Normandy: Part of the Germanic world?

[Kyp]

Do you consider the Normandy part of the Germanic world considering it's history?
Is there a difference between the genetic makeup of the Normandy and other neighboring french regions?

[SharpFork]

Essentially no, nothing of note that is relevant to the Germanic ethnogenesis or larger history happened there or through, where they went they spread Northern French culture, language and genes.

[Voyt]

It's one of the regions responsible for the Franks, the greatest traitors to the Germanic peoples, who with their conversion to Catholicism and massive war campaigns razed the influence of Germanic paganism to the ground, and also the ethnogenetive breeding ground for the Normans, who were responsible for extirpating the Saxons, and thereby Germanic paganism, from the face of the British Isles.

So, depends on the way you look at it I guess. Normandy was either the end of the Germanic people, or the beginning of how we know of them as of today (i.e. domesticated slaves to Christianity and civilization).

[Matty74]

It's one of the regions responsible for the Franks, the greatest traitors to the Germanic peoples, who with their conversion to Catholicism and massive war campaigns razed the influence of Germanic paganism to the ground, and also the ethnogenetive breeding ground for the Normans, who were responsible for extirpating the Saxons, and thereby Germanic paganism, from the face of the British Isles.

So, depends on the way you look at it I guess. Normandy was either the end of the Germanic people, or the beginning of how we know of them as of today (i.e. domesticated slaves to Christianity and civilization).

[Ouistreham]

Do you consider the Normandy part of the Germanic world considering it's history?

Not really.
The Scandinavian invasion of what was to became Normandy (about 900 AD) and the Norman wars that followed were the latest chapter of the Germanic migration period, but very soon Normandy emerged as an "alternative France" in fierce competition with the official Kingdom of France.
The Duchy of Normandy soon became the first modern State in Europe, and as such was very influential on French and English story. Typical Germanic phenomenon, when in the dark ages Germanic tribes were very active in nation building (Goths, Franks, Burgundians, even Swedes in Russia etc.). Later, similarly, the Swedish state was the model to follow (in the 17th Century) then Prussia (in the 18th century).
And yes, the Normans also created French culture. They wrote the Song of Roland, which set the standard for early French litterature, and in the early 17th Century a Norman scholar (François de Malherbe) invented modern French.

Is there a difference between the genetic makeup of the Normandy and other neighboring french regions?

Not that much. Normandy is just an intermediate region between Brittany, Picardy, Flanders and core North-Central France. Subnordid types are common place there, people are somewhat lighter than in the neighbouring districts, but they don't look like continental Germanics (rather like English actually). Typical Danish types aren't rare but far from dominant.
Of course there are still lots of things (in popular traditions and architecture) that make Normandy close to the Germanic world, but all in all Normandy is just a French region more Germanic-influenced than others, nothing more.

It's one of the regions responsible for the Franks

Erh... The Franks were from modern day North-Eastern France, Belgium, Holland and German Rhineland (but NOT from Normandy) , and appeared in history three or four hundred years before Normandy was created...
I have a sensation you're a little bit confused.

the Normans, who were responsible for extirpating the Saxons, and thereby Germanic paganism, from the face of the British Isles.

England's Saxons were christianized long before Normandy existed, and were the truest Christians Europe had to offer!
Just for your information, Germanic Europe was converted to christianity by Anglo-Saxon missionaries. Never heard of Saint Bonifatius, "the Apostle of the Germans"? He was from England...
Frankish emperor Charlemagne, for all cultural and religious matters, relied on his counsellor Alcuin of York, probably the most prominent Christian scholar in its time, who happened also to be an Englishman.

[Voyt]

England's Saxons were christianized long before Normandy existed, and were the truest Christians Europe had to offer!
Just for your information, Germanic Europe was converted to christianity by Anglo-Saxon missionaries. Never heard of Saint Bonifatius, "the Apostle of the Germans"? He was from England...
Frankish emperor Charlemagne, for all cultural and religious matters, relied on his counsellor Alcuin of York, probably the most prominent Christian scholar in its time, who happened also to be an Englishman.

Just the same as Russia was "Christianized"? It may have been Christian in name, but Anglo-Saxon England was pagan in culture, had a pagan honor culture. It was the Normans that "civilized" the UK

[Ouistreham]

Anglo-Saxon England was pagan in culture, had a pagan honor culture. It was the Normans that "civilized" the UK

I have to differ.
• First of all, honour ethics and code of chivalry were Norman imports to England — as exemplified by the Arthurian and Holy Grail legends — that, interestingly, featured an explicit anti-Saxon content.
• Secondly, it's a fact that England took the Christian faith more seriously and deeply than their Continental neighbours (where Catholicism and Lutheranism were merely used as political tools to strengthen various crown powers). For the best or the worse, Christianity was a serious thing in early England. Keep in mind that watershed event, the assassination of bishop Thomas Becket.

That being said, don't misunderstand me: I belong to Christianity as a culture, not as a faith. I see myself as a dedicated Pagan.

[Voyt]

I have to differ.
• First of all, honour ethics and code of chivalry were Norman imports to England — as exemplified by the Arthurian and Holy Grail legends — that, interestingly, featured an explicit anti-Saxon content.

Once again you have trouble with this whole notion of just because something is called by a label doesn't mean it actually exhibits the qualities of that label.

There was nothing honorable about the Normans. The first thing they did after defeating the Saxons was to burn all the properties of the peasants to the ground. They then instilled feudalism.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...hould-celebra/


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrying_of_the_North

Anglo-Saxons didn't need imports of that nature; just look at BeoWulf (an admittedly Christian-influenced story by the Christian monks of that era, but still revealing of the honor culture that was slowly dying in Anglo-Saxon England (due to Christianity, and not any other factor)

• Secondly, it's a fact that England took the Christian faith more seriously and deeply than their Continental neighbours (where Catholicism and Lutheranism were merely used as political tools to strengthen various crown powers). For the best or the worse, Christianity was a serious thing in early England. Keep in mind that watershed event, the assassination of bishop Thomas Becket.

You say England took the faith more seriously, but I'm specifically talking about Anglo-Saxons solely. Not the native neolithic and bronze-age Britons nor imported Roman culture. And I'm saying that when Anglo-Saxons "converted" to Christianity, it was to avoid situations such as the one that occurred to them when the Normans came (little good that did, given what happened to their people and spirituality). Even then, their conversion was a mostly ceremonial and political endeavor:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ...ission_arrives

"Why Æthelberht chose to convert to Christianity is uncertain. Bede suggests that the king converted strictly for religious reasons, but most modern historians see other motives behind Æthelberht's decision.[19] Certainly, given Kent's close contacts with Gaul, it is possible that Æthelberht sought baptism in order to smooth his relations with the Merovingian kingdoms, or to align himself with one of the factions then contending in Gaul."

Even though the rulers of the Saxons technically betrayed their people, one can still see a substantial honorable intent behind their actions, and a genuine desire to see their people flourish (unlike the completely elitist and hierarchical Normans that essentially never interacted with their citizens, something that has persisted to this day with the monarchy of England). One could say they were naive and myopic to not see what Christianization would accomplish, but one could never say that of the Normans, who willingly accepted Catholicism from the first time they set foot on France and intermixed with the Gallo-Romans.

https://reviews.history.ac.uk/review/1698

The thing about history, is that parallels reverberate throughout the centuries. It's the ruling classes in Britain that are the most Christian, the monarchy, the Queen, a "god-given" position. The ruling classes to this day are a Normanized culture in Britain, but regular Anglo-Saxons of north and east England and interspersed throughout it are to this day atheistic. They may be "registered" in the "official" books as part of the Anglican Church (just as you claim that the Anglo-Saxons were more Christian in Medieval Europe), but they couldn't care less about their Christian legacy. You think if England's ruling class were honorable, that they would actually speak about about their dying nation? No, they're perfectly content with the status-quo, with their role as eternal figureheads.

[TheOldNorth]

they are far more celtic, it was just a couple of settlers that added about 5% tops to the local genepool

[Dna8]

Nice thread.