Talk:Normans

Earl discussions

Very odd -- I posted a question, but it's gone.

Question for April -- DO you have a source for the Norman-Saxon relationship? IIRC, the differentiation was exaggerated in the 19th c. (evil French invaders vs good Englishmen), but most medievalists now agree that William and the Normans treated any Saxons who were loyal and paid their taxes on time as they treated anyone else -- with the exceptiion that their favorites sometimes got lands confiscated from previous Saxon holders. I just don't really understand how, when William came in at the end of a previous struggle for the throne, there could have been such unity...? HK

• Sorry, I was responding to the first version of your question when my browser crashed - must have done something evil. Anyhow, to answer your question... I'll throw some official sources at the question over the weekend, since that one was off the top of my head. However, I think (IIRC) the Mercian Rebellion in 1068 did stress the "Saxon-ness" of the rebels, as opposed to the "Norman-ness" of William I and company. There certainly were notable cultural differences, language being the most obvious. Politically, the situation was interesting, since the Saxons already had a feudalistic structure in place; the Normans just moved in at the top of it. They probably weren't "oppressive" any more than the Saxon lords had been... but I suspect that the difference in culture made for a great rallying-point for ambitious Saxons.

• I think of it as analogous to the situation when the English invaded Ireland. Prior to the English territorial claims, the Irish fought amongst themselves constantly (or Ulster fought against the other three provinces constantly, depending on who you listen to...) Quite a lot of Irish clans sided with the English during the various battles back and forth. Yet as the English became an identifiable class of "landlords", Irish nationalism grew into a remarkable fervor, and continues to this day. Now, Saxon nationalism does not continue to this day, so I agree that there was far greater Norman-Saxon integration than ever Anglo-Irish. Nonetheless, the identifiable differences of the Normans who made up the bulk of the "ruling class" would have been a quite significant target for Saxons to take aim at. -- April

Feudalistic structure? Sorry, but what is that when it's at home? IF you mean that Saxon lords bound followers to them with oaths, that's one thing, but it sounds like you mean something else... Otherwise, I think that the chief historians for the Rebellion are William of Jumiéges (Maybe) and Orderic Vitalis. I seem to remember Orderic as being somewhat moralistic and, despite being of Norman descent, very "pro-English." I know that, like most chroniclers of his day, muct be taken with a grain of salt. Morcar and Edwin had better reasons than "we Saxons" for rebelling -- they wanted a bigger cut!HK

• • I am not a professional historian, merely an interested amateur. But since you ask... as I recall from my college discussions, Saxon England had a hierarchy that, while not as rigid as the feudal systems which would later develop, still had many of the same relationships. See Domesday Book and Beyond: Three Essays in the Early History of England by F.W. Maitland. Thus, "feudalistic"... similar but not identical to a feudal system.

Not that Maitland is wrong, but he is largely outdated since Elizabeth Brown, Susan Reynolds, and others began refuting the existence of the feudal system. There's a general summation of present scholarship in the Feudalism article.

• • As for the Norman/Saxon division being significant... I draw your attention to the Murdrum fine. From an article by Geoff Boxell:

"Because of the high rate of homicide being suffered by the Normans and their French allies, King William legislated that all Frenchmen who settled in England after the invasion were to be in the king's peace and therefore he was their protector in an alien land. Its introduction was recognised at the time as being necessary due to the hatred of the Normans by the English and their attacks on them. The fine was a high one of 46 Marks."

I looked up Geoff Boxell. He is a novelist and amateur historian. This doesn't make him wrong, but the sources he uses are not quoted, and it is impossible to thus judge the article critically. Sources like Orderic are known to be biased, and without proper citation, how can we tell where he gets his information. Also, is he using his own translation or Chibnall's? It makes a difference.

• • You're right about Orderic Vitalis. In 1125, he wrote applauding English resistance to "William the Bastard" (Ecclesiastical Historii). But do note the distinction between "English" - meaning the pre-Norman, Saxon-dominated society - and the Normans. He saw them as distinct, opposed groups.

Again, he was a Norman. His mother was English, IIRC. He's writing with an axe to grind, based largely on the works of William of Julieges, who was also not especially neutral. There may have been a difference, but he may have exaggerated it...

• • From Stephen Muhlbergher's Medieval England:

"The English aristocracy of 1066, especially the middle ranks, was an old and comfortable aristocracy. The Normans, Bretons, and other Frenchmen who replaced them... were foreigners with no cultural connection to the people they ruled, and so they became even more of a military class than they might have been otherwise... The native English found their status correspondingly depressed... The geburs of 1066 became the villeins of 1086. Geburs had been free men, with some access to the public courts. They had the wergilds of free men, even if they were economically subservient. After the conquest, wergilds ceased to be used, and formerly free men with little property and heavy labor obligations found themselves to be villeins. Villeins -- a French word -- were considered unfree, and eventually were entirely excluded from the shire and hundred courts, at least when they had disputes with their lords... Sokemen and the lesser thegns also found themselves farther down the social scale..."

Couldn't find this in Muhlberger's website or his CV. I'm vaguely familiar with his work (recently read a review he'd written in the AHR), but couldn't find this in particular. Don't deny that it's true, or even what the passage says is true, but am also not at all convinced that the resentment was as clearly focused as the article now implies. Among the lower classes ( in a loose sense) of free- and partially free people, there may have been some resentment, but that's very hard to document. Among the more priveleged, there are tons of other reasons for resentment that may have less to do with Norman-Saxon cultural differences than with the fact that they'd lost lands and privileges.

I, on the other hand, would like to know how Muhlberger reconciles the international character of the higher ruling group in England with this supposed 'old and comfortable aristocracy' - just saying "especially the middle ranks" doesn't seem to cut it. What about all those Scandinavians? MichaelTinkler

• • I don't contest that this state of affairs didn't last all that long, in historical terms, with the Normans identifying themselves as Anglo-Normans and then just plain English. But for the first few generations after 1066, there does seem to have been residual ill-feeling between the cultural groups. -- April

I don't doubt that there was resentment, but at present the article reads much more like Robin Hood and Ivanhoe than what I remember from my coursework and reading. I'm just trying to avoid oversimplifications that verge on poular history ;-)HK

• • • Perfectly reasonable; I just hadn't, originally, intended to write an entire scholarly article. Perhaps we can boil down these discussions with some more sources, and present them in the article itself? The two or three lines that had been presented are woefully inadaquate, and from these discussions there's obviously quite a lot more to be said. -- April

---

The 'French of Paris' was always an oddity in England. Anglo-Norman remained the standard in legal use so long as legal French survived. Anglo-Norman remained the literary standard as well for a time - Marie de France is a nice example of an author whose geographical origin is difficult if not impossible to sort out, but everyone calls her dialect Anglo-Norman. French was as regionally dialectalized as Middle English, and a preponderence of the later wave of French was west-French dialects. People had to make an effort to learn the French of Paris, which is why it is a joke for Chaucer. MichaelTinkler

---

OK! I used all of the material above in an attempt to update the article. For any further discussions and refinements, I beg that those more familiar with the subject will take over! I'd especially appreciate it if people would add to the References list as appropriate - I put in those I knew about, but that's all. Hope this is a more "balanced" view. -- April

---

Can anyone present any solid evidence for these alleged dukes of Normandy preceeding Rollo? All the more careful historical work I've read regards his background and ancestry as speculative, and I've never heard anyone suggest he had predecessors as duke. Loren Rosen

---

The Norman Religion

The Norman Religion is based around "Family Hope" of the descendents of Eyestein who journeyed to Normandy France. What was their reason and what was the Hope? Firstly Eyestein was the Jarl of "Upsala" Sweden. His vision for his children was that they Grow Strong and Fast With Money ruling over Upsala this is all he Hoped. But in Sweden at that time how was one to procure trade of "Right" of any means to ensure percuniary profit was amassed for ones self? Was one to pray to the Gods for "Wisdom" or was one to pray to the "Family" for help? Was their any way you could step outside the "Upsala" economy in the sense that a modern economic society today could conceive? The answer is this. The King controlled all precuniary objectives. The son of a Jarl had to enlist in "Fighting" for "800" years through a "Deed" called the "Writ of Service" where by his Heart Mind and Body would be in service to the King during Life and then Death. An this was considered "fortunate" if he approved of your "Standard of Behaviour" and "Conduct" before his "Officers". However with Eyesteins childern they yearn for a "Greater" thing and that was "Hope Immaculate" because they were rich.

In 1066 Duke William took a vow which basically said: ""If I should died on this epic journey across thy way let no man understand my reason or see if I shall perish for it is too much to bear the whole idea of coming so close to certainty of greatest to look upon my life and then fail"" on the morning of advance to England so who did he pray for safe recovery of his life if all should fail. It wasnt his Ducal Realm but it was to the principality of its "Hope". Was this pray considered in any Court? Because it basically opens the question of who guides one over death. Did the Pope guide him to safety with his "Agreemento" or did the "Norse God's" guide him to their "Abandon" or was the "Religion" in Normandy sufficent to guide him against the "God" and "Lord" of Saxon England. In the end he died Horrible and was not cared for in "Burial Ritual" in Normandy. So what was the problem with the Normans and the Churches of God and the Lord if such a great King be so badly mistreated by his subjects?William I of England.

---

Removal of "Normans in Russia"

(this is a new thread / discussion +)

[Dec. 1, 2004] Am I the one one who feels that the "Norman origins" part of this article is completely irrelevant and out of place? Who is Geoffrey Malaterra, and why should anyone give a damn what he thinks of the Normans? And Normans are Vikings who conquered Normandy in the 10th cent. and adopted Christianity and the customs and language of France. But not all Vikings are Normans. So Vikings that end up in KIEV are NOT Normans.

While the information on the "Varangians" may be interesting, it does not belong in a primary place in this article. The definition of what "Normans" are does not include any parallel groups, such as Vikings in Russia.

I am removing the current "The Normans in Russia" section, which reads only "See Kievan Rus' and Rus' (people)." This is not a valid section. The Kievan Rus article only mentions Normans once, in passing. "Varangians" just means "Vikings"; not all Vikings are Normans. Also replacing the irrelevant line about the " Varangians" in the opening paragraph. I am hoping the replacement will suit the author of those comments: "The Norsemen were quite similar to other Vikings, who were known as Danes in England and as Varangians in Russia. "

I would suggest that the original author of the "Varangian" material to this article could add the following to the entry for "Varangians":

" See Kievan Rus' and Rus' (people) "

I am leaving the "Geoffrey Malaterra" quote in for now: I would like to see some discussion here of what value, if any, this item adds to the encyclopedia entry for "Normans".

p.s. Can anyone explain this thing on "Norman Religion" above? It sounds like the ravings of a crazy person.

- Liberty Miller

Disney

Do you know that the origin of the name "Disney" is supposed to come from a small town in Normandy. A knight from Isigny (d'Isigny) followed William the Conqueror. And has had a successfull lignage (lineage). Gwalarn 22:16, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Map

I have some objections to the map. I think it should include about 75% of Ireland, as the invasion of Ireland in 1169 is usually considered a Norman/Anglo-Norman/Cambro-Norman invasion. Many invaders were French-speaking Normans such as Raymond le Gros. His descendents today are the Redmonds, whose surname comes from the Gaelic MacReamann (meaning son of Raymond). Other Norman names include Fitzgerald (fitz from French "fils" meaning son).

Article rename?

What is the reasoning for renameing the article? "Normans" is a more common description used throughout Wikipedia. If you look at the "Source" for the article, there is an official European Commision website on the history of the Normans, the website is called "The Normans, a European peoples". Thats about as official as it gets, this is what the people call themselves. There is much more common usage for "The Normans" than "Norman people". A redirect page could be created for "Norman people". Currently, almost all of the 100 or so links to this page use "Normans" Stbalbach 03:09, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Article renamed to "Normans". This was the original article name when it was created in 2001 (one of the oldest on Wikipedia) by JHC, who has a PhD in medieval history. There was no discussion about renameing the article, there has been no discussion in 4 years about it, and there is a strong historical and contemporary precendant to call it "Normans", and the 'What Links Here' shows %95 of Wikipedians use "Normans" and not "Norman people". Google search would support it as well. Stbalbach 18:32, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Norwegians(A Northmen's fief in France being known as Normandy)

Wiglaf thinks that Normans are just anybody who lived in Normandy. I have explained that Norwegians gave the name to Normandy, regardless of who lived there. This is a debate that goes back to French and German ideals of identity. The French believe that Bretons are French, but the Germans believe that Bretons are Bretons and French are French. This is the sense of the discussion that has been going on between Wiglaf and myself, but I am not sure he gets it yet. Both Saxon and Dane constituent parts of England have considered themselves to be their own individual and specific breed, but they registered as English for official functions. The reason being, is that said folks could not claim to be citizens of Saxony or Denmark. The Wessex and Danelaw regions had been subsumed within England, but there is a sense of provincial attachments to ancestry within the framework of the state. For instance; New France, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, New England, New Netherland, New Sweden and New Spain were named after their chief colonists and yet there were many more people who had been involved in it all. Even within Wiglaf's own country of Sweden, it is named for the Svear and not the Geats. There are Finnic and Gothic people in Svealand, but Svealand is named for the Swedes and not the Finns or Goths. I wonder how this can be a serious problem with academics, although know it is common to the lay person. The Seine Valley had been plundered and attacked by many Scandinavian peoples, but only the Northmen(Norrmen) of Norway were populated there enough to warrant a name after their population size and involvement. William the Conqueror and all his English descendents have ancestry through his paternal line to the fjordlands of Norway, not Denmark in any recognisable capacity. It is orthdoxically accepted that the Danelaw was a Danish venture, although there were Norse and Swedes present in the conquest among the Irish Sea in the royalties of East Anglia and Jorvik. Nevertheless, it was called "Danelaw" for very good reasons. How many Danes made it to a Mediterranean Crusade, compared to the Norwegians? Both Norse/Normans made it to Normandy and Sicily, with marriage ties to the Norman kings of England. Where was Danish power in 954 and 1066 but on the side of the Danish and English?

Do you know how long it has taken for the English of Saxon and Danish descent to be represented by their own kind? Since 1066 and later addition in the failure of both Sweyn Estridson and Canute IV of Denmark, only upon the Houses of Windsor and Mountbatten(or Mountbatten-Windsor) has this been corrected for the residential ethnic population. It is a mistake to blur the orientation and loyalty of peoples in such circumstances, which is why I am severely offended that Wiglaf and a few others have chosen to rebuff the logical conclusion about the primary Norwegian element of Normandy. Surely there is merit to this type of discussion: The House of Oldenburg derives from Ruestringen being a fief of the exiled and first Christian King of Denmark who was baptised in Mainz; Harald Klak and granted by Emperor Louis the Pious in 826. After this occurance, Saint Ansgar led his first mission to Denmark and this is how the Church of Denmark had its earliest roots. This was also the first official political relationship between the Danes and Saxons, preceding the Danish colonisation and takeover of England by 25 years at least. Why had the Anglo-Saxons and Danes bonded together in face of mutual foes such as the Kings of Dublin, Kings of Norway and the Duke of Normandy if they were not all Norwegians rallied against them? Anglo-Saxons and Danes had a common origin on and around Jutland, but none of this applied between them and the Norse whose origins lied with the Swedes via the Ynglings. The House of Olaf was no favoured by the Danish. Now I know that some editors aer merciless pussyfooters about identifying things which are controversially labeled trivial. I ask such people to provide evidence of why they should keep certain clarifiable subjects in a state of limbo and that they should forever remain a mystery to the lay reader. I have been asked to repeat my sources by Wiglaf, but he had not given his sources which could refute my purpose in declaring what I do. So "come all ye faithful" block-addicts and revert-spree warriors, because you know the pleasure of adrenalin and testosterone competitions. Talk:Viking#Upholding_Controversial_Discrepencies TheUnforgiven 20:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

This is not true, just because name look a like, dosent it make them norwegians. Theres is alot of sources that the founder og Normandy is from Denmark. Just like Dudo states. Some place names in Normandy are from Skaane, Sweden. And there is founds from Normandy in Denmark. So i don´t think that Normans were pure Norwegians. Most of the Normans were Natives.

Disambig status

I don't feel that it's a POV-problem or anything, but redirecting Norman straight here doesn't feel obvious to me. Charlie Norman and Norman, Oklahoma are of course not terribly notable, but Norman language seems just as obvious and relevant to reach when searching for "Norman".

Peter ^Isotalo 10:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The test is to look at the "what links here". If there are a bunch of articles that link that shouldnt... If not, then this is the primary meaning. Or, create an article Norman (disambiguation). Stbalbach 14:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

This seems as somewhat backwards thinking. Our own links can always be corrected and do not seem all that relevant. The issue is where people searching for "Norman" should wind up.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

General comment

Does it strike anyone as odd that this talk page is about twice as large as the article on the Normans? For such an important group of people, I find this article lacking in many areas. The part on Italy, Sicily and the Mediterranean is, well, let's be honest, it's not quite up to standard. Sicily was invaded by the Normans in 1061 (5 years before the more famous invasion), it took 30 years to overcome the Saracens completely in what is a pretty small island. At the height of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily (yes it reached incredible heights) the population of Palermo was around 300,000 (that of Rome was 30,000) and the tax revenues of Palermo alone dwarfed those of all of Norman England. Also, the Kingdom of Sicily actually included half the Italian peninsular - it was a sizeable, politically influential and incredibly affluent kingdom. But does this article give a sense of the relative importance of the two kingdoms? or the many relationships they forged? No, there is no sense of that at all. Am I being POV? My name ends in a vowel - I guess I must be! Sorry lads, this needs extra work! --pippudoz - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 06:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• and another thing - the Normans never ever ruled two separate kingdoms called the Kingdom of Naples and the Kingdom of Sicily - Roger II of Sicily effectively created the Kingdom of Sicily in 1130, and it included all of southern Italy up to the papal states. The two separate kingdoms occurred 152 years later after the Sicilian Vespers. --pippudoz - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 08:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Expansion

This article needs some expansion (all sections) and a little cleaning up. I'll do what I can. Srnec 05:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Source?

In the list of sources is included: Muhlbergher, Stephen, Medieval England. First, I assme this is meant to be Steven Muhlberger, professor at Nipissing? (Note mangled spelling.) If so, I'm not familiar with this title by him -- nor is it included in the publications list at his own home page at [1] -- nor in the Library of Congress catalog. Can the original poster or anyone else substantiate this title? --Michael K. Smith 03:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Crusades

We need a section on Norman involvement in the Crusades. Srnec 04:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Questions

i'm doing a histry homework i wondered could any-1 tell me what colour of hair the normans had?

Blue. 62.77.181.16 12:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Blonde, black, brown, mousey, auburn, ginger I'd imagine, much like the rest of most Northern Europeans. It wasn't their hair-colour, but the cut of it, hard short-shorn back and sides, and a general lack of facial hair (early Norman) which was distinguishable from their contemporaries. Brendandh (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Rollo

Why do you call him Hrolf, when we don't know if that really was his name?

Why do we write Danish "OR" Norwegian. When we know for sure that there was Danes, (arcording to "Bayeux tapestry", founds from Normandy in Denmark, and writing about Danish people). But don't know if there was Norwegians.

So where does the norwegians come from? --Comanche cph 14:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think, there are better reasons to call him Hrolfr than Rollo, that is a wrong latin form. The documents call him very often Rioulf or Rouf and later Rou, and the phonetic evolution makes sense in French. Hrolfr > Rolf > Rouf > Rou. We can call him Robert the First, because he was baptized as Robert in 911. Nortmannus (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it Hrolf or Rollo? However, in Jersey C.I., there is an ancient cry one gives out when a man is relieving himself in a public area, it is "Rollo, Rollo, Rollo, Forgive me for I am in pain" I take this to mean that as long as you call to the Duke (Rollo) you can be absolved from the act in question. My point is that if the Duke had been called Hrolf, then the people would have called him Hrolf. They did not, they called him Rollo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.237.24 (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This is nonsense. See Clameur de Haro. Man vyi (talk) 11:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

True Man vyi, that's Haro not Rollo. That's well known that the name Hrolfr sounded Rou(f) in the Middle Ages in Normandy.Nortmannus (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Using the word nationalist

To Comanche cph: Your edit summary (rv user:Inge ´s nationalist edit. There is no sources telling about Norwegians went to Normandy. And there is not found one single item in norway from normandy.) is to say the least a bit pussling. I would like to remind you that you have already been blocked once for using the word nationalist to describe fellow wikipedians. When it comes to your statement regarding the lack of sources telling about Norwegians in Normandy I am even more pussled as we have been engaging in a long strenous debate regarding a source stating that the founder of Normandy was Norwegian. Inge 13:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no sources telling about that norwegians in Normandy OR France. The "hrolf gange" theory IS remarked. But that's an hole anorther story. That's has nothing to do with this issue.

Please tell me. What source do you have for write there was norwegians in Normandy. Please don't rewrite history without sources. --Comanche cph 13:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you telling me that you don't recognise the Rolf-Ganger source when it comes to this article? We all know you don't like that one, but still you have to accept it even in articles other than Rollo of Normandy. If you won't accept that source as sufficient for claiming a Norwegian precense in Normandy I don't see the point in giving you the attention or satisfaction of debating this same issue over and over again. Inge 14:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I have always acepted the icelandic hrolf ganger as a theory. But i really don't wanna take thatdiscussion up with you again.

But what has hrolf ganger to do with what the population in normandy was? I ask you again. Witch sources do you have for your rewrite? and why do you write "OR"?

This seems like a new pro-norwegian history rewrite from user:Inge. --Comanche cph 14:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you still think that the Icelandic saga states that Hrolf Ganger was from Iceland? It does in fact state he was from Norway. Please take a read through of the previous debates we have had and save us all some time. Inge 14:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Inge, he fled from Iceland and was a jarl(or son of a jarl -cant remember). He was born in norway as it tells. I really don't care, if we say norway or iceland. But sorry that i wrote Iceland and not Norway as there he was born, according to the theory. But please don't change the subject.

Now i ask you for the third time, after still not have getting any answer:

Witch sources do you have for your rewrite? And why do you write "OR"? --Comanche cph 15:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for answar from Inge. --Comanche cph 09:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if this helps much, but in The Normans in Sicily John Julius Norwich simply describes those that settled in Normandy as Norse. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 13:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes that's probably right. But Norse doesn't mean Norwegians. And this is a historian from 1952. There is different sources and founds who point at Danish.

There is no sources or founds of Norwegians in. So what is this rewrite based on? Only user:Inge may know that, since it's this user who has wrote it. --Comanche cph 18:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how you expect to be taken seriously when you admit that Hrolf Ganger (which is most likely the founder of Normandy) was from Norway and still state that there are no sources for Norwegians being in Normandy. Inge 18:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"don't see how you expect to be taken seriously when you admit that Hrolf Ganger (which is most likely the founder of Normandy) was from Norway"

First of all this "edit of yours" has nothing to do with the Gange hrolf. And this is not "most likely". And if it was him, there is still no sources for norwegians. The Hrolf Gange theory you talk about by the Icelandic historian, tells that he was banished from Norway by the king (don't remember the name). And lived in Iceland.

"and still state that there are no sources for Norwegians being in Normandy."

But what are the sources??? Then tell me!! And why did you wrote "OR"?? And how many times do i need to repeat myself? --Comanche cph 18:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This is it. Just say it. There are no sources for this rewrite of your. I revert it back as it was. Thanks. --Comanche cph 17:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If you read this article you will find a source stating that Norwegians were present in Normandy. Inge 19:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

What are the sources??? Why do you link to Rollo? I guess you are pointing to the the Hrolf gange theory.

I repeat again: The Hrolf Gange=Rollo theory you pointing to, tells that he was BANISHED from Norway by the king there. Therefore he lived in Iceland, and sailed from Iceland. -as THAT Icelandic theory tells about. -But why pointing Rollo? This article is not about Rollo, but about the Normans general. So i ask again. What are the sources for Norwegians there?

Please don't keep rewriting articles on wikipedia, if you don't know the sources. --Comanche cph 22:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

We can have a agrement like this?: .....population of Neustria and Danish Vikings (some possible from other parts of Scandinavia), who began....

--Comanche cph 23:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

In general I am in favour of seeking compromise on wikipedia. But in the case of user comanche cph I am in doubt whether it is not best to ignore him. He has shown over and over again that he has very little knowledge about the topics he are debating. He behaves as some strange sort of Danish nationalist, who seem convinced that all Norwegian and Icelandic users on wikipedia are part of some great conspiracy to rob Denmark of its proper place in medieval history. I can't see myself why it should be very important for anyone whether Rollo and the vikings in Normandie in general were from present day Denmark or Norway, at a time when the very idea of Denmark or Norway was hazy at best, and there was very little difference between Danes and Norwegians, and I expect very few other wikipedians care much either. What we care for is to have wikipedia present the facts, as closely as possible, according to the scholarly consensus. And the scholarly consensus is that the vikings in Normandie came from Scandinavia, probably both Denmark and Norway. --Barend 18:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As someone who often writes about Sicilian history, I have to confess that it matters little to me which part of Scandinavia they came from (predominantly). They were of Viking and/or Norse descent (which for me is a good enough description) and within a century they were thoroughly latinised and christian. That pretty much sums it up. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 23:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No matter who is or is called a nationalist. We need to have a source for Norwegians was Normans to. As far i have known. Norwegians settled Ireland, Scotland and Iceland. While Danes settled England and France. To Barend and Inge: You can't just claim your Guessing here. --80.196.116.38 12:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear anonymous user. It is not true that it is merely myself and Inge who are trying to put Danish and Norwegian in the article. In fact, comanche cph is the only one who has so far tried to remove Norwegian. If he, or you, want the article to say that all the Normans came from Denmark, then you will have to find a source saying that. Our sources for saying there were Norwegians among the normans have been exhaustively discussed on the discussion page for Rollo of Normandy. However, since, as I said, it matters very little whether they came from Denmark or Norway, at a time when the very notion of "Denmark" or "Norway" was hazy at best, I have now written that they came from "Scandinavia". This should be a compromise we all can live with. --Barend 07:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This is NOT Hrolf Gange. Look at what the Hrolf Gange Theory you pointing to say. I have wrote it two times now, if you didnt know it. He was a guy who was banished from Norway and lived in Iceland. This article is not about ONE guy! In the fact you are the only one to out Norwegian in anywhere without source. We HAVE sources that the majority was Danes. We have NO facts for Norwegians. The old sources and writings about Danes, from the Bayeux tapestry, (Harold klak king of Jutland came with men to Normandy). That the Danes from Danelagen fled to Normandy. Anglo coins found in Denmark. Far biggest transport ships found in Denmark, used for trading primarily in Normandy say historians. You Norwegians say it doesnt matter where they was from. But i can see it matter for you to write who was Norwegians in Norway article. And you keep changing it back to Norwegians, while there is NO SOURCE for it.

You need source if you wanna rewrite this! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Normans&diff=27008966&oldid=26282705 --Comanche cph 10:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If you wanna claim that Norwegians was Normans to. You will have to cite sources. --Comanche cph 11:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Again: Sources have been sited. If you don't want to axcept that is fine, but you still have to follow the rules. Inge 11:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Where!? Please you know as much as me that there is no sources for your claiming. --Comanche cph 11:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This map from History of Danish pretty much tells it to. Who was where. Norway first apopted Danish language in the Kalmar union(500 to 1000 years later). --Comanche cph 16:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend that user comanche cph try to get some knowledge about medieval history before he starts writing about things he obviously knows nothing about. Although it has all been said thousands of time before, here we go again:

- Comanche's representation of the story of Gange Rolf is wrong. Neither Historia Norvegiae nor Snorri Sturluson say anything about Gange Rolf going to Iceland. Comanche has obviously never even read any of these sources, as he keeps misrepresenting them.

- Norway did not adopt Danish language in the Kalmar union. I am not sure what point comanche is trying to make here, but he is wrong, anyway. The Kalmar union in 1397 did not change the language of Norway. It is, however, a fact that the old norse language, spoken throughout both Norway and Denmark during the viking age, was commonly referred to as donsk tunga (Danish tongue) - as you can see in the article on old Norse language.

- Comanche tries to make it seem as if it is Inge and myself who are trying to change this article, when in fact, what is happening is that it is comanche who is trying to change the article to claim that all the vikings in Normandie were Danish, a claim which is unverifiable, and goes against several sources and the general consensus on the question.

- I applaud the extreme patience being shown by Inge in trying to reach a compromise with comanche, but I must say I am not sure whether a user so obviously lacking in knowledge about the topic he is arguing about deserves the effort. --Barend 18:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This Barend say is fake

Barend and Inge have NO SOURCE for claiming that Norwegians was a part of the population in Normandy.

No matter what Barend say about Hrolf Ganger. Is that the only one out of two teory's about Rollo of Normandy, while the other and older from Normandy tells about a Dane. The funny thing with this is this article is not about Rollo. So Barend and Inge try to use the single Hrolf Ganger teory as a source for Norwegians was Normans to. :D I repeat: That unrelated source Barend pointing to. Tells that the guy was Banished from Norway. -That is the one and only source he/they will use for Norwegians was a part of the Norman population.

"- Norway did not adopt Danish language in the Kalmar union. I am not sure what point comanche is trying to make here, but he is wrong, anyway. The Kalmar union in 1397 did not change the language of Norway. It is, however, a fact that the old Norse language, spoken throughout both Norway and Denmark during the viking age, was commonly referred to as donsk tunga (Danish tongue) - as you can see in the article on old Norse language."

" Norway did not adopt Danish language" Maybe you should check up a little on History of Norway.

These qoute's is from Norwegian language. In short; Books in Norway was Danish doing the kalmar union.

"from 1536 Norway was subordinated under the Kingdom of Denmark. Danish became the commonly written language among Norway's literate class. Spoken Danish was gradually adopted by the urban elite, first at formal occasions, and gradually a more relaxed variety was adopted in everyday speech." and "The name of the Danish language in Norway was a topic of hot dispute through the 19th century. Its proponents claimed that it was a language common to Norway and Denmark, and no more Danish than Norwegian. The proponents of Landsmål thought that the Danish character of the language should not be concealed. In 1899 the neutral name Riksmål was adopted, meaning national language like Landsmål. The name "Riksmål" is sometimes interpreted as "state language", but this meaning is secondary at best, refer Danish rigsmål from where the name was borrowed."

Quote Barend: "It is, however, a fact that the old Norse language, spoken throughout both Norway and Denmark during the viking age, was commonly referred to as donsk tunga (Danish tongue) - as you can see in the article on old Norse language."

This is funny. Of course Norway and Denmark both spoked Old Norse. Norway spoked old west Norse while Denmark spoked old East Norse. Two different language! as that link you pointing to, say. But the language's is also related to North Germanic and Germanic and Indo-European. So according to you all in Europe spoken the same language?? :D

What i'm trying to tell you. As you also can see on the articles you linking to. Is that Norway and Danish language NOT was the same language. Different rune script to.

"claim that all the vikings in Normandie were Danish, a claim which is unverifiable, and goes against several sources and the general consensus on the question."

No Normans was a mix of a population in Neustria and Danes. -As it also was written BEFORE the two Norwegians started to change this article.

"goes against several sources and the general consensus on the question"

I have asked you like 10 times. GIVE US THEN THE SEVERAL SOURCES!!! WHERE ARE THEY??? --Comanche cph 21:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should read this Wikipedia:Cite your sources. --Comanche cph 21:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Comanche, your last entry really reveals yor lack of knowledge of medieval history. I say again: you have not been behaving in a manor worthy of a serious response, still we have treated your entries here with as much respect as possible. But again you reveal you lack of knowledge of the subject you are trying to make authoritative statements about. Your contributions here are not positive and thus not wanted. I suggest you find something better to do with your time, such as learning about medieval history.Inge 01:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I KNOW THE HISTORY. PLEASE INGE JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION WITH BOLD TEXT!!! Is it to hard for you?? maybe because you know i'm right. -

i say again. You are the one who has changed it. That's why you need source for it!

And stop talking about respect, you probably don't know what that is either. --Comanche cph 07:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Not that I think this will end the discussion, but here are sources:

• [2]
• [3]

--Barend 07:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible that kissing cousins could dislike each other so intensely? :-) πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 07:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Again you keep linking to the Hrolf Gange teory and to a privat homepage. JUST FORGET HIM. This is not about him. Now start to see if there should be any source of Norwegians in Normandy. And if you look at Normandie's own homepage you will see that they call him Rollon, not Gynge Gange Hrolf.

You probaly think that Norwegians (Nordmænn) named it to Normandie. That's why you so intensely think that Norwegians was Normans, i guess. But again you are wrong. Normandie got the name by the Franks.

You need sources if you gonna rewrite history to Norwegians was Normans to. --Comanche cph 14:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that this is likely to convince those with entrenched views but it may help to enlighten bemused bystanders. Histoire de la Normandie by Jean Mabire and Jean-Robert Ragache, Paris, 1986, ISBN 2704807035, sets out a view of multiple-sourced Viking settlement (in Chapter 3): "Il est déjà difficile de distinguer entre apports francs, saxons et scandinaves. Essayer de discerner entre les Vikings ceux qui viennent de Norvège et ceux qui arrivent du Danemark ne paraît pas facile. En fait la Normandie orientale et centrale serait plutôt d’origine anglo-danoise. Un Cauchois d’Yvetot ou un Augeron d’Orbec habitent un pays fortement marqué par l’influence de ceux qui sont partis du Jutland et ont remonté la vallée de la Seine, apres avoir vécu souvent outre-mer dans le pays du Danelaw. La Normandie occidentale serait plutôt iro-norvégienne. Un Cotentinais de Barfleur ou de Nehou s’accroche à une terre colonisée par des Vikings ayant effectué la grande boucle, parfois sur plusieurs générations, par les Shetlands, les Orcades, les Hébrides et I’Irlande. Valcanville, dans le Val de Saire, ou Digulleville, dans La Hague, évoquent leurs fondateurs Valkan ou Dikuil, noms d’origine celtique, mais qui peuvent avoir été adoptes par des Scandinaves ayant vécu dans les îles de l'Ouest. Typique reste le nom de Nial, qui a donné Néel en Cotentin, et dont l’origine est celto-norvégienne.". Basically it is suggested that eastern Normandy i.e. Haute-Normandie was primarily settled by Danes and Anglo-Danes, whereas the Cotentin was settled in greater concentration by Celto-Norwegians, mostly arrived from Ireland, as well as by Danes and Anglo-Danes. For what it's worth, and bearing in mind that Jean Mabire was a noted proponent of Normannité, people can take this as further ammunition - or should we not rather declare a ceasefire? Man vyi 15:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the interesting input. I think I have said all I have to say on this talk page, and I hereby withdraw to the rank of bemused bystander myself. I will continue to revert destructive edits to the article, though. --Barend 15:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. See that could be a source we could use. But i doubt that there was many Anglo's with Danes rather Saxons. But why and from what did that guy think there was a norwegian-celtic population in west? --Comanche cph 15:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

lol Barend you haven't said anything. Just klap i --Comanche cph 15:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• If, as seems likely, their accounts relate to the same person, he was known in the north as Hrolf the Ganger,...The saga makes him a Norwegian, but Danish scholars have sought to prove him a Dane, and more recently the cudgels have been taken up for his Swedish origin. To me the Norwegian theory seems on the whole the most probable, being based on a trustworthy saga and corroborated by other incidental evidence. Yet, however significant of Rollo's importance it may be that three great countries should each claim him as its own...it is futile to fit the inadequate evidence into one or another theory. The important fact is that Norway, Denmark, and even more distant Sweden, all contributed to the colonists who settled in Normandy under Rollo and his successors, and the achievements of the Normans thus become the common heritage of the Scandinavian race.

  Haskins, Charles Homer (1916). The Normans in European History. London: Constable. pp. p. 29. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

• As they expanded their authority west from the Seine region, Rollo's successors incorporated other Viking groups which had taken up residence in the Bessin and Cotentin. These appear to have been primarily Danish, some of whom had come to France via England, where King Alfred had made a treaty with Danish settlers a generation earlier. Rollo and his group, on the other hand, had come from Norway, where Rollo was remembered in the sagas as Rolf the Ganger: 'a great Viking: he was so big that no steed could bear him, and he therefore walked wherever he went'. An eleventh-century Norman charter indicates that Rollo was known as 'Rolphus' in Normandy as well.

  Harper-Bill, Christopher (2003). A Companion to the Anglo-Norman World. Suffolk: Boydell Press. pp. p. 22. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

• On the authority of the Heimskringla, he is supposed to have been a Norwegian, namely that Ganger-Rolf who was the exiled son of Ragnvald, earl of Möre, the trusty liegeman and comrade of King Harald Fairhair, and it is chronologically quite possible that Ganger-Rolf should have played a part in these operations in the country of the West Franks. The difficulty about this identification is that the Norman chroniclers themselves do not seem to have known the name Ganger-Rolf, or even Rolf alone, and the name that they do cite, Rollo, is better derived from ON. Hrollaugr or Hrolleif rather than from Rolf. But this in itself would not disprove the Norwegian nationality of Rollo, and as guarantee of his Danish origin there is nothing better than the always-to-be-suspected word of that very indifferent historian Dudo of St. Quentin. On the other hand, in St. Olaf's time, according to the Heimskringla, a Duke of Rouen, a descendant of Rollo, declared that he well remembered his kinship with the chiefs of Norway; while Saxo, the persistent panegyrist of the Danes and a writer to whom Dudo's book was known, makes no boast that Rollo was of Danish ancestry. It must be held, therefore, as most likely, though not proven with certainty, that Rollo was Norwegian...

  Kendrick, T.D. (1930). A History of the Vikings. New York: Charles Schribner's Sons. pp. pp. 220-1. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

All other sources i've found so far punt with Scandinavian or Norse Viking. Hope the above helps.EricR 17:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Much national pride has been involved in trying to determine, without complete success, the origin of Rollo himself—was he Danish? or Norwegian? or possibly Swedish? No document of the settlement survives, and its terms can be inferred only from later documents...in 911 Rollo, whose place of origin is not really of consequence, led a Danish army to the town of Chartres, which he besieged. The siege proved unsuccessful, and Rollo’s army suffered a major defeat.

  Logan, F. Donald (1992). The Vikings in History. London: Routledge. pp. p.134. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)EricR 18:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• The bulk of the settlers were men. They came principally from Denmark, although some came from the northeast of England and others from Ireland, a conclusion suggested by a sophisticated analysis of known names...Of course, new settlers were still coming in the 930s, some of them still pagan, and at one moment in the early 940s Normandy almost reverted to paganism...

  Ibid., p.135.EricR 18:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"Normand"

this is an English doc, not a Norman/d source

hey why did you removed my "Normand"?

Don't you know "Normandie" ("Normandy" in English) comes from "Normand" (not "Norman" in English)? Without the (mute) "D" it would has been "Normany" (aka "Normanie") AFAIK right?.

The Normand talked in Old French (even the particular Old French "F" for "S" is used in the English translation writing), hence "Guillaume Le Conquérant" in French ("William the Conqueror" in English).

I think "Norman" (English) comes from "Normand" (Français), probably coming from "Norskmenn" (Norsk). "Guillaume Le Conquérant" is born in the Duché de Normandie (Normandy fief in France), his Christian name (birthname) is "Guillaume" not "William". Why are you ignoring the original, real names?

I don't know where "Normand"'s mute "D" comes from, can't be from "Nord" (North), because of the "man", any idea?

Your motto "Honi soit qui mal y pense" is Normand (ex: Modern French is "Honni soit qui mal y pense") JP Belmondo 17:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The Normans spoke Norman of course (and some still do). Wace uses Normanz for the people in the Roman de Rou. He has a fun poetic explanation of the origin of the name:

mant en engleiz et en norroiz

senefie homme en franchois;

ajoustez ensemble nort et mant,

ensemble dites donc Normant;

ce est honz de north en romanz,

de la vint le non as Normanz...

Normandie, qu'il ont peuplé,

por ceu que Normanz la peuplerent,

qui en la terre converserent.

Franchoiz dient que Normendie

ce est la gent de nort mendie,

por ceu qu'il vindrent d'autre terre

por miex avoir et por miex querre.

Translation (quick and dirty): Man in English and Norse signifies man in French; add together north and man, together you'll say then Norman; which is man of the north in Romance; from that came the name of the Normans... Normandy, that they settled, because the Normans settled it who occupied the land. The French say that Normandy is the country of mendiants of the North because they came from another land to have more and seek more.

In English, us Normans are Normans, not Normands or even Normanz. Sîncéthement, Man vyi 18:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No the birth name of Guillaume le Conquérant is probably Williame, because that's the Norman phonetics of Wilhelm, that also gave Guillaume in French. Wace is probably wrong about the etymology of "Normand", it is not old English or old Norse. The old caroligian manuscripts use Nortmanni (plural) and that's Frankish.Nortmannus (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sections

I would propse restructuring the article between the sections "Normans and Normandy" and "See also". The sections on the various regions of Norman influence should be put in chronological order, like so:

• Italy
• East
• England
• Wales
• Crusades
• Scotland
• Ireland

I propose this here becaus it seems like a major restructuring and I don't know if putting some of the more important sections lower down on the page is the best idea. Also, as can be garnered from reading the sections, Wales could be placed before England and Crusades first of all. Srnec 18:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles

Hello,

WikiProject Ethnic groups has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.

Your article has automatically been given class=stub and reassess=yes ratings. [corrected text: --Ling.Nut 22:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)] Don't feel slighted if the article is actually far more than a stub -- at least in the beginning, all unassessed articles are being automatically assigned to these values.

-->How to assess articles

Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the class parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner {{Ethnic groups}} that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system page.

Please see the Project's article rating and assessment scheme for more information and the details and criteria for each rating value. A brief version can be found at Template talk:Ethnic groups. You can also enquire at the Ethnic groups Project's main discussion board for assistance.

Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit Category:WikiProject Ethnic groups, find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.

Thanks!
--Ling.Nut 20:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Romance languages?

How did a people(s) "originating from Scandinavia" end up speaking a Romance language?! --84.249.253.201 01:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

By moving to lands where Romance was spoken. Same way people "originating from Italy" ended up speaking a Germanic language when they immigrated to New York and learned English. Srnec 01:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

More precisely, most people from Scandinavia were men and they married "more Danico" local women, who spoke a Romance language. Nortmannus (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Normans who invaded and settled England

I'm aware most inhabitants of Normandy were Celtic, with a bit of Germannic, and also that the Lords and nobles were Norse, so would this mean most of the Normans who settled England were Celtic? It seems to me to be safe to say.~ Hraegene —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.145.72.176 (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Snyder in The Britons notes that the Normans brought in Breton nobles, who were of course Brythons and so Celts in the modern sense, while of course the inhabitants of Normandy which had been Keltiké had presumably intermarried or come under the rule of the "Norse" Normans. Contact me Ibefore it goes back to the library) if you want the Snyder reference explained. .. dave souza, talk 18:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The Normans who settled Britain were French! They spoke French (a Romance language), not a Germanic language, and possibly with the exception of some Bretons who followed them, not a Celtic language. There's no need to invoke any wooly half-racialist 18th century ethnic badge other than French, which is exactly what they and their neighbours called them. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

One should distinguish ethnicity and language. The populations of the territories incorporated into the Duchy were probably a mixture of Celtic and Germanic (Norse and Frankish) people varying in proportion across the territories - with perhaps a tendency to higher Norse concentration in coastal areas. The Norman language forged by the adoption of the prevailing Romance by Norse speakers is entirely independent as a language of administration from the ethnicity of the populations using it. Many of the Celtic Bretons in any case would have been Gallo speakers rather than Breton speakers. The linguistic frontiers, of course, at that period would have been less marked as the languages had diverged less at that period - however the later development and spread of French (and here I discount the Francien theory) tends to overlay and mask distinguishing features in the dialect continuum. Man vyi 08:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally meaningless. No evidence any Norman spoke any Germanic language in the 11th century. They and the supposedly different Gallo speakers were Franci... French. That was their only ethnicity. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone suggesting that Normans spoke a Germanic language in the 11th century (except of course those that may have spoken English either in England or Normandy due to the cross-Channel links)? The Norman language is certainly marked by Nordicisms - it's one of the features that distinguishes it from Gallo. Linguistics aside, I find it hard to believe in the existence of a French ethnicity in the 11th century. Man vyi 18:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is probably because you've not read any sources from that period. The Normans are the "French". You are suggesting they spoke a Germanic language by calling them Germanic; "Germanic" is a linguistic term, and is not a race.

Actually 'Germanic' though unpopular due to Anti-Germanism after the Second World War, is more than just linguistic as many on Wikipedia seem to claim, while at the same time classing 'Celtic', 'Slavic'...etc...as Ethnic groups, it's a cultural thing, an Ethnic group that combines folklore, linguistics, culture, law and even cuisine to make up it's part. It is an Ethnic group as much as all the others, Nazis being Germanic or not. For the record the Normans are not Germanic as they integrated into Romance/Mediterranean culture much like the French are not Germanic or Gallic. Ethnicity is not to be mixed up with Ancestry and Genetics...it is NOT a genetic affair. And yes 'Ethnicity' is not a race...last time I checked all ethnicities comprised of members of the Human race.

Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, the Normans were an ethnic mix of many different peoples going back thousands of years... Everybody is. The whole ethnic question is rather meaningless. The Normans spoke French (albeit a dialect distinct from Parisian) and were Frenchmen, as their own Domesday Book attests. Srnec 04:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

When considering a feudal period (i.e pre-nation-state) I think it's probable that allegiance was important to the people of that time rather in the way that nationality is now. My opinion FWIW is that those who owed allegiance to the King of France might have considered themselves "French" in a way that cuts across modern ideas of nationality - but then we live with a situation of competing or overlapping identities in Normandy today. Man vyi 07:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is irrelevant beside the simple fact that the Normans of 1066 (and the following century) did not consider themselves to be 'French' and were not considered to be French by their contemporaries - insofar as the concept of being 'French' existed at all at this time. Language is not enough, is a Scotsman English? A Swiss German? Where the term 'Franci' is applied in Latin texts, it's simply an attempt to apply a label that covered the diverse people under William - Normans, Flemings, Bretons and Frenchmen (obviously Flemings and Bretons only spoke the Romanz dialects as the ancestors of French were then called as an acquired language). Bear in mind that at this time Germans were still being called 'Franks' by eastern Europeans, exclusive French ownership of the Frankish name was not yet established. 'Continental' would be a more accurate translation of Latin 'Franci' in England. The English themselves called the Normans 'Frenciscans' and distinguished them from the French who were 'Francans' - in old English a 'Norman' was a Norwegian, as is still the case in Danish and Norwegian, hence the need for another name - so the translation of Frenciscan as 'Frenchman' is also an anachronistic mistranslation, it denotes a Norman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.184.115.220 (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Norman piety

Re: this sentence:

The legendary piety of the Normans was exercised in religious wars long before the First Crusade carved out a Norman principality in Antioch.

Which someone changed to zeal. The sentence and paragraph only makes sense if the Normans were pious. I don't see a problem with it, a few source could be found to that end.[4][5] Granted they may have used the cover of piety to justify conquest, but then one could say the same thing about many "just wars", was there ever a truly pious conquerer? -- Stbalbach 18:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to religious zeal -- Stbalbach 01:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Why using the past tense?

Considering that I consider myself ethnically Norman, and I come from an Hiberno-Norman family, why does this article say we no longer exist since the 13th Century?202.70.51.189 (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The Normans were a people from medieval northern France, deriving to a large extent their aristocratic origins from Scandinavia (the name is adapted from the name "Northmen" or "Norsemen"). They played a major political, military and cultural role in the northern and Mediterranean parts of medieval Europe and the Near East, eg. the colonisation (and naming) of Normandy, the "Norman Conquest" of England, the establishment of states in Sicily and southern Italy, and the crusades.

I understand medieval normandy is important to Anglo-Saxon but shouldn't the first part of the article simply say the Normans are the residents of Normandy, comprised of the two French regions and the channel islands? As far as I remember, being myself partly a Norman family (from Normandy) this people isn't extinct. Matthieu 11:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The Normans are extinct. The modern people of Normandy are Frenchmen plain and simple. Their distinctly Norman identity is primarily or solely cultural now. This article discusses not just a culture but a people and, dare we say, a nation, ethnicity, and "race". This identity was more or less gone by the thirteenth century. Srnec 04:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You can't have had any conversations with Norman-speakers recently, then. And thanks for drawing my attention to the fact of my extinction which, as a Norman, had escaped me ;-) Man vyi 06:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, why do you say we are extinct? We are very much alive and kicking and very aware of our heritage. Normandy is only part of the picture. To describe all Normans from Normandy as being only French is also a little naive. Norman language has nothing to do with it. I am currently a native English speaker.202.70.51.189 (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Conversations with Norman speakers would be irrelevant to this. If we take Norman to mean "one born in or living in Normandy", then there are still Normans of course. But these are not the Normans this article deals with. I am not aware of any genetic testing done on this and I am slightly sceptical of the accuracy of such testings, but I doubt that people born in or living Normandy are any more likely than Englishmen to have Norman ancestry. How much ancestry does one need to have in order to be a Norman? Or how recent must one's Norman ancestors be to be considered a Norman? Norman identity today is different from the Norman identity this article deals with. That is what is extinct, irrespective of whether there are people identifying as Normans today. You are probably no more Norman in the sense of this article than I am. Srnec 17:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Genetics can not be used as a criterion for ethnic or national identity. That is an extremely outdated idea.--Barend 17:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

And of course other articles such as English people, Welsh people, and Briton, do not assume arbitrary historical cut-off dates. Perhaps we should disambiguate Norman people, if there's a demand? Man vyi 17:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I never claimed that nationality was genetic, but ethnicity is. You either are a Slav or you're not. I can choose to remain Canadian or to identify as Canadian, but whether I recognise it or not, I have Croat blood in me. "Genetics" is simply ancestry. And ancestry is ethnicity. Any other definition is, in my opinion, nonsense. Ethnicity may be unimportant to one's identity (it counts for little in mine), but it is not arbitrary or voluntary.

The fact is that the people who are called Normans and who conquered England in 1066 and Sicily in 1061-90 were not Normans in the modern sense of the word. I should probably find a source that says so, but I have seen it more than once stated that the Normans ceased to be a distinct people in the late twelfth/early thirteenth century. Perhaps disambiguation is needed here, because I think there are two distinct concepts covered by "Normans", just as "Britons" can refer to the modern English or British or to the ancient Celtic peoples that are now represented mainly by the Welsh. The concepts are very distinct and the Norman case isn't much different. Srnec 21:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You very succinctly describe what I consider an outdated idea. Ethnicity is not genetic. The idea of the "blood in" people is a romantic idea, but nothing more. The Normans who conquered England would, genetically, be the descendants of Scandinavians (who in turn might be descended from Scandinavians or from thralls captured in the British Isles, the Baltic or other places), of Franks, of Romans, of Gaulish Celts, and possibly other people. But they identified themselves as Normans. Therefore they were an ethnicity. I am not taking sides as to whether or not the Norman ethnicity became extinct. But if it did, it wasn't because the "blood line was watered down", or whatever. It would have been because being Norman ceased to be a part of people's identity. --Barend 23:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the issue here is identity and that is not dependent on the blood in one's veins. However, that individuals have a genetic makeup is true. This is determined by their ancestry. Ancestry is not chosen, nor is ethnicity. If I decide to self-identify as ethnically Chinese, am I ethnically Chinese? Even though I have no known Chinese ancestors? I may chose to become a Chinese citizen and partake extensively of Chinese culture and even identify myself as "Chinese". That would make sense. What makes no sense is to claim that I am an ethnic Chinese with no evidence of Chinese ancestors. Ancestry, family, blood, genes, ethnicity is all one aspect of identity and an unchosen one at that. I repeat, this does not mean that such an "identity" will be recognised or even known in all cases, but thanks to modern biology it is always knowable (and that testifies to its existence).

Also, the "extinction" of the Normans would have been due to the loss of identity, but that loss of identity may very well have been due to the "watering down of bloodlines" insofar as that would have required families spanning multiple ethnicities and cultures and the familial and share cultural bonds which may have helped to sustain the identity of the people could thus have been destroyed [through intermarriage]. Am I being clear? Is there still disagreement? Srnec 00:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarifier: I think there is simply disagreemen on what's the best definition of ethnicity to use. I self-identify as Canadian, but that is not an ethnicity in my books. Srnec 00:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You are being clear, and there is still disagreement. I think we have both stated our case, and have to live with the disagreement. The question, for this article, is, as far as I can see, whether there has been a continuous sense of a Norman ethnicity (however you define it) from the time of the Normans that the current article describes, to the people who today call themselves Normans, such as Man Vyi.--Barend 18:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

My answer to that is "no". Srnec 20:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, people from Normandy are still refered to as Normans, that alone answers the point. If you talk strictly about Medieval Normans why isn't there a distinct article on the topic? I totaly agree with Man Vyi, this article should be disambiguated as people landing here may come to believe there isn't single Norman (as a modern Norman) in Normandy. Matthieu 17:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That does not answer the point. A resident of Rome is still called a Roman, but "the Romans" are a different people. Srnec 06:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

But when I type Romans in wikipedia the first thing I get is: "A thing or person of or from the city of Rome.". Although if I type Normans I land on this page who talks as if there no longer was such thing as Normans. Matthieu (talk) 12:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• In terms of modern English usage, I believe it is reasonable to state that "the Normans" commonly applies to a group of people, from the approximate region of present day Normandy, known for various exploits from approximately 900AD to 1200AD. I note that there is a category "People of Normandy". It perhaps remains a reasonable question as to whether that requires an article in its own right - but I remain comfortable that this article should refer specifically to a well known epoch in European history. A new page entitled: Normans (disambiguation), might be the go. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 06:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Normans from the Danelaw went back to England

I think the Wessex repulsion theory makes sense, in terms of pre-Norman past and the momentum that drove England to Mediterranean Europe, on the old Viking (and generally Teutonic) trail of pillaging-cum-crusading. It is essentially why the sack of Constantinople happened, is it not? Nowhere is it in the article, even as an alternative to the "straight-from-Scandinavia" theory. Penguin Books states the ex-Danelaw foundation of Normandy, while also describing some of them from the Viking outposts in Ireland. For instance, Ragnar Lodbrok is mentioned as involved in both the Siege of Paris and the Northumbrian Civil War. Penguin states that the Vikings were shit out of luck in their depredations of the British Isles, but that the Carolingians were infighting and the local counts were inept (except the Capetians, of course). This would naturally make Normandy no different to England, than Brittany is to Wales. Savignac 02:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Crappy Article

B-Class? Right. This article is TERRIBLE, and useless for the general reader. The opening paragraphs are incomprehensible. The word "historiography" does not belong in the first section of an article for general readership. And 'the name is adapted from the name "Northmen"' versus 'should not be confused with the Northmen'. What the hell? I would like a basic article explaining who they are, where they lived, where they came from, what they did, and so on. In English. Is that too much to ask? I'd write it myself except I DON'T KNOW -- that's why I'm here. I'd say more like D-Class. 216.231.46.147 (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the lead. The rest of the article seems pretty good, though. Is there anything else that needs urgent fixing for comprehensibility? Srnec (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Map cleanup needed

The labels on the map are not in English. -- Beland (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"Northmannia"? Original LATIN?

Now really, I know a bit of Latin and the first two sylabics of "...(Northmannia in its original Latin)." are English and German respectively, with a Latin suffix (ia) at the end. Wouldnt it be something along the lines of "Homini(s) Borealis"? ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 20:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This is medieval dog Latin we're talking about. And we're also talking about the place, Normandy, not the people, the Normans. The original Latin phrase was Northmannia because there was no Latin phrase preceding it, it stole its roots from Germanic. Srnec (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The spelling with H is not right. The first time the word is recorded as Nortmannus (10th Century, Aimoinus Sangermanensis).Nortmannus (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Early history

It seems to me that the article has a major omission in not covering the early Norman history. Rollo is not even mentioned (what's up with that?) and there is nothing about the history of the Normans in the tenth century. Nsk92 (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You are very right. This article is a patchwork; you've found some missing patches. Srnec (talk) 04:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Map of Conquests

In the map at the top of the page, Malta is not highlighted in red despite being a Norman conquest (it is even mentioned in the article).

Can this be arranged?

Pcacmar (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a good point, the Maltese islands are clearly visible in the enlarged viewing of the map and they should also be coloured (and perhaps even named). If someone could do that, that would be useful. It's also worth pointing out that Norman Sicily had a few possessions on the North African coastline for about half a century, it would be quite informative to have these territories marked out and the time period that they were held. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 00:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.paradoxplace.com/Perspectives/Maps/Images/Norman%20Conquests%20by%201100s%20R.jpg is a much more accurate map, albeit in black and white —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.76.140 (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Should the whole of the British Isles not be coloured red, and not only England? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.217.33.76 (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The campaigns against the Welsh were an Anglo-Norman/English thing. The Normans didn't invade Scotland, Anglo-Normans immigrated their over time. The Irish thing was conducted by Anglo/Cambro-Normans. I think for the most part the "Normans" that settled in Wales, Ireland and Scotland came from families that were already established in England. So i think that's why the map doesn't shade those countries in.--Celtus (talk) 06:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the map should be removed, after all Antioch was not a "Norman coquest" either, even less so than Wales or Ireland: which, at the least, is usually called a Norman conquest. Srnec (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, i see what you mean. I guess it should be removed. Maybe someone could make a map that shows actual conquests from Normandy in one shade and 'Norman influence' (or something) in another shade.--Celtus (talk) 06:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that most of the British Isles (apart from a few Gaelic kingdoms in Ireland and also North Wales) should be coloured. Both Bruce and Balliol were Norman dynasties in Scotland. South Wales was invaded not long after the Normans had taken England (same with Ireland also). The ruling caste were Franco-Norman speaking and cultured until around the time of the Hundred Years War. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The first settlers to Canada came from Normandy?

It says under the "Canada" section "The first settlers to Canada came from Normandy". Maybe the first European settlers, but wern't the Natives in Canada first? 216.99.51.165 (talk) 23:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That's rubbish. The first Viking settlers in Canada were from Greenland and possibly Iceland. 50.111.0.129 (talk) 13:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Map

Why does the map not include the Norman conquests in France they conquered the western half of France and pretty much started the Angevin empire which was handed down to the kingdom of England86.181.82.140 (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Canada

The fact that people left from Dieppe does not make the settlement of Canada Norman. Also by the 17th C the while idea of the Normans as a distinct group is a nonsense. There is one reference to a french language book - can we have a translated text of that please as I doubt it will pass verification. --Snowded ^TALK 21:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion. The addition is poorly sourced and far-fetched. MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

In Canada( Quebec) We all know that we have the norman accent. My ancestors were Norman. Around 20% of the entire setlers were from normandy( they lived there)..15% were from Bretagne and around 10% from Picardy. Of course The normans got big family in Quebec and, at the present day, we got a normans kind of accent. Of course its not because they left from dieppe thats make them normans. Some Statistic are available.(other soon):-) http://magene.chez-alice.fr/quebec.html (sorry its in French, i will translate it for you soon). Thank you for your patience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elviselvis (talk • contribs) 22:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Other statistics concerning all immigrants say 14% from Normandy, directly followed by Parisians 13%. They spoke Norman ? certainly not, people considered that French was almost as well spoken in Canada as in Paris, because almost nobody spoke regular French in France, except Paris. No, the Canadian accent is not specific of Normandy but of all the Western part of France to Poitou (nasal accent) and Canadian French uses for other phonems the typical one from regular French, not Norman.Nortmannus (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

They may be from Normandy but that does not make them Norman in the sense of the article. Quebec was settled from France, your own figures show that only a small percentage even came from Normandy. The Normans date from Rollo as a distinct entity really end with the Angevin Empire. You will need a reliable source if you want to argue for the concept being valid in the 17th C --Snowded ^TALK 22:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not agreee with you, Norman identity was still strong in the 17th century, due to the very specific Norman law that ruled and organized the relationships between people.Nortmannus (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, You are right about the fact that after the angevin empire been norman wasnt the same as before. But still today, you could find an important part ,in Normandy, of (normans)nationalist. What i mean is if today you still find Norman nationalist and they speak Nourman(language), in the 17th century a lot of them felt been normans first, and as french second. Even if their language was close to french. Still my grand-father told me so many time about his norman descent...At the end, even if between 20 and 30% of (french-canadien) are Normans blod related, the first settlers where Norman-French, and that influenced the cultural background of some Frech-canadien. I will bring more source soon...thanks again for your knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elviselvis (talk • contribs) 01:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:INDENT, it makes it easier to follow a thread. I'm very happy to accept that norman-french survived in some way but that really is a separate issue from an article on the Normans. If you can find citation support there could be an argument for a paragraph at [Norman language] on its influence on the development of French in Canada, e.g. if some of the distinct words have moved across. If there is a reliable source that the culture of Québec has links to the Normans specifically then there might just be a case for a sentence here, but I would suggest it would be better at Normandy and Québec. Whatever I am afraid that your memories of the great-grandfather are not enough to justify inclusion here. I will remove the paragraph now as there is no citation support for it. If you have the references bring them here or to my talk page and I will happy to help draft something that will survive. --Snowded ^TALK 06:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Québec has a specific Norman background, more than a French one. According to Histoire de l'Amérique française, G. Havard and C. Vidal, Flammarion. 14% of the immigrants were from Normandy, but does it count Perche ? (that is not Norman and the Gagnon, Cloutier, Fortin, Tremblay, etc. are from it), followed by the Parisians 13%, etc. Most of the immigrants were from the North Western part of France and were from the cities. In the 17th century France a large majority of people were farmers and it was the place were the traditionnal cultures (custums, dialects, languages, etc.) were kept. The French Americans were mostly from cities (the French farmers are the only Europeans that never immigrated to any place), were the dominating culture was already from Paris. About the language, it was said about the Canadian colony, that the visitors could almost hear as good French as in Paris, because nobody (outside the big cities) could really speak French (Parisian) in France. About the Canadian accent, it does not sound more Norman than Angevin or Saintongeais or Poitevin or Gallo, all the same nasal accents in the western part of France. The typical Norman words are rare and the phonetics does not have anything to do with the real Norman language spoken northern of the Ligne Joret that influenced more the English language than the Québec French. In fact, there is a Norman mythology in Québec because most French explorers, sailors, tradors who financed the expeditions were from Normandy and even when they were not they sometimes chose the Norman ports to sail to America (for example Champlain). Paris is closer connected with the Norman ports (Rouen, le Havre, Dieppe,...question of distance) as with the other ports of France. To conclude, it is said that the first settler was Louis Hébert 1617 and he was from PARIS (for sure he has a Norman surname). Very significant according to me. Nortmannus (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

"Normans were" ????

Sorry if I'm boring but "The Normans were the people who gave their name to Normandy" is a little offensive. I prefer "The Normans are the people who gave their name to Normandy" We exist thx!! --89.226.75.34 (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Residents of Normandy - a province of France - exist. But what historically are "the Normans" are long extinct, assimilated into the greater French nation. You have your heritage and your ancestry, but culturally and linguistically, sorry, the Viking-conqueror-settlers are ... gone.104.169.39.45 (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Norman expansion map

Norman holdings from 880 AD to 1204 AD (click through thumbnails to view animation).

I've drawn an animation showing the land holdings of the Normans from 880 AD to 1204 AD. I've used articles like the Norman article itself, Norman conquest of southern Italy, Norman conquest of England, a few articles about specific cities in Ireland, and Principality of Antioch as primary sources in making this map. I've also used information from already made maps found in the aforementioned articles. Common sense was used while making this, and I of course used the most trustworthy source when I found conflicting information.

I recently inserted this into the article, but it was undone after a few hours, so I'm stuck here, since I want to avoid an edit war, but I really want people to see this map, as I've worked on it for quite some time. --Fede-lasse (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Find the appropriate image license for it if you haven't already done so by clicking here, if you do not have the correct tag this will warrant it's removal. It is evident that you put effort into the image however it does not animate until you've expanded it, furthermore you would need to provide separate references for each frame which highlights occupation of a new territory. One reference describing all of these would suffice. --Eidetic Man (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed the map, as I found the animation underwhelming. I also found the sourcing confusing. All in all, I thought it added little to the piece. I wouldn't object to such an illustration in general, but this one is not it. MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll find all sources. I'll get back to you when I've finished doing so. --Fede-lasse (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations very nice map! Petethewhistle (talk) 11:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Clean-up needed

The introduction reads like it's from some 1950s boys book about vikings, with all those NPOV adjectives thrown in. It needs a major clean-up, especially this section:

They displayed an extreme restlessness and recklessness, a love of fighting accompanied by almost foolhardy courage, and a craftiness and cunning that went hand in hand with outrageous treachery. In their expansion into other parts of Europe, the Normans compiled a record of astonishingly daring exploits in which often a mere handful of men would vanquish an enemy many times as numerous. An unequaled capacity for rapid movement across land and sea, the use of brutal violence and a precocious sense of the use and value of money were all traits that characterized the Normans.

I mean, really... Jalwikip (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Funnily enough, that was a copyvio introduced by a User:Alphasinus [6], a blocked sockpuppet who was edit warring over 'Viking'-type articles. He appears to have ruined the Norsemen article with copyvios for the time being.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Attributes and flags

Hey does any one know why these guys had a lion like a coat of arms? I mean when they descend from vikings and come from north why they have an African or Asian animal on the flag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nix1129 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The Normans did not have any lion on their coat of arms or flags. The two or three lions (called "leopard" in French and "cat" in Norman) were added by the Plantagenets in the 12th century when they inherited of Normandy and England, because the lions were designed on Geoffrey Pantagenet's own coat of arm. The lion symbolizes strength and power in French fort comme un lion "strong as a bear".Nortmannus (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to this question but did they use the Raven Banner or does anyone know where I can look up more stuff on the subject. daintalk   20:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know the only example of a Raven Banner used by the Normans might be represented on the Bayeux Tapestry.Nortmannus (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Diaspora

Are there reliable sources on the Norman diaspora?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Why are you asking? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Elvis Presley.

He is listed as French Norman, meaning that that he has Norman ancestry from France. So I was looking to see if I can link to a Norman American article, which does not exist.

This is why I asked.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Characteristics & traits

The section "Characteristics & traits" consists of nothing but longer quotes of older sources, with description of traits that seems very questionable. I deleted a long quote from Encyclopedia Brittanica, since the usage of it in such a way bordered WP:COPYVIO. The last Anna Komnene quote, which does not describe Normans, but rather one particular Norman seems more than questionable. Whether he was representative of Normans in general is unknown, and thus the connection borders on WP:SYNTH. The Goffredo Malaterra quotation as well only conveys Goffredos view on the Normans, and cannot be used in the way it is implied by the title of the section here as a general description of Normans. I would recommend that the section be deleted as unencyclopedic and not contributing anything to the article. In general I think that we should avoid sections in articles on historical peoples with anachronistic "Characteristics & traits", that is not how scholarship works in modern times. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The inclusion of these quotes is mandated by WP:PSTS and WP:SECONDARY. The Goffredo Malaterra & Anna Komnene quotes constitute primary sources. The Encyclopedia Britannica quote serves as a secondary source, which is explicitly required by Wikipedia policy. Per WP:PSTS: "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

Per WP:PSTS, the Encyclopedia Britannica quotation is a secondary source, "needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources". Since these quotations are directly relevant to the subject and represent primary sources together with secondary sources, I see no compelling argument in favor of their exclusion. 2A02:1810:519:9E00:D824:116D:B084:DBF2 (talk) 11:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

No. That is definitely a textbook example of wrong usage of Wikipedia policy regarding primary and secondary sources. First of all the Encycl. Brit. is a tertiary source, and the quote does not mention the two primary sources at all, and thus cannot in any way be said to be the qualifier of them. You will need to present specific secondary sources treating those two specific sources and all the usual source criticism problems that such sources contain. As they are currently presented the two primary sources are presently being used in their own right as claims regarding "characteristics and traits" nothing else. The Encycl. Brit. quote is still a potential copyvio problem, since the one sentence of prose that precedes it is barely enough to justify the long quote. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of sources, so this way of building sections with long block quotes and almost no editor prose is simply not the proper way to go about it. We do not let primary sources speak for themselves in this manner, for generalised statements, especially about such a questionable term as "characteristics" or "traits" of peoples, we do require secondary sources. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Your objections against the inclusion of these two primary sources appear to be based on the contention that they may represent a case of original synthesis. WP:SECONDARY is a policy aimed specifically at preventing instances of such original research, or original synthesis, of primary sources. The Encyclopedia Britannica quote has been provided for precisely this purpose; as a secondary source explicitly required by WP:PSTS to prevent original synthesis of primary sources by Wikipedia editors. The Encyclopedia Britannica being a tertiary source does not alter this, as clearly outlined by WP:PSTS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources."

Your argument would have merit if no secondary or tertiary sources were available to provide context for these primary sources. That is not the case here. 2A02:1810:519:9E00:D824:116D:B084:DBF2 (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

They are used as WP:SYNTH in this context. I think you should perhaps read up on Wikipedia policy of primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Encyclopedia Britannica is not a secondary source, and so your argument based on policy, an argument which is in itself wrong, since your interpretation about usage in this way via block quotes and barely any editor prose to bind those quotes together is not what is implied, does not hold up. Tertiary sources cannot be used in this way, and secondary sources that are used as qualifiers for primary sources needs to explicitly mention those primary sources, especially because the primary sources contains exceptional claims.

Again, secondary and tertiary sources that are used in order to avoid novel interpretation of primary sources needs to specifically mention those sources in order to be acceptable as qualifiers in the way you claim that the Enc. Br. quote is. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH is irrelevant in this context. I invite you to closely examine the policy you cite: Original synthesis refers specifically to novel interpretations of primary sources being made by Wikipedia editors. It is not applicable to the authors of primary sources themselves, who are being quoted directly and without further commentary. Since this misunderstanding forms the basis of your argument against the inclusion of these primary sources, your case is unsupported by relevant Wikipedia policies. 2A02:1810:519:9E00:3488:98:44AD:6A48 (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

So to summarise (since 2A02 doesn't seem inclined to discuss the actual issues at hand), the Enc. Br. quote is wrong usage of a tertiary source, the long blockquote without any qualifier is bordering on WP:COPYVIO violation (we are in essence copy-pasting Enc. Br. description to Wikipedia without any fair use rationale), the Anna Komnene quote is describing a single individual, and are describing traits not comparable to the other quotes. That leaves the Goffredo Malaterra primary source quote, which due to its shortness possibly could be kept, if it was preceded by a secondary source that mentioned his relevance in Norman historiography. In short the entire section is problematic and large portions needs to be removed while the rest can only be kept if proper secondary sources relevant to the subject are found and added. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from disparaging other editors, and keep this debate constructive.

The "actual issue at hand" is your contention that the usage of two primary sources in this article is unwarranted due to alleged issues of original synthesis and copyright. This has been addressed from the onset; your argument is rooted in an incorrect reading of WP:SYNTH and a questionable interpretation of WP:COPYVIO. Original synthesis specifically refers to Wikipedia editors drawing unwarranted conclusions from primary sources they use. It does not refer to the authors of these primary sources themselves, as you contended in your opening post, where you criticized the original content of these primary sources rather than how they were being used by fellow editors. You repeated this misconception shortly thereafter by referring to these primary sources as containing "exceptional claims". Secondly, the use of secondary & tertiary sources is effectively mandated by WP:PSTS, precisely to prevent any original synthesis of primary sources by Wikipedia editors. In short, your case is self-contradicting, and therefore puzzling.

After this was duly pointed out, your argumentation shifted towards a different issue: That a tertiary source such as the Britannica Encyclopedia does not qualify as a valid secondary source. In this, your argument does appear supported by relevant Wiki policies, and I will look for alternative secondary sources as time permits. Until then, this dispute is to be considered unresolved. 2A02:1810:519:9E00:3488:98:44AD:6A48 (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

There are no "alleged" WP:SYNTH issues, there are WP:SYNTH issues. I have not shifted my argumentation. The primary sources you have quoted en-masse is not acceptable as general statements about "characteristics & traits" which you infer from the title. The Anne Komnene quote is still going to be removed in a while if you fail to provide secondary sources verifiying it as a description that is normally accepted by scholars as being a description of Normans in general. The tertiary source is still going to be removed after you have had a suitable time to write some prose with general definitions that it can be used as a citation for (the quote itself is not acceptable and will need to be removed no matter what). Your misguided attempt of claiming that the tertiary source does somewhow neutralise the WP:SYNTH issues inherent in your primary source quotes is just that, a misguided attempt, and it does not adress the issues that I have pointed out repeatedly in this thread. I will give you a week to work the section into something that is not just a collection of sources, and not a violation of WP:SYNTH. Failing that it will be removed. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It's been conclusively demonstrated that your citation of WP:SYNTH is based on a misunderstanding of this policy guideline. WP:SYNTH refers specifically to how editors are to use primary sources. It makes no reference to the credibility of primary sources themselves, as you incorrectly assert. No commentary by editors is included with the primary sources, precluding issues of original synthesis. This has been pointed out on numerous occasions. No rebuttal has been forthcoming, merely reiterations of the original objection. You have shifted argumentation, as your opening post made no reference to issues pertaining to secondary & tertiary sources; this tangent was introduced after WP:SYNTH's lack of relevance was duly pointed out.

In summary, two consecutive days of a discourse rife with accusations has yet to result in compelling arguments in support of your position. This implies 3rd party mediation is becoming a necessity.

Beginning with your next post, I expect a clearly articulated, unambiguous rationale as to why these primary sources are allegedly unacceptable for use in the article even when a secondary source is provided for them (which constitutes your original case), together with citations of policies which 1) are directly relevant to the issue at hand and 2) unequivocally support your position in the matter. Your previous references to WP:SYNTH and WP:COPYVIO do not meet any of these criteria. Attempts to remove content from the article prior to resolution of the dispute will be reported, and this includes any removal of content past your unilaterally imposed deadline. 2A02:1810:519:9E00:E035:1E38:2742:547C (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Saddhiyama here - the quote from Anna is SYNTH because it's attempting to show that the characteristics of one person apply to the whole group. The other two quotes are not useful either. They need to go and frankly, the whole section needs to go as assigning "characterisitics and traits" to a group of people is just plain wrong. People vary and no serious scholarly source would assign such characteristics to an entire people any more. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The disputed quotations refer explicitly to "traits", "characteristics" and "descriptions" of Normans as they existed in the era of their major conquests, and of a historical Norman leader who is being characterized relative to his contemporary Normans, among others. The section contains neither interpretations nor conclusions beyond these citations, precluding original research and synthesis. The notion that this content is in violation of WP:PSTS and WP:SYN seems fairly baseless from a policy perspective.

I've re-examined the contents of WP:PSTS, per Saddhiyama's request. At no point does the policy state primary sources must be accompanied by secondary sources at all times, or face removal. What it does state unambiguously is that secondary sources are a requirement once editors add interpretations or conclusions to primary sources. As stated, the section features no such interpretations or conclusions. There are but two bits of content he could refer to: The sentence of "The Norman's quick adaptability....", which is derived from a reliable secondary source (namely, ), and the section's title. Given that the former is in compliance with WP:PSTS, that just leaves the latter, which you alluded to as well.

It's difficult to grasp that an extensive dispute could emerge over a section title, but that appears to be what this argument has been reduced to. There is the option of altering the section's title, so that it may reflect the content of the sources more accurately, but that is the full extent of what this argument supports.

I must confess to being mistaken when I stated Saddhiyama's objection to the Britannica Encyclopedia quote is supported by policy. It is not. Since WP:PSTS makes it clear secondary sources are not required while interpretations of primary sources are excluded, the question of whether the Britannica quote is a secondary or tertiary source is irrelevant. The Britannica quotation is content cited from a reliable source (specifically, a monograph vetted by the scholarly community), and it establishes notability for the subject. There are no grounds for its removal in either WP:PSTS or WP:SYN.

At this juncture, I think we may draw the conclusion that the clause of WP:SYN Saddhiyama keeps citing, which supposedly mandates the removal of these primary sources a priori, does not exist. Indeed, his argument reaches, or implies, a conclusion not explicitly stated by WP:SYN. This is not without irony. 2A02:1810:519:9E00:A4EE:5A84:7797:50DF (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Since none of the problems pointed out here has been fixed (or even acknowledged by 2A02) I have deleted the section on account of misrepresentation of primary and tertiary sources and synth violations. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Very sensible, thank you for taking care of that Saddhiyama. Nev1 (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Recent changes...

As per Bold-Revert-Discuss, can we take this discussion to the talk page please? I'd welcome comments from both sides. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

These recent additions made by the anonymous user seem to amount to violations of both the WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE policies. The IP mentioned in one of the edit summaries that: "My undergrads read this". Take note that Wikipedia is not a place to advance theories which are not broadly supported by mainstream scholarship. Malik047 (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Merging with culture, etc.

I don't claim to be an expert on Norman history, and no I haven't read a great deal of the sources. The points I have tried to make however are of a more generic nature which are not defeated by a simple acknowledgement by a publisher. I don't target any source here with this comment, but there is such thing as argumentum ad verecundiam if one is trying to press for a statement originating from an inadequate source. For some reason, these tend to be rife in the case of English sources on Norman history. A common theory suggests that although the Normans spoke their own French, or something Romance, that this is only because the population adopted the language whilst Normans are actually Germanic (as had been the Anglo-Saxons). In reality, this does not happen. The only legacy of a Germanic past was the name they gave to the region, and the local connotation this would have upon its citizens regardless of background. But if origin of the nation had to be dictated by origin of the demonym, then it is worth nothing that the word "France" is of Germanic origin as is the derivative "Franco-" which appears everywhere. The Franks were a Germanic race. But they spoke a Romance tongue - and this did not happen without assimilation into a Latin-speaking society. Such things have been commonplace all over the world. In Europe, the same thing happened with Bulgars (Turkic) forming a country, then becoming assimilated by Slavs, and all continuing a Slavic co-existence with neighbouring Slavs but with a Bulgarian demonym based on the name of the land. The Macedonian town of Kumanovo is so-called because it had been settled by Cumans (also Turkic), and although they were never reported to leave and today there are people in this world descended from those Cumans, it does not mean that the Macedonian Slavs and the Albanians to inhabit the town today are actually "Turkic people". We need to be careful not to fall into any traps and inadvertently create misconceptions here. Had the proto-Normans simply adopted the culture and tongue of the local French, you would have had a biracial society, Normans and French (as an example); yet two nations that speak the same language, do the same thing and have the same names (property of the language adoption) can only uphold these "differences in identity" for a limited time - as indeed was the case in the Duchy of Normandy. Likewise the idea that it may have been the French that were assimilated by the Normans is equally ludicrous, because it discards that a Frankish culture continues to exist and has evolved naturally on the territory of Normandy since before the name Normandy. I do not know the exact timeline that two nations became one, I know that once upon a time Normans and non-Normans were distinguishable and over time you were left with a culture and language that blended into the continuum of other Frankish neighbouring systems. We know the Germanic Normans and their early influence affected the local language, especially with regards pronunciation by all locals, but on the whole, this only amounts to partial borrowing (as opposed to a full borrowing when the entire word is adopted). Polish is full of German words and Bulgarian is full of Turkish words, but the two are still Slavic. So this is why we need more than a simple "Normans merged with the culture". --OJ (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Your opening statement summarizes the crux of the problem succinctly. Much, if not all, of what you describe above qualifies as WP:OR, and specifically the synthesis of published material. As such, it will be promptly reverted if you include it in the article without a reliable secondary source. Malik047 (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear editor, there is no WP:OR when citing generic properties, and besides, my change left your edit as you did. I merely added to it to provide information that is sourced to the hilltop. Your wording (which you appreciate I left) that a people merge with a culture is factually incorrect (and doesn't make sense), it implies a continuation of two ethnicities albeit with the same cultural properties that belonged entirely to one. --OJ (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

A more precise description would be that they began to adopt the culture in a process that would ultimately result in their full assimilation. --OJ (talk) 09:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

As previously noted, the science of Sociology defines the process of a people merging with a culture as cultural assimilation. Ergo, it is a well-established concept among mainstream scholars. Editors who, by their own admission, are not well informed about a subject are ill-advised to take a bellicose approach and make inroads in articles which are generally well sourced. This behavior is liable to result in edit warring. Malik047 (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

You're attacking the straw man. I didn't contest the definition within "science of sociology". What the Normans did went beyond cultural assimilation, they did exactly what the Frankish Germanic people did when among Latin speakers, what the Bulgars did when among Slavs, and what many nations have historically done. Cultural assimilation only refers to nations adopting other peoples' traditions (as Greeks, Albanians, southern Serbs, Bulgarians, etc. did with Turks during Ottoman rule - cultural assimilation yes, ethnic assimilation no.). With regards "bellicose apprach", I don't need to know the works of Shakespeare to know he couldn't have been born on February 31st. --OJ (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Your confusion appears to stem from an improper understanding of the term "Frankish". Historians broadly use "Frank" for two separate but closely related groups: Germanic tribes who inhabited the land between the Lower and Middle Rhine, and those among these Germanic tribes who later merged - culturally as well as ethnically - with the Gallo-Roman populations of Roman Gaul. The maternal heritage of the Normans stems from the latter group. Ergo, the Norman cultural & genetic make-up was as Frankish and Roman in origin as it was Norse. As things stand, your interpretation of these historical events is not supported by secondary sources, and therefore qualifies as WP:SYNTH. In the absence of a reliable secondary source which explicitly corroborates the interpretation you have laid out above, any edits aimed at advancing that interpretation in the article will be reverted. This won't be changing. Malik047 (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no confusion from me. Today the country called France has a name of Germanic origin while the population is a direct descendant of Latin speaking people who assimilated the Germanic people, and when encountering the Normans, it happened a second time. The "two separate groups called Frank" as you describe has no relevance to the points I raised; you acknowledge they are Germanic and that is all. I am happy with the article after my last edit, and the only SYNTH here is your fanciful theory that Normans became "Gallo-Romanlike" but continued to co-exist as a Norse people alongside the Gallo-Romans in the same way Hungarians and Serbs live among each other in Subotica. So unless you can find secondary, or even primary/tertiary sources to support your claim, your preferred version won't be returning either. Best to cut your losses and stop trying to behave like some kind of authority over the article simply because you are versed in the subject. As I said, my point is that simple that it neither requires expert knowledge nor sources. You're the one advocating that a Nordic people co-existed with a Romanic race after "cultural assimilation". --OJ (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Normans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070523045823/http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9377080/Roger-II to http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9377080/Roger-II
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326114613/http://www.jerseyheritagetrust.org/edu/resources/pdf/normans.pdf to http://www.jerseyheritagetrust.org/edu/resources/pdf/normans.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Decline

The article should more clearly explain the decline of the Normans, which is barely mentioned, if at all. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 17:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

"Germanic ethnic group"?

Lately, an editor has seen it fit to label the Normans as a "Germanic ethnic group" in the article's opening sentence, justifying himself with the fact that the Normans are descended from Germanic Vikings. However, modern scholarship defines Germanic peoples as speakers of Germanic languages, and the Normans didn't fit this criteria in 1066, and they still don't today, which makes the "Germanic" moniker misleading if not outright wrong. Moreover, it is redundant because the opening sentence does a great job at highlighting the group's Viking ancestry without referring to linguistic groups at any point; "are an ethnic group that arose in Normandy, a northern region of France, from contact between Viking settlers and indigenous Franks and Gallo-Romans".

For this reason, I have been undoing each and every of those edits, and will keep doing so until consensus is reached. Qualcomm250 (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

In any case the beginning of the article is incorrect. It's normandy that got its name from the Normans, not the other way around. Barjimoa (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The beginning of the article didn't claim otherwise. If you want to specify that "Normandy" is from Norman, then you should add content to the etymology section of the article. The opening paragraph is too convoluted now. Qualcomm250 (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The article already says what's the etymology of normans, but the opening paragraph is in contrast with that because it states incorrectly that the Normans arose in Normandy. They pre-existed their arrival in Normandy. Like the Lombards pre-existed their arrival in Lombardy. This is also stated in the britannica article and the first source of this article says it as well. Barjimoa (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• I mean that you can always edit the etymology section to specify that "Normandy" comes from Norman and not the other way around. It doesn't have its place in the opening paragraph because the opening paragraph should be as concise as possible. Qualcomm250 (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Short description and intro are factually incorrect and in contrast with the sources provided

The Normans are usually described as Frenchified Vikings, but the intro and short description of this are all about the Frenchfied-part while omitting almost everything of the Viking-part. The result is a disaster, especially when it comes to the (mis)interpretation of the sources provided.

• The Britannica source provided says that the Normans were those Vikings, or Norsemen, who settled in northern France (or the Frankish kingdom), together with their descendants. The Normans founded the duchy of Normandy and sent out expeditions of conquest and colonization to southern Italy and Sicily and to England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland.
  • Not only the intro does not mention that (instead there is a generic "a people" rather than the specific "Vikings") but the short description of this article still says that the Normans originated in Normandy. Which is absurd. Again, it would be like saying that the Lombards originated in Lombardy.

• The same Britannica source says that Normans is alternative of Nortmanni meaning Northmen
  • This is absent. The only thing there is it's a Latin term rendered as Normanni rather than Nortmanni. Why? Is Britannica wrong on this?

• There is source by Chibnall, 1999 saying that In Normandy the conquering northmen had assimilated...the indigenous Frankish and Gallo-Roman peoples
  • The Wiki intro uses it to say the exact opposite: "Through generations of mixing with the native Frankish and Gallo-Roman populations, their descendants gradually became assimilated into the Carolingian-based cultures of France." Note that this is in contrast with another statement of the Wiki article "The new Norman rulers were culturally and ethnically distinct from the old French aristocracy, most of whom traced their lineage to the Franks of the Carolingian dynasty from the days of Charlemagne in the 9th century". Which one is correct?

• This is the portrait given by the Britannica source to the Normans:Despite their eventual conversion to Christianity, their adoption of the French language, and their abandonment of sea roving for Frankish cavalry warfare in the decades following their settlement in Normandy, the Normans retained many of the traits of their piratical Viking ancestors. They displayed an extreme restlessness and recklessness, a love of fighting accompanied by almost foolhardy courage, and a craftiness and cunning that went hand in hand with outrageous treachery. In their expansion into other parts of Europe, the Normans compiled a record of astonishingly daring exploits in which often a mere handful of men would vanquish an enemy many times as numerous. An unequaled capacity for rapid movement across land and sea, the use of brutal violence, a precocious sense of the use and value of money—these are among the traits traditionally assigned to the Normans.
  • This intro fails to mention all of their traits typical of Viking expansion, giving basically zero weigth to their Norse traits. Note that this article is part of the Norse peoject, but you wouldn't be able to tell from the short description and intro.

I'll see what I can do but I keep getting misunderstood. For now, i put this here so I can redirect users to the talk page istead of making my points over and over in the edit box. Barjimoa (talk) 12:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I can agree that the intro fails to take note of some possible Viking traits of the Normans. However, your edits as they appear to me completely discount their Gallicised ones.

Most of the confusion stems from what exactly is a Norman. The word "Norman" comes from Old French Normant, a word referring to all Vikings and Norsemen. But seeing as Wikipedia already has an article on Vikings and an article on Norsemen, people aren't coming to this article to read about them, therefore it is about those inhabitants of the Duchy of Normandy who eventually conquered England and Sicily. In that regard, calling them Vikings is completely counterintuitive, and in fact Britannica goes against consensus on this; it goes against Marjorie Chibnall, the author of one of the sources who clearly distinguishes between Norman and Northman in her 2001 book "The Normans"; it goes against the historian R. Allen Brown, who in his similarly named 1994 book, makes the same distinction as he posits that these Northmen became Normans as they assimilated to the local culture. This is probably why this Britannica article is only cited when referring to Rollo's pledge of allegiance to Charles III.

To summarise, it would be wrong to cite the Britannica article when discussing the Normans' origins as it is a tertiary source that goes against consensus. And including some of the defining traits that it lists would mean going against WP:NPOV; foolhardy courage, craftiness and cunning that went hand in hand with outrageous treachery, unequaled capacity. It definitely reads like a 1950's children book about Vikings as User:Jalwikip wisely noted on this talk page before. Let us favour secondary sources and the work of historians; I will be adding sources more in line with the current intro. It is true that Marjorie Chibnall's citation seems a little weak in this context, however I have just the thing. And to be honest, I don't think this article should even be part of the Norse project; I mean, Rus people isn't. I just didn't remove it out of courtesy and respect for the project.

Now, to address your other two points, Medieval Latin shows a lot of variation depending on the author, so it's perfectly possible that both forms are correct. However, most chronicles seem to refer to the Normans as gens Normannorum, without the T. Make of that what you want, it really is a non-matter either way. And the two statements aren't in conflict with each other, because Ukrainians and Russians are culturally and ethnically different despite being part of similar Rus-based cultures. Qualcomm250 (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

How can you say that my edit discounted the Gallicised part? I had only added the Norse stuff (now deleted) without removing the French part. Let's take the wording aside for a moment. The substance of what I have read (even if we exclude Britannica) is that:

• It is impossible that the "Normans arose in Normandy". So this article starts off with a sourceless sentence. I'm sorry, but I don't see how it can stay. All the sources here talking about the Normans (and it seems to me that they mean it in the narrow sense, not wider Norsemen) do use the term for describing those Vikings who settled in France and their descendants even if they don't have precisely the wording of Britannica. "Those Vikings" were the original Normans and gave the name to Normandy, and not the other way around as this intro/short-description makes one think. "Their descendants" who continued to be called Normans were Viking settlers mixed with the assimilated Franks. This intro fails to make clear the sequence.

• This intro only says that they frenchified, adopted French religion and French language. But again fails to address what Viking aspects they retained and which they abandonded, making pointless the whole intro. Sort of like "They converted to Christianity". from what? "They adopted Old French"? from what? etc. etc. And, even more importantly, the elements of contintuity are completely missing. Britannica's wording may not be fine to us but at least that article has a correct structure in dealing with the subject.

This is also how the new author provided [R. Allen Brow] treats the subject, but again the Viking part has been left out: "The Normans were Vikings in origin....the connection between Normandy and its parent Scandinavia was long maintained after 911...".

It seems that there is no way out: every book/author/encyclopedia addresses the situation in these terms, so why shouldn't we? Barjimoa (talk) 09:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

It's only impossible that the Normans arose in Normandy insofar as the region was named after the conquering Norsemen. But if, hypothetically, we were to admit that the Normans this article refers to arose from contact between the Norse settlers and the locals, then it is perfectly possible and only becomes a matter of wording, and the issue becomes how to refer to Normandy while specifying that it was created as a fiefdom and as a region as a result of the Viking settlement, not forgetting to stress the fact that the Normans are neither Viking nor French. Let it be clear, however, that the sources do distinguish between Norman and Norseman. Chibnall's book, "The Normans", is used as a source in the article and refers to the Normans as mixed-blooded. Nowhere does she refer to the initial Norse settlers as Normans, and neither does R. Allen Brown. Not even in the example that you cited; no one is denying that the Normans have Viking origins. It's completely beside the point. If we were to admit that the Normans are a mix of Vikings, and local Franks and Gallo-Romans(which Allen Brown does in his other citation), then this statement wouldn't be any less true. You claim that every source addresses the situation in those terms, but you have yet to provide any evidence in that regard, Britannica excluded. Qualcomm250 (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

"Gallo-Germanic"

@Goodendag: you added the text "Gallo-Germanic" in the lead sentence, sourced to a YouTube video. Such videos are generally not reliable sources, and this particular one appears to be mere music that does not serve as a useful reference in this context. Per WP:BRD, I have reverted your edit and invite you to discuss your changes here. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 21:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Clarify lead comment

"Norman adventurers played a role in founding the Kingdom of Sicily under Roger II after briefly conquering southern Italy and Malta from the Saracens and Byzantines, during an expedition on behalf of their duke, William the Conqueror, which also led to the Norman conquest of England at the historic Battle of Hastings in 1066."

How did the Norman conquests of southern Italy, Malta, and Sicily lead to the conquest of England? Fences&Windows 13:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

In January 2017 the article said: "Norman adventurers founded the Kingdom of Sicily under Roger II after conquering southern Italy from the Saracens and Byzantines, and an expedition on behalf of their duke, William the Conqueror, led to the Norman conquest of England at the Battle of Hastings in 1066." I think this version was better.--3knolls (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

3knolls, thanks! That's much better, I've used that wording again. Fences&Windows 13:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Removing this line from "Ireland section"

" Except for the native surname Fitzpatrick, a gallicisation of Mac Giolla Phádraig/Ó Maol Phádraig."

This is disputed, so I'm removing it from the article. The Dictionary of American Family names (Oxford University Press) lists both Norman and Irish origins for this surname. If you don't have access to the source, see Ancestry dot com's description, which was copied from the DAF.Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Article Opening

Hi, 3knolls.

Can you please stop trying to possess ownership of this article? I don't know what your interest is in altering the meaning of the text, but the fact that you are now lying in the edit summaries shows that this is not being done in good faith. This article has always stated that 'the Normans are/were an ethnic group'. There was no edit made on 18 September 2020. If you go back as far as 2018, it still says 'the Normans are an ethnic group'. 021120x (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are wrong. Before this edit the article, regularly preceded by a hatnote, always stated «the Normans were...» : 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014 etc.--3knolls (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

There is either a misunderstanding here or a deliberate misinterpretation. The article currently says 'the Normans were inhabitants'. It previously read, 'the Normans were an ethnic group'. It used the term "ethnic group" for multiple years, which you've even validated in your diffs. The phrase 'ethnic group' was removed on 22 March 2021 without an explanation. The original wording was restored. What, exactly, is your issue with the term "ethnic group"? 021120x (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the original wording was: «The Normans were the people who gave their name to Normandy». Indeed "ethnic group" is not an accurate definition for the Normans (nor is it suitable for the Vikings), because "Norman" merely means "Norseman", and hence all the Norse formed a single ethnic group.--3knolls (talk) 05:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

That is the etymology of the name of their ethnic group. They arose through a syncretism of the invading Norse Vikings with the indigenous Gallo-French. They had their own culture, including their own origin myth, and own dialect (which is still spoken today) – completely distinct from the Norse. They are a specific ethnic group of people. 2018 to present 021120x (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be a pretty reliable source, and it states: «The Normans were the people of Normandy». However I'd have no objection to swapping «people» for «population», but I couldn't find any reliable sources stating that the Normans were an «ethnic group», which would have a quite different meaning.--3knolls (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Why would any sources need to write that they were an ethnic group? That they were an ethnic group is self-evident. They were not just people living in Northern France. They formed a unique subculture as they occupied that territory, where they developed their own unique dialect of Old French, religious practices, customs. That they had an ethnic identity is obvious by the simple fact that they have a name -- 'Normans' -- used to distinguish them from other groups that lived in the region.

Here's a source calling them an ethnic group [7]. I support restoring the original wording.Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeed the current opening maintains exactly the original wording. However, Normans didn't have a distinct own name, because they shared their name with Norsemen (conversely, Vikings did have an own name, but not even they were a distinct ethnic group). Furthermore, the source cited by you does not state "the Normans were an ethnic group", but compares the Normans with other "cultural, linguistic, or ethnic" medieval groups instead.--3knolls (talk) 06:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

No, the source says exactly that. "More than any other cultural, linguistic, or ethnic group in medieval Europe, the Normans inspire the question.." The phrase "more than any other" implies the Normans were a cultural, linguistic and ethnic group in Medieval Europe (and they were). If I said to you, "More than any other candidate, William received the most votes," what's that sound like to you? That William's not a candidate?

Come on, the sentence was perfectly clear.Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Britannica states Normans were members of Vikings or Norsemen, which means: Normans plus Vikings plus Norsemen formed an ethnic group. I would agree to write that an ethnic group was formed by Normans, Vikings and Norsemen, but not Normans alone, unless you would consider "Normans" as a mere synonym of "Vikings" and "Norsemen", which would imply "Vikings" and "Norsemen" redirecting to the present article.--3knolls (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm really not following you. The Vikings were Norsemen. The Normans did not form an ethnic group; the Normans were an ethnic group that formed via contact between Norse Vikings and indigenous Gallo-Romans and Franks in what is now Northern France.Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Currently this article says: "The intermingling of Norse settlers and native Franks and Gallo-Romans in Normandy produced an ethnic and cultural "Norman" identity". Why do you want to obliterate the word "cultural", if even your source states so? I would rather add the word "linguistic", if ever (Wikipedia has an article dedicated to the Norman language too). If even your source uses three adjectives ("cultural", "linguistic", "ethnic"), there is no reason for singling out "ethnic" only.--3knolls (talk) 07:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Having a cultural identity is a universal feature of ethnic groups. To say that a group has an 'ethnic identity' but no 'cultural identity' is incoherent [8].Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

However an ethnic identity does not necessarily imply a linguistic identity, so I would simply suggest replacing "cultural" with "linguistic".--3knolls (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The Norman Conquest of Scotland

The Norman invasion and Conquest of Scotland is invariably under-reported - not least by modern Scottish writers who often seem to prefer that it never happened.

A reading of the wikipages on David I and and Henry I is enlightening.

Henry, son of William the Conqueror, organised the Norman invasion, but it was nominally headed by Prince David heir to the throne of Alba (the Celtic Highland Kingdom then known to English speakers as 'Scotland'). With Henry's Norman-French army David seized the crown of Alba, but set up his base in Edinburgh, in Alba's English province of Lothian.

On Henry's death a Norman civil war ensued 'the Anarchy'. The consequence was that David now King of the Albanach (known only in English as 'King of the Scots') and his Norman allies and supporters were left with an independent Anglo-Norman kingdom based in Lothian, with the old Celtic highland kingdom of Alba as a territorial rump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.217.179 (talk) 13:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)