chiefs and all that so I take that with a grain of salt. Honestly family tree research is so fun given you have a name that's uncommon enough to trace. Still working on my surnames origin. It's tough because the family was from Louisiana during the time of multiple ownership of different countries, so I have to deal with poor record keeping and various spellings.

@@joshuataylor3550 same as this guy, my family name is a derivative of Beauchampe. less common surnames are easier to trace.

Mine is tilghman

Vikings , the past kingdom .... Very interesting

repeated charges and feigned retreats thinning the English shield wall down, until eventually Norman cavalry was able to break through. It's thought a hit squad of Norman knights then went straight for King Harold.

Try the history matters video on the Norman’s

@@jackec6375 I will, thanks

By genocide

@@Englishman-_-Mongolia2022 that is. William is not a revered figure in history.

@@sadettinarslan5324 because he crowned himself as king. He hardly won the battle, until he made a feigned retreat.

This rivalry is only a French thing. Because they were always trying overtake England as superpower

@@Englishman-_-Mongolia2022 ?

@@strasbourgeois1 England had the largest empire, not France. This rivalry is only a French thing

@@Englishman-_-Mongolia2022 Nobody cares who had what. There was a clear rivalry between France and England/Britain. Britain claimed the French crown for itself, and France resisted. This went on till the late 1800's.

im not sure the empires of the 17th and 18th century really had much to do with the battle of hastings. Yes the 100 years war had roots in Hastings and king Rollo, but after 100 years war / Agincourt and all. you just had two powerful intelligent large countries that saw the world and went for it

Hard to prepare such defences when you came all the way from northern england and the enemy is raiding your lands

Didn't the reserarcer mention how much the land has changed over the past 1000 years ? The beaches and high low ground were completely different.. Did he mention the fighting was much further inland than previously thought. Or that battle abbey was not the battle site . GPR results recently confirmed archaeology work .

There should be a follow up to this. Seriously it's an interesting period. How did William control England would be a good title. I'd recommend Norman Conquest by Marc Morris to research it.

@@Sean12248 'The Harrowing of the North' A scorched earth policy would be putting it bluntly

Exactly, the English were not weak people and they certainly didn’t make it easy for William to keep control of England.

@@eardwulf785 Unfortunately, yes. ☹️

Disinfographics is a jack of all trades, so you can't expect them to master all.

You literally explain why the saxons were exhausted

The Anglo-Saxon army were actually rattled though.

King Harold Godwinson was advised to NOT attack Duke William immediately but wait a while for the Fyrd to be raised. The Fyrd were fighting men who were farmers etc raised by local theigns. Because the lands where Duke Harold landed were in an area where Harold owned a Manor House farms & kennels & he knew the people there, he felt dity bound to attack immediately. If he had waited a couple of days? His tired army would have been much larger & would have probably won? But he refused to listen to all advice, the rest is history- literally. King Harold's traitorous brother Sweyn who was once Earl of Northumberland was killed at the Battle of Stanford Bridge fighting with Harold Hardrada. His other brothers Tostig & Gyrth were killed at the Battle of Hastings fighting with their brother. The only surviving Godwin males had been held as prisoners in Normandy some years before William invaded. I don't know what became of them?

@@Alex-yz6uq l think they were rattled after the Battle of Hastings! 😬 Not after Stanford Bridge. The Saxons basically traversed the country on HORSE, (they usually always marched) from London & Winchester to York in 5 days - a miraculous fete in itself. The Vikings were rattled to see riders approach them, thinking it was the Theigns of York come to give hostages & tribute...... l think as the Vikings were partying after the Battle of York, celebrating in very hot weather without their armour to find that it wasn't tribute & hostages but King Harold's army arriving in 5 days must have rattled them!? As I've said... it was a slaughter, Viking losses were severe with only 12 or 30 ships leaving England (dependant on who you read). Saxon losses were much smaller. As a military fete? To organise horses to carry the Saxon army & to send messengers ahead to raise more troops to join them along the way, then to defeat one of the largest invading Viking armies to invade Britain in under 6 days, then to march back to face another invasion at the other end of the country? Yes, l think on arriving back in London & learning of the size of the Norman's invasion, then yes at that point the Saxons were rattled! To fight 2 invasions in such a short time!? Unbelievably hard & shows the mettle of the Saxons under Harold Godwinson. If it was just one invasion? Either. Both would have been repulsed. Kudos to Duke William for waiting until Harold Hardrada had invaded before he attacked.

True, it all went tits up in the late tenth century after the reign of Athelstan. I think the Danish expansion was exponential

@@eardwulf785 Athelstan’s descendants were mostly adept rulers who each had a hand in the formation of England including his half brother Edmund I, for example, who was underrated in my opinion (though there were one or two exceptions). I think it was when Edger the Peaceful died things really started to go tits up… ☹️

plus the pope wanted the invasion

Why would he “promise” him the throne to anyone knowing fully well the potential successor will need the approval of a Witan before they even look at the throne? It was a weak claim to say the least. William was nothing more than a usurper.

I was surprised at the way that part of the story was glossed over.

Have you ever read Bede or other 7th century Christian scholars, they wrote in Latin. Because they followed Roman Christianity. Latin didn't stsrt after the Norman invasion.. It already existed

The French have never "ruled England"

For 300 years 🇫🇷💪​@@reidparker1848

Even more than the British Armada's humiliating defeat at Cartagena de Indias.

@@scintillam_dei the Spanish live in our shadow 🇬🇧 lmfao 1588? Trafalgar? 100 years war (castille, France and Scotland vs England)?

@@Englishman-_-Mongolia2022 My series on the overrated Brits is my response to your already-covered non-sharp "points."

@@scintillam_dei "overrated Brits" And you expect me watch a Spanish series, no doubt biased for Spain? Lmao. Cope lad

@@Englishman-_-Mongolia2022 good job

Yeah I think

Many one-eyed guys in history, often national heroes. The Bible says the Anti-Christ's right eye will be "utterly darkened." The one eye on the dollar bill on the pyramid is symbolic of the Anti-Christ on the Tower of Babel. But most of you reading this prefer mainstream history and not thinkning independently, over conspiracy theories even when they are in your face in the dollar bill, and therefore conspiracy facts.

@@scintillam_dei So u are suggesting that the people who are printing the dollar bills are satiniscs?

Yes

It's been debated whether it was true or not.

ham is a farm, home is a house

yeah the norman’s were quite nationalistic about english identity

And where would we be if England wasn’t formed? As the historian Eric John wrote in the 20th century: “It was the Anglo-Saxons who made England, the Normans who attempted to make Great Britain. And as yet they have not succeeded so well.” No one has successfully invaded us since though.

Yeah but they integrated into English society. Anglo-Saxon = English. If you have norman ancestry you still aren't English in my eyes

@@Englishman-_-Mongolia2022 Not exactly the Normans took over the seat of power, in the same way the Saxons and other Germanics did after the Romans left Britain. They beat the Celts in battle replaced the Elites and the lower level Saxons mingled with the surviving Celtic lower classes. Over time the Celtic and Germanic traditions mingled with the Germanic traditions taking the upper hand and the Germanic Eaglisce language became predominate. Within a generation the two groups living in the Germanic controlled area were blended into the people we know as the first English people just because they shared common language and customs. The exact same thing happened when the Normans arrived, the same way the Scandinavians who lived in the Danelaw also joined the mix. None of the successive invaders could totally remove those already on the island so they mixed. The point being according to your statement there are very few true English living in England.

Odd comment, because 90% of the English population are 98% Anglo Celt and 2% Norman. Of which that 2% was Flemish Breton frank norse. Every Welshman has nearly the same amount of Norman but less anglosaxon

well it was an invasion of england, nowhere else !!!

Did we watch the same video? This is exactly what was said.

I saw the video presenting a battle in which the Normans had the upper hand and the English were already on the back foot. I think the battle was stacked against the Normans because of the English defensive position and having time on their side. I think it was much harder for the Normans to win the battle than the video says.

@@fishpig4391 It was stacked against the English from the start because the Normans had a well rested cavalry whilst the English fought on foot after defeating the Vikings. They were winning the battle anyway, until the Normans enforced the ‘feigned retreat’…

@@thevoiceless8567 Horseback fighting is no good against shield walls as horses will not run at shield walls leaving the norman horseback fighters open to english spears and axes only owing to the english breaking their lines to drive the normans into the sea did the normans overcome the english onset on horseback had the english waited for more fighters to turn up they would have won the normans did not win the english lost

@@thevoiceless8567 Cavalry fares less well against a fortified position on uphill terrain. I agree with your statement that they were winning the battle until the Norman "feigned retreat" and I think that was because of their defensive position. I think they lost because they got overconfident from the "feigned retreat" and broke formation.

That's what I'm thinking too. He had more right by blood than the Norway Harald anyway

@@kmbn1967 Right!

The lucky shot!

Some people in comment doubted that king harold died by an arrow to the eye. I was curious and google it. According to Wikipedia. it was still being debated by some scholars

@@calvanoni5443 Bull's-eye! 🏹🎯👁️

Technically speaking this assumption is based on what appears to be drawn on the Bayeux Tapestry, but it (the "arrow") could also be a convenient crack in the tapestry itself. There is no conclusive evidence or written eye witness testimony which states Harold got an arrow to the eye, it is hearsay based solely on what appears to be drawn on the part of the Bayeux Tapestry which is Harold's final appearance on it

Would be like an island of civilisation in a storm of germanic fury.

@@Litany_of_Fury precisely. imagine Rome but protected by Sea

It is hard to dismiss the possibility that many Romans living in what is now England did not leave. Indeed, if not the Romans themselves but the Romanized local population stayed. Anglo-Saxons did benefit from a substantial Roman heritage.

Alot did stay actually... its just the the anglo-saxons invaded... So no... England wouldn't be a Second Rome infact they attacked and killed Romans

@@ZAR556 Protected by the sea? They would suffer constant attack from the sea by Frankia, Northmen, Saxons, Frisians and Celts.

I’m actually a descendant of him lol

The norman fighters were hotfooted up against the sea by the english and only owning to the english fighting on foot did the normans overcome the english onslaught on horseback had the english been on horseback or gathered more fighters into their line they would have drove the normans into the sea the normans were getting beat throughout the fight the normans did not win the english lost

@@AethelwulfOfNordHymbraLand2333 ''The Normans did not win the English lost''.. Uhm, with that logic no wonder they lost!🤔 ​And that happened 956 years ago.. Here some copium, messire Æthelwulf.

the danelaw was killed off by Normans. Have you never read the Harrying of the North. many of the EnglishDanish elite sailed to Crimea, the conquered Cueta and Balearics before the Byzantium lord gave them lands in Crimea. William hated english and dane the same. Often armies or Lords hate and turn against their relatives. Basically the danes fought danes be they norse english or norman. Same as the war in USA, it was not Britain vs usa but really patriots of the king fighting British who didnt want to pay tax and homage to him

Anglo-saxons. Not English.

@@davidladjani108 bruh. Anglo-Saxon = English = England. Without the Anglo-Saxons, English won't exist.

@@Englishman-_-Mongolia2022 The English are a mix of Anglo Saxon, Norman and a bit of Norse. And of course Celts but that was previously to the Anglo Saxon conquest. Your equation is almost as dumb a saying Franks = French.

@@davidladjani108 the dominant blood in Englishmen, is Anglo-Saxon and Celtic. normans are a minority. You're talking to an Englishman, about England ffs. England was named after the Angles (aka English)

@@davidladjani108 you tryna look stupid?

You must be a frank beecause you're frank.

They were french

@@leroiarouf1142 the french identity wasn’t even a thing back then and williams the conqueror literally fought two battles against the king of france prior to the norman conquest of england how tf were they in anyways french

@@leroiarouf1142 rollo was danish, northmen norse normans.. Angles English Norse god Ing. French celtic franks spoke italian look like arabs....the scottish are strathclyde welsh and scot irish and english northumbrians and norse...confusing yes.

@@shawnv123 The same William that asked the French king to help him secure his throne? Normans were french, they spoke french, fought the french way. William was less than 10% scandinavian. The term "Norman" didn't even exist at the time, and William's army called themselves Frankish (just look at the Bayeux tapestry commissioned by William's own brother). "Norman" is an invention of revisionist and nationalist English historians of the 19th century.

My series on the overrated British Empire explains the truth about it.

@@scintillam_dei Overrated? Not another sour anti British thing is it?

@@kadourimdou43 Yes it was overrated. All empires for the most part are. The British empire for all it's land mass it's people lived like shit. Even some colonials lived better than the common Brit. It was the same for the Spanish empire. The Spanish lived like shit while those in Cuba and Puerto Rico lived a far richer life.

@@phillip_iv_planetking6354 The living conditions for the average person, isn’t the same as the empire itself. That could also apply to any country on Earth, as the rulers and those closest to them will always have better lives, than the rest of the country. So it’s not saying anything at all. Just another anti British bitch-fest.

@@phillip_iv_planetking6354 Sorry to burst your bubble but most people in the viceroyalties lived like shit.

Dinosaurs never existed. "They say they have fossils, so they do." Gullible. "You're stupid for questioning the establishment." You're not fit to judge on smartnes when you believe I'm dumb for free thinking.

Yup English history would be entirely different today if the Saxons had won

@@mijanhoque1740 it would interesting linguistically speaking.

@@mijanhoque1740 not really. The Pope would have decreed another invasion and William could have regrouped himself and had troops from Pope's HRE and attacked again. Evil papists always had a go at little old britian

We will win we have not given up

@@AethelwulfOfNordHymbraLand2333 literally most us modern English people can't pick up a gun. I can though my family moved to America.

you are correct but very difficult for english to admit. If you check the William charter to the City of London ans Bayeux tapestry, you will see that william and his people were calling themselves.... french.

After the 2nd generation they were no longer Norman. It's pretty much the international consensus that the Normans became "naturales Angli" and proud of their "Anglorum patria" by the end of Henry II's reign, past that, chroniclers and writers of the era seem to have seen "Normannis" as antiquated legal and everybody is simply called "Angli" instead. Even in tournament records from Richard I's reign, the nobles in England are called English.The Saxons and the Normans merged very quickly after the conquest because they were very similar in the first place. People will happily tell you that Saxon word for food was split between French and Old English. What they don’t tell you is that the vast majority of military terms remained Old English. Knights, yeoman, sword, shield. Even aristocratic titles remained Germanic long after the conquest: Earl, Baron. This is because a lot of young Norman men, very quickly adopted Saxon styles. It is quite funny when you hear the Saxons complain that their young men were cutting their their hair in the Danish/Norman style (back of the head shaved) and the Normans were complaining that their boys were growing moustaches like the Saxons. Saxon and Norman names shared roots, so It was not hard to merge the two. Hrotgar became Roger , Hrothberth became Robert and Athelwulf became Adolf , Hemric became Henry. Similarly , Normans adopted Saxon names like Audrey, Edward, Alfred and Edith. The Norman kings went to great lengths to maintain that they were the legitimate heirs to the monarchy. Henry I married Edgar Athelings grand daughter to merge the House of Normandy with the House of Wessex. Anglo-Saxon (mainly)+Briton+Norman (by the 1200s)=English. If you remove any of it, it is no longer English.

Wreaking havoc? more like pillaging monasteries and small towns. Rollo & his mens were defeated in battle by the french king, and the peace setllement allowed him to gain land in France in return to protect the french coast from other Vikings raids.

The Viking’s were defeated in Chartres. Then came the saint clair sur epte treaty that created the duchy of Normandie and made the vikings french . Normands were French who spoke French, were catholics and had french culture. Then came the French conquest of England

They seemed pretty strong to me, for not having a unified army or agenda. They occupied most of England and settled there. They settled in Ireland and Scotland. They were granted Normandy by the French king, they settled all over eastern europe and founded Kiev as a main city. The kieven rus was created and ruled by the vikings. They influenced power politics in constantinople. Among just a few things.. Its true they didnt have a landarmy that swept across and defeated every standind army.. But to call them "not strong" is inaccurate.

@@whatwhat3432523 I mean they were not THAT strong ! Their strength is a myth. It was based on desintegration of the Carolingien empire. If they settled in a tiny part of Normandy it was only because the King had NO authority on his powerful lords. They failed to take Paris despite a first winning battle. They failed to settle in the Loire or Rhone or Garonne valleys. They were defeated by the anglo saxons many times and were forced to submit to them. Adventurous is not synonym of powerful , sorry !

@@antoinemozart243 I dont agree. Their influence on the entire continent is massive, especially in the UK, western europe, Scandinavia and Eastern Europe. They fought just as much amongst themselves as anyone else. And never had one king, just in Norway there were multiple kings.. There never was a standing army of vikings like on the continent. Their influence of commerce was just as impressive as their raids. Therefor they were a massive force to be reckoned with, and indeed powerful.

Nope. Islam invaded because liberal idiots imported it. Now you have Londonistan, and the problem keeps exacerbating.

Actually, they got invaded multiple times afterwards . Once by the French during the barons war etc.

@@Valencetheshireman927 but they were never conquered. I meant in terms of being conquered. England/UK has the longest time without being conquered in Europe

@@_____MB_____ Ah I see. When you said they’d never been invaded I thought you meant being invaded and attacked by another country. 👍

@@Valencetheshireman927 if you land on a beach and are swiftly killed that isnt anything of consequence

the normans were not french, they had a leader called duke and were separate from king of franks. duke was duke of normans not franks

@@stigkrakpants3052 The Normands were French. They spoke French, were catholics, had French, Gauls blood along with scandinavian blood. Normandie has always been part of France and has never been an independant kingdom. As the historian Robert Bates states in his book "Normandy before 1066", Following the Vikings settlement in Normandy, Normands spoke French, intermarrying with local French , converted to Christianity and eventually by 1066 became more French than Viking. Normands copied French institutions and were fully integrated in the French kingdom. On the Bayeux tapestry it is clearly described that the French won over the English. hIC CeCIDERUNT SIMUL: ANGLI eT FRANCI: INPReLIO Here were killed at the same time English and French in Battle HIC FRANCI PUGNANT ET CECIDERUNT QUI ERANT CUM HAROLDO HERE THE FRENCH ARE FIGHTING AND THOSE WHO WERE WITH HAROLD HAVE FALLEN EST ET FUGA: VERTERUNT ANGLI And the English have turned to flight On the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, it is also clearly mentioned that Guillaume & his army were French. “Frenchmen had possession of the place of Carnage, all as God Granted them for the peoples's sins.” Orderic Vitalis wrote in his Ecclesiastica Historia ("Ecclesiastical History"): Nothing was given to any Frenchman which had been taken unjustly from any Englishman. The French Chronicler Guy of Amiens in his text “Carmen de Hastingae proelio” wrote: “When France was almost mistress of the field of battle and was already seeking the spoils of war, the Duke (Guillaume) caught sight of the king on the top of the hill fiercely cutting down those who were attacking him[…].”

@@lecapetien3223 the normans were labelled as french because they spoke french and were lumped as all together. But you are wrong they were northmen under a duke not a king. It is the same as berbers were labelled blacks as we knew no different then. Or as pale skinned moors were called blacks when they visited europe. Or a moroccan could be labelled french as they speak french. Are Yanks english?? No they are not. Frogs cannot claim the victory of 1066 for their own same way if cornwall or wales had invaded ireland in the 12th century england could not claim credit of invading ireland. You are as deluded as an Argy thinking the falklands are not british. The english were catholic but that didnt make them french.

​@@stigkrakpants3052 < The historian Robert Bates states in his book "Normandy before 1066", Following the Vikings settlement in Normandy, Normands spoke French, intermarrying with local French , converted to Christianity and eventually by 1066 became more French than Viking. Normands copied French institutions and were fully integrated in the French kingdom. So yes, the Normands were French speaking catholic French, as Normandie has always been French and under the authority the French kings. So yes, the French duke of Normandie Guillaume and his French army (1/3 from Normandie, and the other 2/3 from other regions of France) invaded and kicked the ass of the pukelanders. this French invasion of england was the first of the 3 French invasions of england. The 2nd being by Etienne de Blois The 3rd being by Henri II de Plantagenêt this is why it is mentioned on la Tapisserie de Bayeux that the French won over the English. hIC CeCIDERUNT SIMUL: ANGLI eT FRANCI: INPReLIO Here were killed at the same time English and French in Battle HIC FRANCI PUGNANT ET CECIDERUNT QUI ERANT CUM HAROLDO HERE THE FRENCH ARE FIGHTING AND THOSE WHO WERE WITH HAROLD HAVE FALLEN EST ET FUGA: VERTERUNT ANGLI And the English have turned to flight On the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, it is also clearly mentioned that Guillaume & his army were French. “Frenchmen had possession of the place of Carnage, all as God Granted them for the peoples's sins.” Orderic Vitalis wrote in his Ecclesiastica Historia ("Ecclesiastical History"): Nothing was given to any Frenchman which had been taken unjustly from any Englishman. The French Chronicler Guy of Amiens in his text “Carmen de Hastingae proelio” wrote: “When France was almost mistress of the field of battle and was already seeking the spoils of war, the Duke (Guillaume) caught sight of the king on the top of the hill fiercely cutting down those who were attacking him[…].” 300 years of French rule on england ! Dieu et mon droit Honi soit qui mal y pense

Remember, the 100 years war lasted116 years, and had English and Welsh men occupy North frsnce. Keep your revisionism to yourself typical frenchman

The english never accept the fact that Normands were french. It is clearly mentioned on La tapisserie de Bayeux. hIC CeCIDERUNT SIMUL: ANGLI eT FRANCI: INPReLIO Here were killed at the same time English and French in Battle