The fact that we never got our independence day despite becoming independent from France drove the english people for the next 800 years to create the most independence days there could ever be on planet earth!
The English monarchs did, all the way up until 1802, though they were never again in a position to enforce that claim after the loss of Calais in 1558.
@@MonsieurDean England only releases its claim on the French throne in the 1800s. France is rightful English soil. (Its more like France got independence from France, not through other way round as in the video. The ruling class of England was culturally "Frankish" yes, but France didn't exist yet, and the English nobles sought to gain as much land in France as possible, at one point fully conquring it, with the "double coronated" Richard I who was King of all England and France.)
The 100 years war began as a Civil War between French nobility and their vassals over the French throne. And ended as a war for independence but by assimilating the Norman and Angevin nobles into a Anglicized identity who increasingly regarded themselves as English as they're land holdings in France diminished. Over time the French nobles became English. Had the English won the 100s year war we'd regard it as a Plantagenet rebellion in civil war with the Capet dynasty. The 100 years war started out as a Capetian-Plantagenet Civil War into England succeeding from France after they lost. Had the English won the war, The Plantagenets would not of Anglicized and England would just be a Gallicized French province. After all, England already was partly gallicized and thousands from Normandy, Anjou, Picarde and other French regions emigrated from France and immigrated to Britain. This immigration would never of stop had the English won the war. France conquered England via their Norman vassal. England payed taxes to Normandy who paid taxes to France. England even debated for a while how much French culture, literature and law to absorb and if the court should speak French. English culture has a lot of French influence in art, architecture, language, literature, poetry, folklore etc. Thankfully we didn't become a colony and replica of France. England instead of Gallicized, has Anglicized the French nobles in England.
I disagree by this point English saints had become popular, English was spoken both formally and informally in court(edward 3 and Henry v) and English identity had begun to be established after Henry I
@@Yellow-kp9gs the English self awareness progress throughout the 100 years war. Day one of the Capetian-Plantagenet rivaly it was French nobles in civil war. Not the last day of this God forsaken war
The most intense French-ification of England occurs in the 1160s when Eleanore of Aquitaine the recently removed queen of France and the head of the house of Poitiers which was by far the most powerful group of aristocracy outside of Paris, married King Henry of Henry, brought her insane wealth and entourage to London and gave Henry 3 sons including Richard the Lionheart. England was definitely under France’s thumb but NOT under Paris’s thumb.
Thats an outright lie. France and England had its seperate nobility. Nobody was under anyones thumb. When William conqured England, Normans werent even allowed to spend Norman money in England, and when half of France fell under the English crown, the French nobels settled their own disputes often playing both kings off agsinst each other to get the result they wanted.
The war wasn’t about independence. But I agree the war accelerated English identity and its growth but English identity had already been growing for centuries by this point.
English identity was growing in different directions would be more accurate. Your talking about amalgamating and eventual supplanting of Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Norse, and Franco-Norman culture. The Normans more so replaced the old culture, which was dominantly Anglo Saxon, until the Anglo Saxons had something of a cultural resurgence following the plague.
@@MonsieurDean I would disagree, Celtic culture only existed in Cornwall, Roman culture was down to religion (Catholic Church and using Latin). Norman culture had started to join wjth Anglo Saxon culture by this point (praising Anglo Saxon saints, including Anglo Saxon history as there own etc)
This video is false and misleading... if anything french were fighting for independence from England since king Edward had claims to the french throne. If it wasn't for the story of Joan arch than the Frank's might not even exist today
This is amazing. I never understood the weird dynamic between early english and french kingdoms since the idea of french and english were just emerging
England had been Anglo-Saxon for centuries, it was France who was emerging as a culture separate from the Frankish empire. Modern England is still rooted culturally in 7-8th century Anglo-saxon England.
@@Alfred5555and? Bretons we’re Bretons for hundreds of years and the francs and barbarians migrating from Czech and Netherlands areas have always comprised that demographic of francs
@@Halcon_Sierreno no, the vast majority of the population aren’t. But going back nearly 1000 years the royal family is in one way or another descendant of French nobility.
Nah, I don't think we should go as far as to say that England gained independence from france. More accurately, the 'English' monarchs happened to own french land as a nominal vassal of the french king. They claimed the French throne, but eventually lost all their french possesions. France never really even claimed overlordship over England itself, so England was, in fact, independent all the time.
They were not Franch vassals, England legitimately owned half of France as English soil, the English king was King of France at one point. The French culture and nation eventually rose up and cast out the English presence, not the other way round.
@@Alfred5555 you can say that, but that still doesn't mean that England itself had to gain their independence from the French. The reality is often more complicated, and the King of England owning french land is not the same as those french lands being part of the country called England.
@@nathanc939 *Norman yes. Frank no, France didn't exist, it was Frankish still, Frankia. The Anglo-Normans even spoke their own dialect of Old Frankish
@@Magnus_Ducatus_ChinevaAs French. I'd say our Mainland France and England are the Angevin Twin Empire. The Original Blue and Red team 🇫🇷🟦⚜️🏴🟥👑 That gave birth to North America 🇺🇸🇨🇦🇲🇶 in mid 18th
France never had England… 😂😂 You are talking about the Angevin Empire (England, Normandy and Aquitaine) which was ruled over by an Anglo-Normand King through marriage to French aristocracy. It didn’t last long as France took back the land taken and England and Normandy decided to go separate ways.
New American led North Sea Anglo-Franco Empire. It was common in the south to learn French pre Civil War and pockets of Illinois and Missouri French dialects still exist of course, there’s New England French which is Quebecois, Muskrat French in Michigan, Mètis French in North Dakota, Louisiana French is divided into Colonial, Cajun derived from Acadian, and Creole French. Theirs an English Creole in South Carolina and Georgia called Gullah or Geechee
nope, France never had an english motto. England still has its own in french. England never belonged directly to the King of France (only briefly to Louis VIII in 1216), but the kings of England were french for centuries
Fairly sure you've got that title backwards my friend the English king had more land in France than the French King did. Also ignores the fact that the Norman's were bairly French by the time they invaded England. they settled there in the 9th century.
The Normans were as French as anyone in 1066 Guillaume William itself was 1/32 viking and the soldiers he invaded England with were Frankish soldiers because 2000 Normans in the 800's didn't replaced the 100 000 French/Franks that lived there. Then the Plantagenet were French kings of England fighting for France as they didn't cared about England and that's why they always claimed to be kings of France too never king of England especially since Richard Coeur de Lion they always had a bad view of the swampy british isles and most of them lived in Aquitaine and Southern France speaking Occitan, old French, Latin but couldn't care less about learning old english
In William's time, the Normans had nothing to do with the Vikings. Not only were Rollo and his men not so numerous, unlike the Bretons who were able to keep their Celtic language for centuries among its population. This therefore implies that their children quickly assimilated with the Franks and the Gallo-Romans. Whether in terms of Language, regional habits and customs (therefore those already existing in Neustria), dress and facial style, Trade/Commerce, Marriages/Mixed DNA, the Art of War (Chivalry/Heavy Cavalry, or Castles), Politics (Feudal System, Vassalage to the King of the Franks)...and most importantly Christianity. William himself had more Frankish blood in his veins than Scandinavians. His army was made up of Normans, but also of Barons from all over northern France (ranging from Brittany to Flanders). This shows how much they were already a part of the Medieval Francophone world (like the Burgundians, the Picards, the Angevins, Poitevins, Francilians etc...). They even sang the "Song of Roland" during the conquest, the epic about the Frankish figure in the French Medieval Literature. There might have been remnants of Scandinavia, but it wasn't so obvious anymore.
@@tibsky1396 OK to suggest that there was no breeding between the norse settlers particularly in the upper echelons is contrary to just about every other example of colonisation in history including the Norman's own behaviour in both England and the South of Italy. I haven't done an exact genealogy but I'm willing to bet that Williams 23 and me would reveal a higher percentage of scandanavian than Francish. Secondly the idea that a people who were given land specifically for there martial prowess, then abandoning the practices and tactics that gave them that prowess in the first place. Only to then 5 generations later established a Completely separate martial tradition that allowed them to be the greatest military power in Europe. That seems far less likely to me than they maintained and adapted there norse training and tactics. I mean have you seen the bayern tapestry? The equipment (sans horses) could have been looted from the great heathen army wholesale, mail huberks helms with nasal guards, kite shields. Niw I will admit that the decisive tactic in the battle ( cavalry) was only made possible by there relocation to France. But only an eighth of his army were mounted so the vast bulk of his 8000 men, were tactically, and materially indistinguishable from the Thanes of the Great heathen army.
@@tibsky1396 You're wrong and the video on my channel proves it. Not even the French that were alive in 1066 called Normans "Frenchman", its a modern invention by angry French. And why did the Normans invade England in Viking style dragon boats and use the viking raven banner if they cared so much about the French.?
And then in 1947 Britain gained its independence from India, with their separation preventing an empire where the numerically dominant Indians would overwhelm them. Of course, this was almost two centuries after Britain's previous independence from America, given that the colonies were on course to do the same thing.
no, clearly the other way around, early "england" king prefer living in their french continental territory and despised (in a arrogant way) the under developped england
It's not really England getting independent from France. The Normans conquered a part of France in 910 and in 1066 they conquered England, but they lost their original possesions in France in 1204 to the French king. Still England (ruled by decendents of the Normans) had possesions in France until 1453. In short: England was never a dependency of France.
in 1204 it was not the Normans anymore but the Plantagenest who had taken over the Normans 50 years before. England was not a dependency of France per se but was under french princes authority for centuries. The term "independance from France" might be exagerated but England was definitely under french influence and ruled by french houses.
@@tTantPisForFrance “debased the house of Plantagenet and moved it to England” 😅 naaa she “debased” it to Singapore buddy 😂😂 And that’s probably why Richard spent only 6 month in his whole f…ing life in England and couldn’t speak a single word of English. You’re a funny bloke
In ww2 the French wanted to give France away to the British Empire. Look it up online, when France nearly became a province of England during WW2. 😂❤ 🇬🇧
Key word:"almost" english copium is hard in that one ngl, still didn't digest French domination...lmao. and just to clarify something: France wasn't going to be in salty Brits dominance but american, keep trying to make your own version of history as your kind is known for🇨🇵⚜️🦅
This video is difficult to understand without context. (i.e the Anglo Saxon conquest of the celts and Romans, the Viking raids, the 100 years war and the war of the roses.)
France didn’t control England. The Norman’s were not French, they were Norman a franco Norse mesh and as duke William became king of England he did not swear fealty or pay tax etc to the king of France
@@fautlsavoirhein it wasn’t french. It was Norman in culture and ethnicity, which is literally a combination of Norse and Frank. The invasion was not a french invasion, it was a Norman invasion. And once it was concluded, France didn’t control England, the king of England, who was also the Duke of Normandy, had no allegiance to the King of France.
@tag10 The Normans integrated into French culture by the time of willaim the conqueror. Also you're mistaken. The English kings did owe their loyalty to the king of France as dukes of French duchies. Phillip Augustus justified his invasion of John's holdings in France because he refused to answer his summons. Even English kings like Edward long shanks were forced to kneel to the French king
Wrong. Norman kings ruled in a dualistic sense. Yes, Normandy and other inherited mainland possessions were vassal states of France. The Kingdom of England however was a separate entity at least in a nominal sense.
Fathom if instead of french words go intoing english, old english words in time went into french, or barely norman french. maybe the english win in 1066, and choose to infall normandy back, and spow.
no if england won the hundred years’ war it would be an actual loss for england as more and more french and latin culture would come absorbing and eventually taking over english culture and eventually english would just become a pidgin language or a creole of french 1100-1453 is usually the era of french and latin influences on england
@@shawnv123 That’s not a lose considering French and Latin culture is civilised and Germanic culture is barbaric. England would be better today if it had a Latin culture
Good quick analysis, but I'd add one tidbit that shows identity at this time was even murkier than that. You see, the chunk of France, the vassal that conquered England, was not so much French as it was Frenchified vikings.
England as a part of the wider French culture? I don’t think you really understand this period and what exactly was happening in the formation of English and French national identity.
Exactly. “England had long drifted away from its Anglo Saxon roots” ???? This is literally the period where the Anglo Saxon identity appeared at large. It’s the time of raising nationalism…
@@L333gok 30% of your language comes from french 20% from latin Have you ever paused to wonder why? Yeah you were ruled by French Dukes with English lands for centuries, they did drift away from their anglo saxon roots until Henry IV thats a fact not sure how much clearer one can make it
It's strange how the French like to claim how, if the English had of won, then England would be property of France and all English would be Frenchified...surely then, don't they support the King of England's claim to France over thier own king's...don't these French claims sound rather ridiculous? N'est-ce pas?
More like how did the french gain independence from the english lol, i mean look at the map... if it wasnt for joan of arch then the franks wouldnt exist. The Britain's are not the same as the Franks even though nobility spoke french simply because the owned wealthy lands in France
sorry but to suggest the Normans we’re culturally french… is completely wrong. The norman’s, while commonly genetically french, were culturally very distinct and the entire feudal system was known for hating the french, frankly… the norman’s hated the french and their culture and when they took England they took that hatred with them. England was never ‘owned’ by France in this way.
Saying they hated the French is also wrong, there wasn't a "french" to hate but many different duchies, counties, etc, it was only after Phillip Augustus conquered Angevin lands in France that the French state emerged as a strong power.
@@Heisenberg882 sorry but that’s wrong. sigh. although they were different duchys they were of the same culture, like how you don’t identify every single part of the HRE as it’s own culture you do the same for the french. they were french. sorry. but if you’re going to argue there is no french identity how can you defend the entire basis of the video?
@@obviousgorilla124 There literally wasn’t, national identity’s wouldn’t even emerge in Europe until the 18th and 19th centuries. Old French was only spoken by people around Paris, there were dozens of languages all across France like Occitan, Breton, Poitevin, aquitainian, and many more. It wasn’t even called the kingdom of France until 1190, it was the kingdom of west francia.
@@Heisenberg882 are you suggesting there wasnt a french culture? what? it doesnt matter if it was known as a french culture, it existed and the normans despised it.
This fails to mention the very relevant point that Norman’s (the upper classes at least) where not french they were Nordic they excepted the french king so they wouldn’t be invaded although in reality the french crown had very little control of the Norman kingdom and after 1066 practically all Important governance took place in England was the seat of power and therefore it must be concluded that England was its own country who’s rulers also ruled parts of France
In William's time, the Normans had nothing to do with the Vikings. Not only were Rollo and his men not so numerous, unlike the Bretons who were able to keep their Celtic language for centuries among its population. This therefore implies that their children quickly assimilated with the Franks and the Gallo-Romans. Whether in terms of Language, regional habits and customs (therefore those already existing in Neustria), dress and facial style, Trade/Commerce, Marriages/Mixed DNA, the Art of War (Chivalry/Heavy Cavalry, or Castles), Politics (Feudal System, Vassalage to the King of the Franks)...and most importantly Christianity. William himself had more Frankish blood in his veins than Scandinavians. His army was made up of Normans, but also of Barons from all over northern France (ranging from Brittany to Flanders). This shows how much they were already a part of the Medieval Francophone world (like the Burgundians, the Picards, the Angevins, Poitevins, Francilians etc...). They even sang the "Song of Roland" during the conquest, the epic about the Frankish figure in the French Medieval Literature. There might have been remnants of Scandinavia, but it wasn't so obvious anymore.
Normandy wasn’t really Nordic though. Politically, it was kind of its own thing for a while, a vassal of France in theory, but more independent in reality. Genetically, the Normans were a mixture of the Gauls, Franks, Scandinavians and the English, hence why people from Normandy look more Northern European than people from southern France, but still definitely not Scandinavian.
Sorry, but this is just a lazy narrative drawn up, which Ignores crucial Details which distort reality.Even whilst the Normans occupied mainland England, they were not dominating the culture as: - *there were only tens of thousands, and 2.5 million Anglo-Saxons and Celts(1066) and this disparity only grew over time as early as 13th century The main literature in England was by Chaucer, purely in old English, not a hybrid Norse influenced dialect of "old French" *The most revolutionary weapon of the high Middle Ages was the "English longbow", clearly traceable to being invented and developed by Anglo-Saxons and Celts on the Welsh border. *All the victories of the English in the 100 years War, leading to England OCCUPYING MOST OF FRANCE for several decades, were distinctly "ENGLISH VICTORIES", due to not only the English longbow, but the archers and footsoldiers, which made the dramatic difference - 90% of them were Anglo-Saxon and Celtic.This occupation for decades pretty much makes France a colony of England, if you are going to call the occupation of a small group of Normans, a French colony; Thosse footsolddiers and archers certainly integrated with the French women, If you know what I mean😀. Without these factors the hybrid Viking/old French knights wouldn't have won a single battle against the much more highly populated France and more numerous French knights. *If History dictates that the Norman's remained French, after Rollo and his Viking mercenaries (tens of thousands) were given the region of Normandy to control, and occupied an area with only hundreds of thousands of French, then if we are being consistennt and logical, critical reasoning shows that If only tens of thousands of hybrid Viking/old French knights(Normans) defeated Harolds Anglo-Saxon men and occupied a country of 2.5million, and were clearly slowly integrated then England remained having Engllish cullture *Voltaire when running away from backward French culture based Marvelled at the superior sophistication of the English culture, with its Separation of monarchy from merchants/nobles and church, freedom of speech and religious tolerance, to be found nowhere else in the world, since so many revolts and items of human and civil rights legislation, leading to parliamentary democracy (1689) **Voltaire's written works included "England is the land of liberty… A place I can learn to think" "England is a nation of philosophers" and "England taught Europe how to think." These are all points from him running away from backward French culture in 1726 and in, letters to friends and the books, la Henrietta, and Lettres sur la Anglais.
I don't see how the words of vulvoltaire prove your points about the hundred years war also the English kings defenedly wanted the frech grown I am sorry kid put the long bow wasn't the most revolutionary weapon
Where are you getting these numbers from? There are no sources on how many Celts were in Britain before hand (2.5 million seems like a crazy exaggeration considering that would mean the population would have had to decline by 1.5 million in next few hundred years, whilst the rest of Europe’s was increasing). Modern genetic studies put Anglo Saxon DNA as making up around 30-40% of modern English DNA depending on the region; Celtic DNA only makes up around 50%, and that’s only if you include the Central Europeans who brought Celtic culture to Britain as being Celts themselves. Obviously these studies don’t tell us 30-40% of Britons in 1066 were Anglo Saxons, since it’s reasonable to assume that the Anglo Saxons had a higher birth rate and survival rate, but it doesn’t really paint the picture of them being 1% like you’re suggesting.
@@obviousgorilla124 I don't see it happening without loyalist terrorist groups getting extremely violent, i think that's the 1st thing everyone will need to take into account before whatever else will be on their mind.
Excerpt from What If England Conquered France In The 100 Years War: ruclips.net/video/eQJhC6Im7ZU/видео.html
Holy British Empire?
Not holy
Nor british
Nor an empire
Well that explains the dual monarchy lore in divergence of darkness
For a moment I thought this was a Code Geass reference 😅
🤓🤓🤓
Code Geass
*English not British
The fact that we never got our independence day despite becoming independent from France drove the english people for the next 800 years to create the most independence days there could ever be on planet earth!
If memory serves either the French or English monarch still claimed the throne of the other until the French Revolution.
The English monarchs did, all the way up until 1802, though they were never again in a position to enforce that claim after the loss of Calais in 1558.
France expulsed the britons, not the other way around 🤦♂️
@@MonsieurDean England only releases its claim on the French throne in the 1800s. France is rightful English soil. (Its more like France got independence from France, not through other way round as in the video. The ruling class of England was culturally "Frankish" yes, but France didn't exist yet, and the English nobles sought to gain as much land in France as possible, at one point fully conquring it, with the "double coronated" Richard I who was King of all England and France.)
@@pierren___ It was silly to suggest England might have an independence day from any other nation.
The 100 years war began as a Civil War between French nobility and their vassals over the French throne.
And ended as a war for independence but by assimilating the Norman and Angevin nobles into a Anglicized identity who increasingly regarded themselves as English as they're land holdings in France diminished. Over time the French nobles became English.
Had the English won the 100s year war we'd regard it as a Plantagenet rebellion in civil war with the Capet dynasty.
The 100 years war started out as a Capetian-Plantagenet Civil War into England succeeding from France after they lost. Had the English won the war, The Plantagenets would not of Anglicized and England would just be a Gallicized French province. After all, England already was partly gallicized and thousands from Normandy, Anjou, Picarde and other French regions emigrated from France and immigrated to Britain.
This immigration would never of stop had the English won the war.
France conquered England via their Norman vassal.
England payed taxes to Normandy who paid taxes to France.
England even debated for a while how much French culture, literature and law to absorb and if the court should speak French.
English culture has a lot of French influence in art, architecture, language, literature, poetry, folklore etc.
Thankfully we didn't become a colony and replica of France.
England instead of Gallicized, has Anglicized the French nobles in England.
I disagree by this point English saints had become popular, English was spoken both formally and informally in court(edward 3 and Henry v) and English identity had begun to be established after Henry I
@@Yellow-kp9gs the English self awareness progress throughout the 100 years war.
Day one of the Capetian-Plantagenet rivaly it was French nobles in civil war.
Not the last day of this God forsaken war
Rather England is a product of France. What you call english culture is the result of french colonisation
@@pierren___ Not really- English culture became a combination of Anglo Saxon, Breton and Frankish culture.
@@pierren___ agreed.
England is a Anglo-Saxon and Norman-Plantagenet French hybrid
The most intense French-ification of England occurs in the 1160s when Eleanore of Aquitaine the recently removed queen of France and the head of the house of Poitiers which was by far the most powerful group of aristocracy outside of Paris, married King Henry of Henry, brought her insane wealth and entourage to London and gave Henry 3 sons including Richard the Lionheart. England was definitely under France’s thumb but NOT under Paris’s thumb.
Thats an outright lie. France and England had its seperate nobility. Nobody was under anyones thumb. When William conqured England, Normans werent even allowed to spend Norman money in England, and when half of France fell under the English crown, the French nobels settled their own disputes often playing both kings off agsinst each other to get the result they wanted.
The war wasn’t about independence. But I agree the war accelerated English identity and its growth but English identity had already been growing for centuries by this point.
English identity was growing in different directions would be more accurate. Your talking about amalgamating and eventual supplanting of Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Norse, and Franco-Norman culture. The Normans more so replaced the old culture, which was dominantly Anglo Saxon, until the Anglo Saxons had something of a cultural resurgence following the plague.
@@MonsieurDean I would disagree, Celtic culture only existed in Cornwall, Roman culture was down to religion (Catholic Church and using Latin). Norman culture had started to join wjth Anglo Saxon culture by this point (praising Anglo Saxon saints, including Anglo Saxon history as there own etc)
This video is false and misleading... if anything french were fighting for independence from England since king Edward had claims to the french throne. If it wasn't for the story of Joan arch than the Frank's might not even exist today
Bro how do you make your maps? They're so simple yet good
This old map was made on Microsoft paint, but my current maps are made on Paint 3D.
@@MonsieurDean could u make an alt hist vid on France being Protestant
This is amazing. I never understood the weird dynamic between early english and french kingdoms since the idea of french and english were just emerging
England had been Anglo-Saxon for centuries, it was France who was emerging as a culture separate from the Frankish empire. Modern England is still rooted culturally in 7-8th century Anglo-saxon England.
@@Alfred5555thought about looking at your motto language before speaking
@@Alfred5555and? Bretons we’re Bretons for hundreds of years and the francs and barbarians migrating from Czech and Netherlands areas have always comprised that demographic of francs
Fun fact, we held the claim on France until the early 1800s.
Ew
@@Halcon_Sierreno Our monarchs from 1066 were some of the largest land holders in France for centuries, there should be no surprise.
@@Hollows1997 So.... you're French?
@@Halcon_Sierreno no, the vast majority of the population aren’t. But going back nearly 1000 years the royal family is in one way or another descendant of French nobility.
Not true at all. English monarchs gave up the right to the French throne after the 100 years war, none took it seriously after that.
Nah, I don't think we should go as far as to say that England gained independence from france. More accurately, the 'English' monarchs happened to own french land as a nominal vassal of the french king. They claimed the French throne, but eventually lost all their french possesions. France never really even claimed overlordship over England itself, so England was, in fact, independent all the time.
They were not Franch vassals, England legitimately owned half of France as English soil, the English king was King of France at one point. The French culture and nation eventually rose up and cast out the English presence, not the other way round.
@@Alfred5555 you can say that, but that still doesn't mean that England itself had to gain their independence from the French. The reality is often more complicated, and the King of England owning french land is not the same as those french lands being part of the country called England.
Nope, quiet the opposit, england was a french fief under the rule of a french family.
@@Alfred5555The nobility of England was entirely French.
@@nathanc939 *Norman yes.
Frank no, France didn't exist, it was Frankish still, Frankia.
The Anglo-Normans even spoke their own dialect of Old Frankish
England is the Austria of France.
(In what world does this sentence make sense? In ours. And that's hilarious)
English painter fails art school when?
@@FlaviusConstantinus306 well.. Apart from austria itself.. Yea
@@Magnus_Ducatus_ChinevaAs French. I'd say our Mainland France and England are the Angevin Twin Empire.
The Original Blue and Red team
🇫🇷🟦⚜️🏴🟥👑
That gave birth to North America 🇺🇸🇨🇦🇲🇶 in mid 18th
What if Japan won the Imjin War ?
France never had England… 😂😂
You are talking about the Angevin Empire (England, Normandy and Aquitaine) which was ruled over by an Anglo-Normand King through marriage to French aristocracy.
It didn’t last long as France took back the land taken and England and Normandy decided to go separate ways.
Yes not France as we hear today, but the Medieval French Speaking world had England.
@@tibsky1396 WRONG again, seriously open and read some history.
@@ChrisCrossClash "Dieu et mon droit" and "Honi soit qui mal y pense" sounds pretty intelligible for a French.
@@tibsky1396 Let me tell you this Britain/England has done more for the world than France ever did.
the angevin empire was ruled by the plantagenest house from Anjou, who were fully french
New American led North Sea Anglo-Franco Empire. It was common in the south to learn French pre Civil War and pockets of Illinois and Missouri French dialects still exist of course, there’s New England French which is Quebecois, Muskrat French in Michigan, Mètis French in North Dakota, Louisiana French is divided into Colonial, Cajun derived from Acadian, and Creole French. Theirs an English Creole in South Carolina and Georgia called Gullah or Geechee
....and let's not forget English that is, after all, a creole language born of Anglo-Saxon and French.
More like how France gained independence from England
English goon moment france litteraly created england goofball
@@smal750Modern England, sure, but England existed prior to French influence
nope, France never had an english motto. England still has its own in french.
England never belonged directly to the King of France (only briefly to Louis VIII in 1216), but the kings of England were french for centuries
Fairly sure you've got that title backwards my friend the English king had more land in France than the French King did. Also ignores the fact that the Norman's were bairly French by the time they invaded England. they settled there in the 9th century.
The Normans were as French as anyone in 1066 Guillaume William itself was 1/32 viking and the soldiers he invaded England with were Frankish soldiers because 2000 Normans in the 800's didn't replaced the 100 000 French/Franks that lived there. Then the Plantagenet were French kings of England fighting for France as they didn't cared about England and that's why they always claimed to be kings of France too never king of England especially since Richard Coeur de Lion they always had a bad view of the swampy british isles and most of them lived in Aquitaine and Southern France speaking Occitan, old French, Latin but couldn't care less about learning old english
In William's time, the Normans had nothing to do with the Vikings.
Not only were Rollo and his men not so numerous, unlike the Bretons who were able to keep their Celtic language for centuries among its population.
This therefore implies that their children quickly assimilated with the Franks and the Gallo-Romans.
Whether in terms of Language, regional habits and customs (therefore those already existing in Neustria), dress and facial style, Trade/Commerce, Marriages/Mixed DNA, the Art of War (Chivalry/Heavy Cavalry, or Castles), Politics (Feudal System, Vassalage to the King of the Franks)...and most importantly Christianity.
William himself had more Frankish blood in his veins than Scandinavians. His army was made up of Normans, but also of Barons from all over northern France (ranging from Brittany to Flanders).
This shows how much they were already a part of the Medieval Francophone world (like the Burgundians, the Picards, the Angevins, Poitevins, Francilians etc...).
They even sang the "Song of Roland" during the conquest, the epic about the Frankish figure in the French Medieval Literature.
There might have been remnants of Scandinavia, but it wasn't so obvious anymore.
@@tibsky1396 OK to suggest that there was no breeding between the norse settlers particularly in the upper echelons is contrary to just about every other example of colonisation in history including the Norman's own behaviour in both England and the South of Italy. I haven't done an exact genealogy but I'm willing to bet that Williams 23 and me would reveal a higher percentage of scandanavian than Francish.
Secondly the idea that a people who were given land specifically for there martial prowess, then abandoning the practices and tactics that gave them that prowess in the first place. Only to then 5 generations later established a Completely separate martial tradition that allowed them to be the greatest military power in Europe. That seems far less likely to me than they maintained and adapted there norse training and tactics. I mean have you seen the bayern tapestry? The equipment (sans horses) could have been looted from the great heathen army wholesale, mail huberks helms with nasal guards, kite shields.
Niw I will admit that the decisive tactic in the battle ( cavalry) was only made possible by there relocation to France. But only an eighth of his army were mounted so the vast bulk of his 8000 men, were tactically, and materially indistinguishable from the Thanes of the Great heathen army.
The fact is that the ENGLISH king was himself FRENCH
@@tibsky1396 You're wrong and the video on my channel proves it.
Not even the French that were alive in 1066 called Normans "Frenchman", its a modern invention by angry French. And why did the Normans invade England in Viking style dragon boats and use the viking raven banner if they cared so much about the French.?
I'm pretty sure England didn't occupie that much of Ireland during the 100 years war. It was only the Pale (dublin and some other counties).
And then in 1947 Britain gained its independence from India, with their separation preventing an empire where the numerically dominant Indians would overwhelm them. Of course, this was almost two centuries after Britain's previous independence from America, given that the colonies were on course to do the same thing.
Wasn't it the other way around? France kicked England out of the mainland and established their own country under solely french influence?
short and sweet
Shouldn't the title be how France gained its independence from England.
no, clearly the other way around, early "england" king prefer living in their french continental territory and despised (in a arrogant way) the under developped england
Nope, it was the normans (vasals to France), who conquered England not the other way around ...
Yeah I think It should
@@Trinityproductions777 nope, really no
yes it should look up da history
It's not really England getting independent from France. The Normans conquered a part of France in 910 and in 1066 they conquered England, but they lost their original possesions in France in 1204 to the French king. Still England (ruled by decendents of the Normans) had possesions in France until 1453.
In short: England was never a dependency of France.
They still had Calais into the 1500s don’t forget
in 1204 it was not the Normans anymore but the Plantagenest who had taken over the Normans 50 years before. England was not a dependency of France per se but was under french princes authority for centuries. The term "independance from France" might be exagerated but England was definitely under french influence and ruled by french houses.
@@townsley2Wrong. Empress Matilda debased the house of Plantagenet and moved it to England. There was no French houses ruling England.
@@tTantPisForFrance “debased the house of Plantagenet and moved it to England” 😅 naaa she “debased” it to Singapore buddy 😂😂
And that’s probably why Richard spent only 6 month in his whole f…ing life in England and couldn’t speak a single word of English. You’re a funny bloke
Dammit we were so close... ...GG Frenchy GG...
Yo im french
Frenchyies in trenchies
Nice
In ww2 the French wanted to give France away to the British Empire. Look it up online, when France nearly became a province of England during WW2. 😂❤ 🇬🇧
Key word:"almost" english copium is hard in that one ngl, still didn't digest French domination...lmao. and just to clarify something: France wasn't going to be in salty Brits dominance but american, keep trying to make your own version of history as your kind is known for🇨🇵⚜️🦅
What about how Ireland 🇮🇪 kicked the British out of Ireland in 1922.
This video is difficult to understand without context. (i.e the Anglo Saxon conquest of the celts and Romans, the Viking raids, the 100 years war and the war of the roses.)
France didn’t control England. The Norman’s were not French, they were Norman a franco Norse mesh and as duke William became king of England he did not swear fealty or pay tax etc to the king of France
Normandy was french, not scandinavian anymore and Normandy was a vassal of France.
Cope harder.
@@fautlsavoirhein it wasn’t french. It was Norman in culture and ethnicity, which is literally a combination of Norse and Frank. The invasion was not a french invasion, it was a Norman invasion. And once it was concluded, France didn’t control England, the king of England, who was also the Duke of Normandy, had no allegiance to the King of France.
@tag10 The Normans integrated into French culture by the time of willaim the conqueror. Also you're mistaken. The English kings did owe their loyalty to the king of France as dukes of French duchies. Phillip Augustus justified his invasion of John's holdings in France because he refused to answer his summons. Even English kings like Edward long shanks were forced to kneel to the French king
@@rayzas4885 I've literaly proven you that the normans were french with sources and you still continue to deny by lying.
This is the best joke I have ever seen.
facts =/= joke
How will france escape the clutches of islam... stay tuned to find out.
@@FlaviusConstantinus306 You hope....for now
@@rat_king- islam is dying at this point, you iust havent realized it yet
@@MugOfJoe looks at world... NO it fucking isn't
Racism
Reported
Wrong. Norman kings ruled in a dualistic sense. Yes, Normandy and other inherited mainland possessions were vassal states of France. The Kingdom of England however was a separate entity at least in a nominal sense.
Fathom if instead of french words go intoing english, old english words in time went into french, or barely norman french. maybe the english win in 1066, and choose to infall normandy back, and spow.
very fool analogy
And then France had to gain independence from England. 😂
Not really
@@TheFearsomePredator When the Angevin made them a Rump state and later when England marched all the way to Paris yes they did
what if Archduke Joseph remained King of Hungary or Albert Apponyi became Hungary's new king
I thought that was germany
So if the English won we would’ve won would France have become a separate culture?
no if england won the hundred years’ war it would be an actual loss for england as more and more french and latin culture would come absorbing and eventually taking over english culture and eventually english would just become a pidgin language or a creole of french 1100-1453 is usually the era of french and latin influences on england
@@shawnv123 That’s not a lose considering French and Latin culture is civilised and Germanic culture is barbaric. England would be better today if it had a Latin culture
Good quick analysis, but I'd add one tidbit that shows identity at this time was even murkier than that. You see, the chunk of France, the vassal that conquered England, was not so much French as it was Frenchified vikings.
They wee French. Check out Norman language and Norman dna lol
England as a part of the wider French culture? I don’t think you really understand this period and what exactly was happening in the formation of English and French national identity.
Exactly. “England had long drifted away from its Anglo Saxon roots” ???? This is literally the period where the Anglo Saxon identity appeared at large. It’s the time of raising nationalism…
@@L333gok
30% of your language comes from french
20% from latin
Have you ever paused to wonder why?
Yeah you were ruled by French Dukes with English lands for centuries, they did drift away from their anglo saxon roots until Henry IV thats a fact not sure how much clearer one can make it
2
It's strange how the French like to claim how, if the English had of won, then England would be property of France and all English would be Frenchified...surely then, don't they support the King of England's claim to France over thier own king's...don't these French claims sound rather ridiculous? N'est-ce pas?
More like how did the french gain independence from the english lol, i mean look at the map... if it wasnt for joan of arch then the franks wouldnt exist. The Britain's are not the same as the Franks even though nobility spoke french simply because the owned wealthy lands in France
It was more of a dynastic war, there was even a theory that if the "english" won the hundred year war they would be still French
England gained independence from France? England was never subject to France.
Yes it was
sorry but to suggest the Normans we’re culturally french… is completely wrong. The norman’s, while commonly genetically french, were culturally very distinct and the entire feudal system was known for hating the french, frankly… the norman’s hated the french and their culture and when they took England they took that hatred with them. England was never ‘owned’ by France in this way.
Saying they hated the French is also wrong, there wasn't a "french" to hate but many different duchies, counties, etc, it was only after Phillip Augustus conquered Angevin lands in France that the French state emerged as a strong power.
@@Heisenberg882 sorry but that’s wrong. sigh. although they were different duchys they were of the same culture, like how you don’t identify every single part of the HRE as it’s own culture you do the same for the french. they were french. sorry. but if you’re going to argue there is no french identity how can you defend the entire basis of the video?
@@Heisenberg882 just because france didn’t exist in its entirety doesn’t mean there wasn’t a french identity. such a dumb argument.
@@obviousgorilla124 There literally wasn’t, national identity’s wouldn’t even emerge in Europe until the 18th and 19th centuries. Old French was only spoken by people around Paris, there were dozens of languages all across France like Occitan, Breton, Poitevin, aquitainian, and many more. It wasn’t even called the kingdom of France until 1190, it was the kingdom of west francia.
@@Heisenberg882 are you suggesting there wasnt a french culture? what? it doesnt matter if it was known as a french culture, it existed and the normans despised it.
Its more the contrary no ?
1
Great heavens, stop it with those annoying Shorts, this isn't Tiktok.
Capppppp🧢🧢🧢🧢
Learn your history lol, wrong and misleading
This fails to mention the very relevant point that Norman’s (the upper classes at least) where not french they were Nordic they excepted the french king so they wouldn’t be invaded although in reality the french crown had very little control of the Norman kingdom and after 1066 practically all Important governance took place in England was the seat of power and therefore it must be concluded that England was its own country who’s rulers also ruled parts of France
In William's time, the Normans had nothing to do with the Vikings.
Not only were Rollo and his men not so numerous, unlike the Bretons who were able to keep their Celtic language for centuries among its population.
This therefore implies that their children quickly assimilated with the Franks and the Gallo-Romans.
Whether in terms of Language, regional habits and customs (therefore those already existing in Neustria), dress and facial style, Trade/Commerce, Marriages/Mixed DNA, the Art of War (Chivalry/Heavy Cavalry, or Castles), Politics (Feudal System, Vassalage to the King of the Franks)...and most importantly Christianity.
William himself had more Frankish blood in his veins than Scandinavians. His army was made up of Normans, but also of Barons from all over northern France (ranging from Brittany to Flanders).
This shows how much they were already a part of the Medieval Francophone world (like the Burgundians, the Picards, the Angevins, Poitevins, Francilians etc...).
They even sang the "Song of Roland" during the conquest, the epic about the Frankish figure in the French Medieval Literature.
There might have been remnants of Scandinavia, but it wasn't so obvious anymore.
Normandy wasn’t really Nordic though. Politically, it was kind of its own thing for a while, a vassal of France in theory, but more independent in reality. Genetically, the Normans were a mixture of the Gauls, Franks, Scandinavians and the English, hence why people from Normandy look more Northern European than people from southern France, but still definitely not Scandinavian.
Sorry, but this is just a lazy narrative drawn up, which Ignores crucial Details which distort reality.Even whilst the Normans occupied mainland England, they were not dominating the culture as: -
*there were only tens of thousands, and 2.5 million Anglo-Saxons and Celts(1066) and this disparity only grew over time
as early as 13th century The main literature in England was by Chaucer, purely in old English, not a hybrid Norse influenced dialect of "old French"
*The most revolutionary weapon of the high Middle Ages was the "English longbow", clearly traceable to being invented and developed by Anglo-Saxons and Celts on the Welsh border.
*All the victories of the English in the 100 years War, leading to England OCCUPYING MOST OF FRANCE for several decades, were distinctly "ENGLISH VICTORIES", due to not only the English longbow, but the archers and footsoldiers, which made the dramatic difference - 90% of them were Anglo-Saxon and Celtic.This occupation for decades pretty much makes France a colony of England, if you are going to call the occupation of a small group of Normans, a French colony; Thosse footsolddiers and archers certainly integrated with the French women, If you know what I mean😀. Without these factors the hybrid Viking/old French knights wouldn't have won a single battle against the much more highly populated France and more numerous French knights.
*If History dictates that the Norman's remained French, after Rollo and his Viking mercenaries (tens of thousands) were given the region of Normandy to control, and occupied an area with only hundreds of thousands of French, then if we are being consistennt and logical, critical reasoning shows that If only tens of thousands of hybrid Viking/old French knights(Normans) defeated Harolds Anglo-Saxon men and occupied a country of 2.5million, and were clearly slowly integrated then England remained having Engllish cullture
*Voltaire when running away from backward French culture based Marvelled at the superior sophistication of the English culture, with its Separation of monarchy from merchants/nobles and church, freedom of speech and religious tolerance, to be found nowhere else in the world, since so many revolts and items of human and civil rights legislation, leading to parliamentary democracy (1689)
**Voltaire's written works included "England is the land of liberty… A place I can learn to think" "England is a nation of philosophers" and "England taught Europe how to think." These are all points from him running away from backward French culture in 1726 and in, letters to friends and the books, la Henrietta, and Lettres sur la Anglais.
I don't see how the words of vulvoltaire prove your points about the hundred years war also the English kings defenedly wanted the frech grown I am sorry kid put the long bow wasn't the most revolutionary weapon
Where are you getting these numbers from? There are no sources on how many Celts were in Britain before hand (2.5 million seems like a crazy exaggeration considering that would mean the population would have had to decline by 1.5 million in next few hundred years, whilst the rest of Europe’s was increasing). Modern genetic studies put Anglo Saxon DNA as making up around 30-40% of modern English DNA depending on the region; Celtic DNA only makes up around 50%, and that’s only if you include the Central Europeans who brought Celtic culture to Britain as being Celts themselves. Obviously these studies don’t tell us 30-40% of Britons in 1066 were Anglo Saxons, since it’s reasonable to assume that the Anglo Saxons had a higher birth rate and survival rate, but it doesn’t really paint the picture of them being 1% like you’re suggesting.
Fuck England 🖕
Tiocfaidh Ár Lá ✊🇮🇪⚔
Irish reunification is inevitable
@@MonsieurDean i know it is, though correction the North will simply be annexed into the Republic.
based
@@obviousgorilla124 I don't see it happening without loyalist terrorist groups getting extremely violent, i think that's the 1st thing everyone will need to take into account before whatever else will be on their mind.
Least based Irish lad