Apparently the normans reign in England was tyrranny. According to that article the normans never tried to make any efforts to assimilate with the English. And there were a system of apartheid between the English and Normans. Could that be the origin of English hatred for the french. And also could that be the origin of the Upper class accent. You have to admitt that in England not so long ago they existed a caste system there. The article itself is controversial but nevertheless a good read. Somehow, I no longer feel proud of having a norman ancestry anymore.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/lj/conquestlj/conquered_01.shtml?site=history_conquestlj_conquest - http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/lj/conquestlj/conquered_01.shtm l?site=history_conquestlj_conquest

I would say the "hatred" is mutual and based more in the hundred years war, Nap wars and so on, which are far closer to us.

Besides, the neighbours hate each other: French-germans, french-british, french-spanish, german-poles, poles-russians, spanish-portuguese, ...

One of the books I'm reading now "1066 the year of the Conquest" flips back and forth between Norman and English veiws of what lead up to and the conquest it self. It examines possible reasons for Williams invasion and looks at the English veiw of it. England having been at peace for some time and having their own way of electing a king were understandably upset by the invesion and left William little choice in subjegating them.  

Also remember that kings like Richard le Coeur de Lion was a total Norman, yet he is revered by the English. He did not even speak English, only French!!!

I would say that Normans are more of Vikings than French. True, they adopted some parts of French culture and spoke a diluted form of French, but their warrior spirit was truely viking.

David Howarth's Hastings book is excellent, and his book regarding the Spanish Armada is great too.

Perhaps it would even be more accurate to simply state that the Normans were, well... Normans.  They believed in the concept of Gens Normannorum ("The Norman People"). 

Richard is actually the second Plantagenat king.

He was the grandson of Mathilda, daughter of Henry I, and Geoffrey of Anjou.

The Normans were quick to become French, particularly since they were a minority in their new duchy and a disproportionate number of the new people were young male Vikings who took local women for wives. After a few generations, the Norwegian language and customs were fading fast and the Normans were French

 Viking are incapable of Frankish organisation and order. The Viking were a bunch of raiders,  each time they met a real army they ever flee or faced defeat. THe viking was in fact crushed by Frankish duke Robert "Le Justicier" at Charte 911. However, they took advantage of the situation in peace treaty by allowing the viking to settle in normandy. Rollo readily converted to christianity and the large number of single man readilt married into the disproportionately larger Gallic population. 150 years, in 1066, no one knows who the fvck the viking are. The Normans were more french than the Franks themselves. Same hair cut,  same language (in fact they spoke a more refine french), same architecture, the fight on horse. There names are as french as it can get. Together they brought the Frank from ile-de-france to assault england. In fact the majority the William armies weren't from normandy.  To remind you the viking never conquered normandy, they were just raiders.

 Wrong, Coeur de Lion mother was Eleanor of Aquittaine (born in poitier Aquittaine, France) and her Father was Henri Plantagen�t (note the French name indicating he has no freaking viking ancestry) the duke of normandy. Richard automatically inherited Aquittaine, the place he died and was buried.

I'm finding this one verygood as well. Almost done it I'll have to look for Hastings.

Quetzalcoatl of course the Normans were not Vikings, if they were William would not have had to spend six months or more gathering and building ships to go to England and would not of had to promise half of England to his nobles. There would have been little concern about the cannel crossing It would have been a routine thing for a Viking force. To assume that the Vikings were "incapable of Frankish organisation and order" is a fallacy. For what ever reason they choose their own form of society structure but the Vikings were far from simply raiders. They were very ferocious, highly adaptable, with there own code of conduct and probably the best seamen around(at least in northern Europe) It has been suggested that the fighting mentality of the Normans was a direct result of the Norwegian blood that was introduced to the local population.

That is total nonsense for the simple reason the vast majority of the army were Frank mercenaries (Frank here is used to describe the early french, because at this time anyone in Francia occidentalis were referred as Franc(FRank) by outsiders even the normans). If the vikings were such great warriors how come they were always defeated in large conventional battles such as Chartre and stamford bridge. This shows they were only adapted for raids and small scale fight. THe viking blood thing is a myth without any real foundation. The normands before even the arrival of the vikings were already fierce warriors which were from the original Gaul population. And the viking never conquered the place, the land was given to them from (an agreement after their defeat). It's like you telling me 10000 people arriving in a population of nearly 1 million, will turn them into viking. This is ridiculous. Plus unlike in England the Gallic lords already in the region were powerful and they readily married with the viking leaders forming the norman elites. And this point they are Gallo-scandinavian but 150 years later, the vikings were just tales for the kids. 

 And there is no proof that the early viking has any decent military organisation like the Franks. They fought mostly in war band usually less than 200 and were rather the opportunists type not the warrior who fought for honour , glory or a cause. This classify the viking mostly as barbars, not different from any primitive tribes.

As interesting as discussing the merits (or lack thereof )of Viking warriors is ,it might be better suited to a thread of it�s own rather than hi jacking this one.

To return to your original premise that the Normans reign in England was nothing short of tyranny. From the point of view of the English how could it be anything but. The Normans invaded England on a premise that can still be said to be flimsy at best. That Duke William had a right to the throne because of a few suggested(I only say this because it is not 100% certain that they were made) promises and had gained papal support under false pretenses . Hereditary claims did not exist in that England and the death bed request of Herold carried a great deal of weight. The English were happy with their councils choice of king and then along comes William and his army and wins. One of the biggest problems the English had was that William distributed most of the lands to his Norman followers but what choice did he have. He had promised them it. He was ruthless in putting down the rebellions that followed (5 years or mor of them) And his harsh measures touched not only the nobles but the commoners as well. The ring of Norman castles must have been ment for protection from the locals because there wasn�t much of an outside threat at the time. That constant remainder of the conquest couldn�t have been good for creating good feelings with the locals.

You said that the Normans made no efforts to assimilate the English but within a few generations the English had assimilated the Normans to make a new bread of Englishman different than the old but not the same as the Normans of the continent either. Could it be responsable for the long standing hatred between the two states? Well it could make a real good start at it. What was the condition of affairs between the two before Hastings?

I disagree, the English kings that lead the invasion into France during 100 years war were themselves very Frenchy-blooded - it was the later wars against the real French and not the Normans that dampened the relations.

I disagree Quetzal, the Vikings quite effectively attacked Paris and I think the inhabitatants had to starve for a time, although I don't know much about it.

Remember that there was the Danelaw that took over the entire section of England and even Alfred the Great had to bargain with them. Even Shakespeare's Macbeth has a mention of a Norweigian army invading Scotland. It is no conincidence that Scottish accent acttually closely resembles the Scandinavian accent...  The founders of Russian nation were thus Scandinavian too. They even dared to attack Byzentium once too, and they once held a whole chunk of Ireland.

I read from an account by a Norman monk at the site of Hastings that Norman haircut was similar to that of monks.... so the Saxons were surprised that Norman army was made of "monks" ahahhaha

I have doubts about Normans speaking refinded French.... they even pronounced H's! (Je parle francais un peu...) And likely their accent resembled Scandinavian.  

 Well strictly speaking it wasn't England vs France, more like an alliance of Anglo-Franco-Burgundian vs France and Scottland. Normandy naturally was at time under Frankish control. Since they sided with France after France defeated England and the flemish during the Capetian wars during the 13th century.

 Well these were war bands, a rather large one in that particular case. Knowing the nature of the conflict , it's pretty hard for the Frank to response to them. But they were thouroughly defeated later and at many occassion. But they don't seem to be under any central authority so another nabd will come later and raid another place. Anyone will appreciate that the vikings were successful because they have high mobility. They usually went for soft targets.

Remember that there was the Danelaw that took over the entire section of England and even Alfred the Great had to bargain with them. Even Shakespeare's Macbeth has a mention of a Norweigian army invading Scotland. It is no conincidence that Scottish accent acttually closely resembles the Scandinavian accent...  The founders of Russian nation were thus Scandinavian too. They even dared to attack Byzentium once too, and they once held a whole chunk of Ireland.

Well there is nothing they could do about, it is rather impossible in that time to protect there cost against the vikings. So they settled, gradually increase in number and therefore forming larger war bands which ressembled actually an army. Scottish certainly have little scandinavian influence, they are celtic, only the southern part of scotland was settled by viking. And I believe this has to nothing to do with there accent.

I read from an account by a Norman monk at the site of Hastings that Norman haircut was similar to that of monks.... so the Saxons were surprised that Norman army was made of "monks" ahahhaha

 Like Jean Reno in "les visiteurs"  . No it's Frankish hair style not normans, the original people of normandy already had it. It was for the warrior class in all France. Well the immigrants certainly adopted it.

I have doubts about Normans speaking refinded French.... they even pronounced H's! (Je parle francais un peu...) And likely their accent resembled Scandinavian.

  Normands french is known as langue d'oil, considered as more refined as la langue d'oc. They were spoken in France even before the arrival of the disproportionately smaller viking immigrants. The viking simply adopted the language and didn't modify it. THe reason for that is because the children usually take the accent of the mother, and although the viking population was small, they were also single so they married the locals. Basically there children will speak la langue d'oil. I'll believe William (Guillaume) would have spoken like Jean Reno in le Voyageur, old French is not exactly the same as modern French.

 It took them like 300 years to start speaking English. When I speak of normans I'm not talking about the vikings but about the people from normandy. Yes they have viking immigration. But those viking was thoroughly assimilated in 150 years and the local lords have tremendous power in the area.

William was originally known as William the Bastard... lol.

What are the differences between Langue d'Oc and Langue d'Oil? Was Langue d'Oil used in rest of Northern France as well such as in Champagne or Auvergne? 

And what are Gascon and Provencal? Are they just dilects or are they a full language on their own?

Hmm... I suppose the Northern France would have been much more fully Celtic than the southern part since it was conquered later and was less accessible to Latin migrations from Roman Italy than souther parts.

 Langue d'oc was the dialects of french spoken in  southern of France. Occitan and Provencal are dialects of the Langue d'oc.

 Langue d'oil was the medieval dialects of French spoken in central and northern France.

 Well britanny was celtic without any doubt, but normandy was rather more  a mixture of Franks and celts plus it was a little bit romanised. But in these area poeple have celtic or germanic treats which contrast witht people of the south which have meditteranean features.  In medieval southerners were probably different because later large number of immigrants from italy and Spain moved into southern France.

Isn't that a little exagerated, the man was no different from other feudal rulers. There were rulers worst than William, Fulk Nera from anjou i heard was a real bastard. I've always viewed William as the greatest hero from the land of normandy. Of course medieval heroes were pretty barbaric. During the hundred years wars, the English-burgundian and allies pretty much devastated normandy and northern France.

the Normans considered themselves more French than Viking. They imposed the French language on England brutally too. My professor was explaining to me in this literature class i took before that this is very visible in English language today too.

Sheep (english) -  Mutton (meat of sheep... French )

cow (english) - beef (French)

they have other words too but as you can see the latter has nothing to do with the former so it was imposed on them.

 I never knew where the people get the idea that normans were vikings. You shouldn't confuse normenn and norman, the Anglo-saxons called the viking normenn but the norman romans (from an anglo-saxon perspective they still believe romans lived in France) Norman means people of the north, this has 2 origins, the vikings were called norseman but normandy is pretty north in France. It is true a group of viking settled in that area but they were quickly assimilated in the vast romano-germano-celtic population in the area. 150 years for these people the vikings exist somehow in history. I would doubt William would have had a drop of viking blood in him. Racially or culturally normans would have had little to do with vikings, some traditions would remain just like every foreigners will bring something new.

 You need to be careful also with the term french contrary to belief it didn't come from the Franks but from the duchy of ile-de-france (which itself come from the Franks). everyone in northern France was a frank crudely speaking but the area was still being known as Gaul in those time. Only after the Philip from ile-de-France conquered France did the place started to be known as France. People in southern France didn't quite view themselves as French, they were occitans or Gascon, burgundian etc.  A norman outside France will be known as a Frank inside he will be a norman, someone from ile-de-france will be a french and someone from burgundy will be burgundians. If burgundy had conquered France, the whole place may have been known today as Burgundy or Greater Burgundy.

pork--Porc

market-- Marche

Chair - chaise

And virtually(1) every word with two or more syllables (2) are derived(3) from french or latin. You can have word like chicken which is germanic but will have derivative(4) like poultry(5) (derived from french words like poulet (chicken)

Just check the example(6) above I've numbered(7) them and check their origin(8) in a dictionary(9).

market however is not French originated, in German it's Markt.

Umm...you're really only half correct.

What became the Duchy of Normandy was founded in the early 10th century (I believe in 910AD) when Charles the Fat, King of the Franks (or Charles the Bald--I can never keep those two straight) granted a Norwegian named Rollo (who led a band of Danes) land in the North of France.  The Franks called Rollo and his Danes "North-Men" or, eventually, Normans.  As time passed the Normans came from a land called Normandy, in the North of what became (with the establishment of Hugh Capet--founder of the Capetian Dynasty--later in the 10th Century.) "France."

The Normans find thier ancestory in Scandinavia.   Scandinavians became Normans mostly due to economic and religious reason.  They learned French and adopted Christianity through the reformed Clunaic Liturgy.  By the time Rollo died (in the 920s, I think), his heir, William Longsword, was leading his people into thoroughly non-Danish, non-Viking culture.

Also, if I remember correctly The Anglo-Saxon pretty much refered to the Scandinavian Vikings as "Danes."  The Irish, btw, differentiated the vikings by the hair color--there were "light haired foriengers" and "dark haired foriengers."

Finally, the Ile-de-France was never a duchy; it was the was the property, or the demese (domain) of the King of France.

Mord.

 I'm not sure it could be german in origin, it is found in vulgar latin which turn lately in french, so it may have a german origin. But it's introduction into the english language is from french, do not confuse that one. It was introduce by the normans. it could have been from germany into french then from french into english. Now you need to prove that it actually was introduce from germanic language into french rather than from latin to germanic language.

[Middle English, from Old North French, from Vulgar Latin *marctus, from Latin merctus, from past participle of mercr, to buy, from merx, merc-, merchandise.]

 no no and nooooooooo. The normans do not find their ancestry in scandinavia, the scandinavian ancestry is exagerated. Their is a scandinavian heritage but this is small nigh to insignificant. Don't you understand Rollo and his company were a small minority of male adventurers that were assimilated in a larger  population in normandy. The normans that invaded England has little in common with Rollo or the viking, they were romano-germano celts with a negligible scandinavian input.   You have to consider  here the following points

1. Viking males settled in normandy were a minority

2. They married locals women

3. they did not totally control everything or displaced the lords already on the land but mixed with them, unlike in England.

4. 150 years later, anything viking is only traditional, saying Normans has viking ancestry rather than french ancestry is extremely ridiculous as if. They were assimilated and dissolved, they cannot be the ancestors of the normans.  it is ridiculous to say my ancestors are vikings because I'm from normandy.

 The Duchy of France was centred roughly around ile-de-France  also known as the royal domain.  Read the encyclopedia of France, it clearly have a duchy name as the Duchy of France, it was on the border of annilation it could have swallowed by anything like Aquittaine, Anjou, normandy or burgundy. Philip Augustus saved the place, they said Philip Augustus saved France, it wasn't modern France but ile-de-France. These terms are superficial, if someone from Aquittaine was powerful enough he could have conquered the whole France (as modern) including the duchy of France, and named the whole place as Aquittaine the new or Greater Aquittaine and set new rules. Infact in those time, the people in northern France were known as Franks, but the place known as Gaul still. But I got what you mean because the king resided there it could not be a Duchy right. remember kingship does not become hereditary among the Capetian until 1179, so prior ile-de-France (more like paris and orleans) was the Duchy of France. Understand that.

 No the Anglo-saxons call the norwegian as Normenn (they could have called the danes something else) in the anglo-saxon chronicles whereas they called the normans as romans.

• The "Roman Province" was only partially Gaulish to start with. Ligurians and Greeks made a large part of the population, specially in what is now Provence.
• All the territory had belonged for centuries to the Visigoths (or to the Burgundians also), who had their first capital at Tolouse.
• The French domain in the area was quite weak before the Albigensian Crusade. The Earl of Tolouse was the actual power in most of the area for centuries, while other parts belonged to the remnants of the Kingdom or Arles and were only lately annexed to France.
• Parts of the region's population, including Gascons, clearly favored England in the Hundred Years' War, as means to mantain their identity and independence from Paris.
• This was also the area where protestantism was stronger, indicating that the culturally opressed Occitanians sought ways to rebel against the central power rather unsuccesfully.

Norsemen raided as far inland as Paris and other towns long before the Normans settled in Normandy and took on Christianity, Frankish language and feudal social organization.

Trying to superimpose twentieth/twenty-first century attitudes and expectations of behavior on them is a futile exercise.

One must think in terms of "to the victor go the spoils."  Land was wealth; control of the resources of the land was power.  There was no capitalist bogey and no "ethnic cleansing" in the eleventh century.  Someone ruled and others obeyed.  It was a much less complicated time.

The King was Charles the Simple. Charles the Fat held a big responsibility in the rampages the vikings did to the countryside as he did nothing (he didn't fortify cities and didn't fortify bridges).

Rolf became Rollo as Duke of Normandy at the condition he defended it against the vikings. A viking fighting other vikings. He and his men were useful back then, because the Vikings were still raiders and you didn't need a lot of fighters to fight them, with the time the vikings in Scandinavia christianised and stopped raiding and the small amount of vikings in Normandy finally became smaller and smaller.

His son, William Longsword was already far more French than viking, he had to crush a revolt from his guards who though he wa too French with the help of the King of France. This sealed the fate of Normandy as being French and not Viking.

The Normans find some of their ancestors in Scandinavia, but to claim they descend from them is only a small part of the truth (the visible part of the iceberg). They were far more French even by blood than viking.

And yes, Ile de France was a Duchy and Paris was even a County. Yet they were the central power of the Kingdom of France than included Normandy, Brittany and others... even though the king had a very simbolic power there they were still as French as Paris was.

 It's Occitan not Occitanian please. Normally I'm not pedantic but seeing the land of my people with it's name butchered is rather unpleasant.

Gascon IS in the Occitan family, but it's apart inside it and if you consider it as Occitan then it makes sense to put Catalan in because Gascon with its Basque influence is apart.

As Occitan being Gallo-Romance, I'm sorry for the Catalan who wish to see their country disunited of Spain and join a great Catalan/Occitan union (like I've seen on some websites) but Occitan is a Gallo Romance language far more than it is Ibero-Romance, don't forget the Gauls settled in Northern Italy (Gallia Cistalpina) and in Spain (Celtiberians). So if you dig in linguistic roots it's more the neightbouring languages (Catalan and Piedmontese) that could be associated to the Gallo-Romance group than the opposite (Occitan as Ibero or Italo - Romance).

http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Gallo-Romance_examples.html - http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Gallo-Romance_examples.html

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/g/ga/gallo-romance_languages1.htm - http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/g/ga/gallo-rom ance_languages1.htm

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Gallo_Romance-languages - http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Gallo_Romance-langu ages

• Western Iberian: Galaico-Portugese, Asturian, Ancient Leonese, Mozarabic and...
• Castilian (Spanish), separated due to Basque influx
• Ibero-Provenzal: Occitan, Catalan and...
• Gascon, separated due to Basque influx
  
• Aragonese (I doubt seriously that Upper Aragonese can be classified with Western Iberian languages), also with Basque influx (but unrelated to Gascon as far as I know). Maybe it should be apart?
  
• Franco-Romanic: Oil languages

Emtre Espanha e o Oceano, o Oceano!