# Humanities & Anthropology > History & Civilisations >  Why did the Normans invade England ?

## motatalea

Why Normans only invaded england ,Why they didnot invade germany or switzerland or other parts of france for instance?

----------


## Maciamo

The Normans were Danish Vikings. The Danes did invade all of Western Europe, as far as the Maghreb. One group managed to obtain land from the King of France and became known as the Normans. They adopted French language and customs and combined their own Norse technology to the French one. 

I suppose that they became more powerful because they had enough land to support their future conquests. They didn't have to go back to Denmark to make new weapons or bring more men, but could just recruit local Frenchmen, and get all the food and weapons they needed in Normandy. 

The nearest place to conquer outside France from their new "base" was England, just across the Channel. Furthermore the kingdom of England was already weakened from the war between another group of Danish Vikings and the Anglo-Saxons. The Normans came with a big army combining Danish and French troops when England was already on its knees. The timing was perfect.

Another reason they didn't venture more inland (like Switzerland) is that Vikings were primarily sailors. Their ships could go up rivers, but not upstream in mountainous areas.

----------


## motatalea

> The Normans were Danish Vikings. The Danes did invade all of Western Europe, as far as the Maghreb. One group managed to obtain land from the King of France and became known as the Normans. They adopted French language and customs and combined their own Norse technology to the French one. 
> 
> I suppose that they became more powerful because they had enough land to support their future conquests. They didn't have to go back to Denmark to make new weapons or bring more men, but could just recruit local Frenchmen, and get all the food and weapons they needed in Normandy. 
> 
> The nearest place to conquer outside France from their new "base" was England, just across the Channel. Furthermore the kingdom of England was already weakened from the war between another group of Danish Vikings and the Anglo-Saxons. The Normans came with a big army combining Danish and French troops when England was already on its knees. The timing was perfect.
> 
> Another reason they didn't venture more inland (like Switzerland) is that Vikings were primarily sailors. Their ships could go up rivers, but not upstream in mountainous areas.


Is it right that Deutschland means the land of teutons?

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> Why Normans only invaded england ,Why they didnot invade germany or switzerland or other parts of france for instance?


The Normans also ruled over Sicily and settled several towns along the northern Portuguese and Galician (NW Spain) coasts.

----------


## Chris

It was an age of oaths. The circumstances are less than clear, but Harold Godwinson (later King Harold II of England) was shipwrecked on the coast of Normandy in 1064. He was effectively the guest/hostage of Duke William the Bastard of Normandy, and the consensus is that Harold swore an oath of fealty to William, promising him the English throne. 

When the throne became vacant, Harold was best placed (i.e. grabbed) it, giving William the excuse he needed to invade.

Oaths were seen as binding in Germanic (including Anglo Saxon England) culture, so Harold was seen as a 'breaker of oaths' in Normandy by taking the throne.

Who knows? The facts are after William invaded, Anglo Saxon culture was wiped out over time, and the English people suffered greatly by brutal repression and excessive taxation. The Normans were very effective in subjugating a nation of circa 2 million with an army of less than 10,000.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> It was an age of oaths. The circumstances are less than clear, but Harold Godwinson (later King Harold II of England) was shipwrecked on the coast of Normandy in 1064. He was effectively the guest/hostage of Duke William the Bastard of Normandy, and the consensus is that Harold swore an oath of fealty to William, promising him the English throne. 
> 
> When the throne became vacant, Harold was best placed (i.e. grabbed) it, giving William the excuse he needed to invade.
> 
> Oaths were seen as binding in Germanic (including Anglo Saxon England) culture, so Harold was seen as a 'breaker of oaths' in Normandy by taking the throne.
> 
> Who knows? The facts are after William invaded, Anglo Saxon culture was wiped out over time, and the English people suffered greatly by brutal repression and excessive taxation. The Normans were very effective in subjugating a nation of circa 2 million with an army of less than 10,000.


The Normans were inveterate breakers of oaths. The only things they respected were power and treasure.

----------


## Chris

> The Normans were inveterate breakers of oaths. The only things they respected was power and treasure.


Absolutely. They were masters of war and conquest, and did it with a machine-like effectiveness. Verbal manipulation was one of their techniques, so breaking oaths would have been no concern to them.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

The Normans were the most dishonorable of all Nordic peoples.

----------


## Chris

> The Normans were the most dishonorable of all Nordic peoples.


It makes me wonder: They became the ruling elite, and (I believe) 20% of the land in Britain is still owned by their descendants. At the very least, they will have deeply ingrained their thinking into the 'elite' of British culture. Might this explain why this small island forged an empire (i.e. grabbed others' land and resources) and created a financial system of global capitalism?

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> It makes me wonder: They became the ruling elite, and (I believe) 20% of the land in Britain is still owned by their descendants. At the very least, they will have deeply ingrained their thinking into the 'elite' of British culture. Might this explain why this small island forged an empire (i.e. grabbed others' land and resources) and created a financial system of global capitalism?


Good points. Something worth exploring, I'd say.

----------


## Chris

> Good points. Something worth exploring, I'd say.


I firmly believe that people and culture change very little over time. Our minds are wired the same way as our ancestors from millennia back. It's just our technologies, surroundings and hence expectations that change.

Once an elite have established their cultural mindset on a nation, try changing it...

----------


## Mycernius

> It makes me wonder: They became the ruling elite, and (I believe) 20% of the land in Britain is still owned by their descendants. At the very least, they will have deeply ingrained their thinking into the 'elite' of British culture. Might this explain why this small island forged an empire (i.e. grabbed others' land and resources) and created a financial system of global capitalism?


Watch out, some of them could have been my ancestors. Looking back with my surname it is very possible that it was norman in origin.

----------


## Chris

> Watch out, some of them could have been my ancestors. Looking back with my surname it is very possible that it was norman in origin.


I used to think that, but some research made that improbable. Mind you, there'll be some genetic markers of all sorts in the average English person.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

My wife likely has Norman markers and she's Scottish. Her maiden name has been researched as Norman. 

Gee, my Y-DNA markers match the Southern Irish and Western Welsh and I'm still trying to determine if there is such a thing as a legitimate "Celtic" genetic indicator. My markers read Celtic in great part, but the term may only be a cultural construct...

----------


## Gary C.

The people that can know whether they are Celtic or not,with the highest level of certainty,would be the folks that are R1b-M222.
A large chunk of the population of Western Ireland has the M222 marker,and it's a good guess that you had Irish ancestors,if you have this marker.

----------


## Chris

> My wife likely has Norman markers and she's Scottish. Her maiden name has been researched as Norman. 
> 
> Gee, my Y-DNA markers match the Southern Irish and Western Welsh and I'm still trying to determine if there is such a thing as a legitimate "Celtic" genetic indicator. My markers read Celtic in great part, but the term may only be a cultural construct...


I can confirm from my research into my own surname (Maude) and its possible Norman roots, that Scottish names can have Norman origins; e.g. Maude (Anglo Norman supposedly) became Mowatt (Scottish).

As for the political construct of 'Celt', this from Wikipedia: "The English word _Celt_ is modern, attested from 1707 in the writings of Edward Lhuyd whose work, along with that of other late 17th century scholars, brought academic attention to the languages and history of these early inhabitants of Great Britain."

From what I know, the 'Celtic' tribes had more similarities than differences, but I'm pretty sure there was no such unified entity as the 'Celts'.

----------


## Eireannach

> The people that can know whether they are Celtic or not,with the highest level of certainty,would be the folks that are R1b-M222.
> A large chunk of the population of Western Ireland has the M222 marker,and it's a good guess that you had Irish ancestors,if you have this marker.


I'm from the west of Ireland and am R1b1b2a1b5

----------


## Wilhelm

> The people that can know whether they are Celtic or not,with the highest level of certainty,would be the folks that are R1b-M222.
> A large chunk of the population of Western Ireland has the M222 marker,and it's a good guess that you had Irish ancestors,if you have this marker.


The Celts were not just the Irish.
In continental Europe there were Celts, in the Hallstatt culture, that spread into half of Europe.

The Celtic marker are more than just the M222.
I would say the M222 has more to do with the Irish natives, Celtic people is much more than just Ireland

----------


## Wilhelm

Viking settlements :

----------


## galychanyn

I should call Vikings as traders, and their temporary bases as markets.

----------


## Chris

> I should call Vikings as traders, and their temporary bases as markets.


There is a strong element of that, and they had superb diplomatic skills in order to be able to trade down river into modern Russia.

However as raiders, they also had temporary bases in which to launch further raids into neighbouring territory, as witness their forays into Anglo Saxon England as well as Ireland.

----------


## Invictus_88

Superb diplomatic skills, or perhaps an early variant of gunboat diplomacy. I don't know if the archaeological record has led to any firm conclusions either way.

----------


## Hus

It was, as the Normans themselves admitted, conducted _"over hidden relics"_ and no witnesses for this 'oath' were ever named- was it a public oath- and in the open air(Bayeux tap)?

 English custom was that they were always sworn on a gospel book, (Normans say Harold swore _manibus junctis_- feudal fashion) so was it '_under duress'_ or procured by deceit, which would render it worthless anyway, certainly outside of Normandy? 



*William of Jumieges* never went as far as stating that Harold had sworn what later the Normans said he did. 



Normans had drive and ambition- also a voracious reputation for chicanery and inventing outrageous claims- _Dudo of St.Quentin_- historian of the early dukes- had the gaul to state that William Longsword and Richard the Fearless reigned over "half the world".


Was William's daughter -Adeliza- 'promised' betrothal to Harold? A way of binding him to the duke, whatever, this seemed to have fallen through (did Harold refuse?)


The Normans state that Harold coveted the crown himself – even if true, why would H _willingly_ and _freely_ swear this oath, thereby ruling HIMSELF out of the succession as _the_ most qualified candidate in or out of England, socially and Politically?


But instead a storm blew his embassy off-course and unluckily into William hands (via Guy of Ponthieu) and, knowing all too well his possible fate as a 'guest'/captive, grim gaols that meant a death sentence and penchant for brutality- especially *poisonings*_, (a nephew of King Edward, earl Ralf's younger brother, Walter, Count of Mantes, and his wife, died prisoners this year in William gaols- poisoning rumours. But the two nobles were never seriously considered by Edward as successors)_
William’s father Robert ‘the Devil’ had been suspected of poisoning his own brother Richard, after all?
*
*
Harold seems, in my view, to have gone along with the deed whilst as a Norman "guest" for his own 'safety', of his entourage and that also of long-term Norman captors and kinsmen Wulfnoth & Hakon etc, knowing how worthless the "sworn oath" meant in English eyes and how he could easily shrug it off when back home, under English law? 



*Only the King & Witan could decide the succession*- not some 'hidden'_ Norman_ verbal oath- esp under duress (only the Normans ever stated that Harold was in any danger!), thus invalid in English contemporary eyes!

----------


## Carlitos

In Seville, at that time the Al-Andalus beat them to the Vikings, they cut their heads and hung them from trees, a group survived until the slaves were converted to Islam, then won freedom and stayed for some villages in the province of Seville, I think it spent as much calmer to manufacture cheese and milk-based foods.

----------


## Chris

> It was, as the Normans themselves admitted, conducted _"over hidden relics"_ and no witnesses for this 'oath' were ever named- was it a public oath- and in the open air(Bayeux tap)?
>  English custom was that they were always sworn on a gospel book, (Normans say Harold swore _manibus junctis_- feudal fashion) so was it '_under duress'_ or procured by deceit, which would render it worthless anyway, certainly outside of Normandy? 
> 
> 
> 
> *William of Jumieges* never went as far as stating that Harold had sworn what later the Normans said he did. 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Welcome, Hus!  :Good Job:

----------


## Carlitos

> In Seville, at that time the Al-Andalus beat them to the Vikings, they cut their heads and hung them from trees, a group survived until the slaves were converted to Islam, then won freedom and stayed for some villages in the province of Seville, I think it spent as much calmer to manufacture cheese and milk-based foods.


 
But Hollywood never made the film, always gave an excellent treatment to the Vikings and other pirates, is what has the power, who do good publicity and always want the protagonist to whom you want, even in a time not protagonist.

----------


## ^ lynx ^

Don't waste your time pretending that you're spaniard and that you're here for constructive reasons, *TROLL*.  :Satisfied:

----------


## LeBrok

Lynx noticed that you're E1b, not Celtic enough. I guess you're band from Spain. lol

----------


## Carlitos

> Don't waste your time pretending that you're spaniard and that you're here for constructive reasons, *TROLL*.


 
The troll you, I have fried a private message because think I am a South American anti-Spanish and Spanish I, I hate the lie, that has taught me that my mother, so if you are continually harassed by private messages, going to get anything, I'm a tough cookie and does not affect me the least, the problem you have you accusing me of being Aristander and I told you Charlie and I'm proud to be Spanish.

----------


## ^ lynx ^

> Lynx noticed that you're E1b, not Celtic enough. I guess you're band from Spain. lol


LeBrok self-projecting her racism on others once more.

Most likely I have noticed that Carlitos always connect to the forum during the american daylight hours... that doesn't make sense unless he is an european vampire.

His spelling mistakes at writing spanish are also very revelatory.

Looks like LeBrok made another friend among the anti-spanish trolls... well it is not the first time, right darling? Congratulations.

----------


## Hus

> Welcome, Hus!


Cheers Chris, looks like I stepped into a war zone?  :Wary:  :Laughing:

----------


## Chris

> Cheers Chris, looks like I stepped into a war zone?


Seems that way! Appears to have some history. There's lots to learn from this site, Hus. Very informative.
Cheers, Chris :Beer:

----------


## Hus

Thanks, Chris, I'll peruse the site and see...

----------


## Chris

> Thanks, Chris, I'll peruse the site and see...


If you bump into some bother, we'll lock shields and start a wall.  :Wallbash:

----------


## Hus

> If you bump into some bother, we'll lock shields and start a wall.


 :Laughing:  Good man, I shall horse my messengers in readiness!

----------


## Alianore

Aren't deceit, treachery and strength of will the key features of a ruler, especially in those days? William out-Viking'ed Ole Harold, that's for sure. 

And apparently, King Edward had something to do with it too.

----------


## DavidRojer

Exactly the right story.No one knows about these facts and people just use to say that they have some enmity with British.You know about the real story.Please stay in touch.I want to make persons like you my friend.

----------


## Franco

I guess that in spite of king Rollo being dead 90 years before the Norman invasion of England and the Normans being reasonably frenchified by that time, they still had the land-looting instinct of their germanic tribe alive and staying in France where the king had a lot of power limited their desire to control more land. So they decided that the Duchy of Normandy was too small for them and fled to England where there was a monarchy less powerful than the French one.

----------


## hope

Edward the Confessor was Williams cousin and it was said that he had promised the throne to him. When he died Harold seized the throne, although he as in line for it in his own right I believe. Thus William set out to take the throne he was promised and of course that led to 1066 the one date everyone seems to remember, The Battle of Hastings.

----------


## Selwyn Greenfrith

Something is slightly awry about this map. Although it is meant to show _Viking/Scandinavian settlement_ throughout Europe I have the feeling that (outside of Scandinavia itself) those settler areas depicted for the European mainland boast nothing like as many Viking placenames as found in the answering Viking settler areas mapped out for the British Isles. 

Cannot speak for Eastern Europe, but reckon for the rest of Europe only Angeln and Normandy come anywhere near the British Isles in Viking settlement going hand in hand and backed up with Viking placenames.

----------


## Selwyn Greenfrith

> The Normans were Danish Vikings. The Danes did invade all of Western Europe, as far as the Maghreb. One group managed to obtain land from the King of France and became known as the Normans. They adopted French language and customs and combined their own Norse technology to the French one. 
> 
> I suppose that they became more powerful because they had enough land to support their future conquests. They didn't have to go back to Denmark to make new weapons or bring more men, but could just recruit local Frenchmen, and get all the food and weapons they needed in Normandy. 
> 
> The nearest place to conquer outside France from their new "base" was England, just across the Channel. Furthermore the kingdom of England was already weakened from the war between another group of Danish Vikings and the Anglo-Saxons. *The Normans came with a big army combining Danish and French troops* when England was already on its knees. The timing was perfect.
> 
> Another reason they didn't venture more inland (like Switzerland) is that Vikings were primarily sailors. Their ships could go up rivers, but not upstream in mountainous areas.



Brought to mind are Danish, Flemish and Breton fighters fighting under the Normans, but never heard of any grounds hinting at 'French' fighters before (?)

----------


## FBS

I agree with this statement made by Maciamo back in 2009: "Another reason they didn't venture more inland (like Switzerland) is that Vikings were primarily sailors". 

Normans also conquered Albania through sea and this proves that they were better as sailors(taken from Wikipedia): After allying himself (Robert Guiscard) with Croatia and the Catholic cities of Dalmatia, in the year 1081 an army of 30,000 men in 300 ships landed in the southern shores of Albania, capturing Valona, Kanina, Jericho (Orikumi), reaching Butrint after numerous pillages. They joined the fleet that had previously conquered Corfu. The Normans attacked Dyrrachium from land and sea, devastating everything along the way......

I started to do research on Normans after I did my DNA test with 23andme and my mtDNA (according to 23andme) was of Viking descent! That was a shock for me for quite a while until I found out about Norman conquerors in Albanian territories, and they were around for 300 years. Quite amazing!

----------


## Maciamo

> Brought to mind are Danish, Flemish and Breton fighters fighting under the Normans, but never heard of any grounds hinting at 'French' fighters before (?)


Geography lesson No 1 : Brittany and Normandy are in France, and have been since the Kingdom of France was founded in the 9th century. Flanders is historically part of the Kingdom of France as well.

----------


## zanipolo

> I agree with this statement made by Maciamo back in 2009: "Another reason they didn't venture more inland (like Switzerland) is that Vikings were primarily sailors". 
> 
> Normans also conquered Albania through sea and this proves that they were better as sailors(taken from Wikipedia): After allying himself (Robert Guiscard) with Croatia and the Catholic cities of Dalmatia, in the year 1081 an army of 30,000 men in 300 ships landed in the southern shores of Albania, capturing Valona, Kanina, Jericho (Orikumi), reaching Butrint after numerous pillages. They joined the fleet that had previously conquered Corfu. The Normans attacked Dyrrachium from land and sea, devastating everything along the way......
> 
> I started to do research on Normans after I did my DNA test with 23andme and my mtDNA (according to 23andme) was of Viking descent! That was a shock for me for quite a while until I found out about Norman conquerors in Albanian territories, and they were around for 300 years. Quite amazing!


they ( normans) where there for only 4 years, the byzantines on land and the venetians by sea put an end to the norman conquest of the balkans. What Dna could they leave behind?

----------


## Selwyn Greenfrith

> Geography lesson No 1 : Brittany and Normandy are in France, and have been since the Kingdom of France was founded in the 9th century. Flanders is historically part of the Kingdom of France as well.


Maciamo your answer is so far-out there it's almost worthless and smacks more of an unfriendly warning off then any meaningful stab at an answer. Thanks mate.

----------


## spongetaro

> Brought to mind are Danish, Flemish and Breton fighters fighting under the Normans, but never heard of any grounds hinting at 'French' fighters before (?)



The Normans themselves can be considered partially French

----------


## zanipolo

> The Normans themselves can be considered partially French


history channel series, the normans , did state that the Vanelli in the cotentin peninsula where norse people from Roman times and this was known to norman people prior to their conquest of Normandy. The normans did take up everything french except the architecture, which was norman

----------


## Keegah

> Maciamo your answer is so far-out there it's almost worthless and smacks more of an unfriendly warning off then any meaningful stab at an answer. Thanks mate.


The guy only told you that Brittany, Normandy, and - in a historical context - Flanders are all part of what we now know as France. Why the apparent anger?

----------


## FBS

> they ( normans) where there for only 4 years, the byzantines on land and the venetians by sea put an end to the norman conquest of the balkans. What Dna could they leave behind?


This should probably be posted on a thread about Albanians, but since I brought it up I would only give you links where you could read about the Norman rule in Albania, we also had a prince who had a Norman mother (Karl/Charles Thopia, if I remember correctly):
http://books.google.com/books?id=IJ2...VNk-9UdiHXwvc5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Albania 

So there are chances that some traces of Norman mtDNA is left behind, even though I would suspect more to be Y-DNA.

----------


## zanipolo

> This should probably be posted on a thread about Albanians, but since I brought it up I would only give you links where you could read about the Norman rule in Albania, we also had a prince who had a Norman mother (Karl/Charles Thopia, if I remember correctly):
> http://books.google.com/books?id=IJ2...VNk-9UdiHXwvc5
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Albania 
> 
> So there are chances that some traces of Norman mtDNA is left behind, even though I would suspect more to be Y-DNA.


your links reflect nothing in our conversation, below is the scenario
*
Robert Guiscard ultimately drove out the Byzantines from southern Italy. Having obtained pope Gregory VII's consent and acting as his vassal, Robert continued his campaign in conquering the Balkan peninsula as a foothold for western feudal lords and the Catholic Church. After allying himself with Croatia and the Catholic cities of Dalmatia, in the year 1081 an army of 30,000 men in 300 ships landed in the southern shores of Albania, capturing Valona, Kanina, Jericho (Orikumi), reaching Butrint after numerous pillages. They joined the fleet that had previously conquered Corfu. The Normans attacked Dyrrachium from land and sea, devastating everything along the way. Under these harsh circumstances, the locals accepted emperor Alexius I Comnenus' call to join forces with the Byzantines against the Normans who besieged Dyrrachium. The Albanian forces could not take part in the ensuing battle, because it had started too early, before their arrival. Immediately before the battle the Venetian fleet had secured a victory in the coast surrounding the city. Forced to retreat, Alexius ceded the command to a high Albanian official named Comiscortes[10] in the service of Byzantium. The city's garrison resisted until February 1082, when Dyrrachium was betrayed to the Normans by the Venetian and Amalfitan merchants who had settled in the city. The Normans were now free to penetrate in the hinterland; they took Ioannina, some minor cities in Southwestern Macedonia, Thessaly and appeared before the gates of Thessalonica. Dissension among the high ranks coerced the Normans to retreat in Italy; they lost Dyrrachium, Valona and Butrint in 1085 after the death of Robert.*

----------

