Talk:Norman Conquest

Confusing sentence
"All of England was divided into administrative units called shires, with subdivisions; the royal court was the centre of government, and royal courts existed to secure the rights of free men." (emphasis mine)

I assume "royal courts" refers to courts of justice? I think this ought to be made clearer. Waltham, The Duke of 08:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

.... and Scotland and Wales
The Norman Conquest is often written of as the Norman Conquest of England. But it was really the conquest of all Britain. It took a while, but it also included Scotland and Wales. The conquest of Scotland for example was completed by William's son Henry I and his protege, the Scottish usurper David, whom Henry appointed 'King of the Scots'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.239.77 (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * none of the scholarly histories connect David's accession to the throne as a Norman Conquest. Nor do they include the conquest of Walles as part of this subject. Nor do any of the various ,ilitary histories connect these events to the Conquest. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

It is quite odd. Scottish histories for example very often refer to the Normans as simply being 'invited' into Scotland. Yet this is quite untrue. A Norman army nominally under the leadership of King's Henry's protege and brother-in-law David, nominated as 'king of the Scots', invaded northern Britain i.e. Scotland and thus completed the Norman Conquest. Those northern lands subsequently became 'detached' from England only as an unforeseen consequence of the Norman civil war known as 'the Anarchy' which followed Henry's death. For the next two hundred years the 'Scottish' aristocracy spoke French and described themselves as 'Frenchmen' i.e Norman. The facts are quite clear and can be read on the various Wiki pages relating to Henry and David. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.166.91 (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

BRD
I was told that this edit (earlier submission) was "not needed". The edit I display here shows exactly why it is needed. The following revert merely told me to come here per BRD but did not otherwise specify why the revert was being made. At this stage, I have nothing to add which was not given in the summary. --Coldtrack (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not needed and not supported by the source that it was inserted into. Bates' Normandy Before 1066 does not contain the word Germanic nor the phrase Gallo-Romance. The information thus is not supported by the source it is theoretically cited to. By the 10th century - Gallo-Roman society doesn't really exist in Normandy - the Franks had been there for quite a while and even our own article on Gallo-Roman culture says that it only persisted until the 7th century. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * OK basically, "the Normans adopted the indigenous culture" doesn't mean that the Normans assimilated (which they did). Had the Normans (as a Germanic people) not assimilated, you would have had a multi-ethnic Normandy today with Germanic and French people (if not Gallo-Romance) just as the northernmost French departments are mixed in Dutch (or West Flemish) and French. The only difference would be that the so-called "Normans" as opposed to "French people in Normandy" would be speakers of the same Romance language - which the Normans would have part-influenced. I propose if anything remove the "Normans adopted the indigenous culture" part since it is their assimilation into French society that shaped who they would be by the time they invaded England. The article is about the invasion and not the full history of Normans anyway. --Coldtrack (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Where I come from originally, Ukraine, we have Tatars, a Turkic people. They too in many areas have "adopted our culture" 100%. But we still know who is ethnic Ukrainian and who is ethnic Tatar. In Normandy you do not have this with Normans and French, and have not had it since the 10th century (900s) according to the sources. --Coldtrack (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * we go by what the source, in this case Bates, says. I double checked with ‘’Capetian France’’ second edition by Hallam and Everard, and they point out that Bates argues that the Normans adopted some Frankish traits and culture, but no where is it described as assimilation. Hallam and Everard then go on to point out that Searle disagrees and argues that the Normans remained a Scandinavian warrior culture for a long time. Neither of these views can be said to be an assimilation. To disagree with two such noted scholars on Normandy, wed need some pretty strong sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Look stop with these games. You know very well that unless today Normandy has two ethnic groups (French & Norman as individual cases), then somebody (one or the other) assimilated. I have given you a source and on top of that, I have kept your revision exactly as you like it. Now unless you have a problem with the source I gave you, I don't think you have any further reason to remove my contribution. --Coldtrack (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

−
 * does not support the information that is being sourced to it. It’s discussing Dudo’s image of Richard, not the entire culture, and again, it doesn’t say the French assimilated the norsemen, just that Richard was a blend of the two cultures...in Dudos account of him. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth] - Talk 21:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Then what about this one? --Coldtrack (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * are you sure that’s the link you meant? It doesn’t even discuss Normandy ...and it’s about a dog breed. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks desperate I know. But I'll be honest, I never thought when I made the edit earlier I would have having to defend a point so obvious. That article is about dogs, but it states lower down: The Normans were the descendants of Viking settlers in Northern France who subsequently became assimilated. IMHO I don't like this wording either, because it implies that (see if you can follow this): the Normans are only the Germanic people who became assimilated whereas in actual fact - and according to every single source - the "Germanic people" gave their name to the land - Frankish people lived on that same land so became local Normans in the same way Slavic people became Macedonian (based on name of land) - so when the Germanic people became assimilated by the French people - you ended up with one Norman variety. The second source I gave proves my point but assumes that only the "assimilated Norse people" were Normans and French people were not. --Coldtrack (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

[https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=m-LaiejJocYC&pg=PA172&lpg=PA172&dq=Within+two+generations,+however,+the+Vikings+had+assimilated+into+French+...+quality+that+made+the+Normans+the+premier+fighting+force+in+western+Europe+for+more&source=bl&ots=QTg5HbLjeb&sig=GSoGQ4r7pL4iBNPkRGQKiG-wDcM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjax9zuvq3XAhXGj5QKHb2IC-0Q6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=Within%20two%20generations%2C%20however%2C%20the%20Vikings%20had%20assimilated%20into%20French%20...%20quality%20that%20made%20the%20Normans%20the%20premier%20fighting%20force%20in%20western%20Europe%20for%20more&f=false Is this any better? Just asking.] --Coldtrack (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Lead...
The lead of the article summarizes the body of the article. No history emphasizes that there were a few "Aragonese, Apulian, and German soldiers" in the mercenaries in William's army. This fact isn't even important enough for the body of the article, much less to be given in the lead of the article - the way the sources state this makes it clear that the "Aragonese, Apulian, and German soldiers" were outliers. This isn't important and doesn't need mentioning at all in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring... and spamming...
These edits are disputed. They are undue, remove sourced information and nuance, contain information that is not needed here, and are sourced to a tertiary source. Please read the links left on your talk page and stop edit warring. --Ealdgyth (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * and edit summary. Discuss this on the talk page. We do NOT need to discuss details about why Rollo settled in Normandy in an article on an event that happened 150 years later. And the information on intermarriage is necessary and removing it is not helpful, as it simplifies and removes detail on results of this event. --Ealdgyth (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The Template:Main is for an article that the content is then summarized here ... the siege of Chartres article does not fit that situation. Nor do we name a synonym every single time a phrase is used. Our article says the name is "Norman language" not "Norman-French" so there is no need to give synonyms here. Per normal convention on Wikipedia - if edits are reverted, the proper thing to do is to come to the article talk page and discuss the edits and persuade the other editors that the changes are correct. --Ealdgyth (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

i do think 'norman french' needs to be added here. otherwise, most readers without basic knowledge of linguistics or relevant history may mistake it for an independent language. besides, it must be stressed that norse influence on norman french is limited or people would think it's a hybrid of norse and french.

regarding siege of chartres, this is the decisive incident that directly led to rollo's acceptance of treaty proposed by the franks. if rollo had not been defeated at Chartres, he would not agree to be baptised. i therefore consider it necessary to mention it as the main article.Berserk Kerberos (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * First - please learn how to indent your replies on talk pages - see WP:TP for how to do so. In short - you add a colon before each level of indentation you need to make. The comment above should be indented with two colons, and then this reply would be three colons, and any reply to this would use four colons. Next, this is an article on an event that took place from 1066 to about 1100. The siege of Chartres took place in 911. There is no need for the level of detail here in an article that should focus on the event that started in 1066. And I addressed the issue with Norman French above. --Ealdgyth (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding this is a misunderstanding of what the Main Article template is intended to do.  As Ealdgyth explained above, it is specifically for a case when, to avoid repetition, a section gives an abbreviated summary of a topic covered in detail in its own article.  It is not intended to be applied when there is just one little detail someone thinks is important.  It might be valid to make Duchy of Normandy the main article for this section, but not one single historical event when the section summarizes 150 years.
 * As to Norman French/Norman language, the reason we have links is so we don't have to carry out the same detailed analysis on every single page that mentions something. There is no consensus in all of linguistics over where to draw a line along the continuum between languages and dialects. We happen to call it, on Wikipedia, the Norman language, in part because it is referred to as such by some scholars, and in part because Norman French is ambiguous, having another more-specific usage.  It is preferable to use the same name as is given the corresponding page, when doing so is consistent with the flow of the sentence - doing otherwise simply confuses things unnecessarily.  If anyone is interested in the exact nature of the Norman language can follow the link - this is not the place to POV push over the degree to which Norse combined with French to form it, or the semantics of referring to it, that can be dealt with on the page for the topic.
 * Basically, these edits are expanding minor points about history and language that are only mentioned in passing here. However strongly one might feel about these issues, this article, where they are at best tangential to the topic, is not the place to force the (for the purpose of this page) excessive details.  If what is said here in brief summary is not inaccurate, and it isn't, then adding more just distracts from the topic.  We let the links do the work for someone interested in more detail or more precision. Agricolae (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Norman language
In regards to this edit - is the source discussing the Norman dialect of the Normans in the 11th century or is it discussing the modern Norman dialect of French? I can't tell and the source is also lacking page numbers. The exact text inserted (which is "As a dialect of Old French, Norman French still preserves a large number of Ancient French vocabularies which have disappeared in Modern French. It also preserves approximately 150 words from Old Norse of Old Dane.") sure seems to be discussing modern French, which does not actually have any relevance to the conquest of England in the 11th century. We should really not be putting in this level of detail (as discussed above) and should be using a stronger source than a dissertation. This level of detail is unneeded in an article on the conquest of England - because it's about the effect on ENGLAND, not on French dialects. And as final tiny niggling details - there are grammar issues and formating issues, but I'm not going to fix them because I do not think the addition belongs. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * the point i added is verified in french version of wikipedia, go check that out. Berserk Kerberos (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Another language version of Wikipedia is still not a reliable source. And even if it was, there are still the issues above that aren't about the information being verifiable, but about it being about a subject not connected to the subject of this article. If the source is discussing the modern Norman French dialect, it has nothing to do with this subject, which is the 11th century. --Ealdgyth (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ealdgyth; this information is not needed in this article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 27 June 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Norman Conquest → Norman Conquest of England – Current title not specific enough Titus Gold (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC) I've reverted the recent move from Norman Conquest to Norman conquest of England; per WP:RM, potentially controversial moves should be discussed first. This is a featured article so it's clear multiple editors think it's at the right place already so any move should be discussed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * This is fair enough. I propose it should be moved to "Norman conquest of England". The current title is not accurate enough. The page Norman invasion of Wales has an apt title. This page should be moved in a similar manner to avoid confusion and ensure clarity. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * User:Titus Gold, there is a formal template for this type of proposal. Please follow the instructions at Requested moves/Controversial, and specifically the section entitled 'Requesting a single page move'. Thanks. Agricolae (talk) 05:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just added the template. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose, mainly per WP:COMMONNAME; the Conquest is almost invariably referred to as the Norman Conquest, without "of England", in sources. There's nothing else commonly enough referred to as a Norman Conquest of something else to make this change necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As Mike says, the current name is the common one. Norman Conquest of England is not used once in the article. Five books in the bibliography have Norman Conquest in their title and none Norman Conquest of England. Shorter titles are preferred unless they cause confusion and no reader is going to be confused which conquest the title refers to. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, as laid out eloquently by Mike and Dudley above. See Britannica and National Geographic for examples of high-quality sources that simply use the term "Norman Conquest" to refer to this event. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. "Norman Conquest" is widely used in English simply because of Anglocentrism, which is POV. The Norman conquest of southern Italy and Sicily was of comparable scale and historical significance. See WP:COMMONNAME: "Ambiguous ... names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." The corresponding article in every other language is already called "Norman conquest of England." The move will not hinder findability, especially if there's a redirect per WP:RNEUTRAL. Arbitan (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I would just add that the move should be to "Norman conquest of England" with conquest lowercase, since this is not an official title for the event. Then "Norman Conquest" (both capitalized) could redirect to it and also be mentioned in the first sentence as the common name for it in English. Arbitan (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if we take "Norman Conquest" to be a non-neutral term, WP:NPOVNAME states that non-neutral names make for acceptable article titles if they have "usage in a significant majority of English-language sources". In my view, "Norman Conquest" meets that threshold. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 02:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Clear common name. Is it Anglocentric? Yes, but then this is English Wikipedia! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Is the purpose of the English Wikipedia to reinforce an anglophone-centric view of world history, or to present world history in a culturally neutral way? Arbitan (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Neither. It is the purpose of Wikipedia, in this regard, to have the largest number of people find the articles they are looking for in the most efficient way possible. The only question is whether a significant enough proportion, when they search for 'Norman Conquest', are looking for this specific one, as opposed to just taking everyone to a disambiguation page as an extra step, due to there being no greater likelihood the reader wants one event over another (or just to make a point about Anglocentrism). Agricolae (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This issue is easily solved by having "Norman Conquest" redirect directly to "Norman conquest of England" per WP:RNEUTRAL. There will be no extra step, no forced visit to a disambiguation page. Arbitan (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Or we could just call the page what people generally call it. Agricolae (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It is English Wikipedia's purpose to present the common names of topics in English-language sources. Other Wikipedias can do the same with sources in their languages. But you can't expect an encyclopaedia written in English not to go with the common English name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose, when anyone says Norman conquest, this is the conquest they are talking about. Baxbox (talk) 07:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is no ambiguity whatsoever. In English the Norman Conquest refers to and is understand to be the invasion of 1066 onwards. Titus, just wondering, but has this request got anything to do with your ongoing efforts to promote Wales and to distinguish Wales from England as much as possible? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Adjectives on Harold's army
In the article Harold's forces are referred to with the adjective "English". Should they not be referred to as "Anglo-Saxon"? Or is that needless complication Shrimpeyes1 (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * By the time of the Conquest, the English were ... pretty English. It's common in the scholarly literature to call them English. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Title
If I'm being honest with you, the title and the way the lead is written really bothers me. The Normans weren't just in England, but also in Italy and other places. But I do not think that this article properly clarifies this as what the Normans were doing in England, especially as the editors here favour the wording "or the Conquest" in a more general sense rather than England only. I tried to move this page to "Norman conquest of England" but it was reverted. I then tried simply updating the lead and clarifying that only in England rather than more generally would people refer to this as simply "the Conquest." Again, it was reverted. Try and tell me that this article is in the right place as it is!! I understand the principle of good faith, but the activity on this article against my attempts to edit it is really saying something to me. It doesn't come across as neutral to me, but rather comes across as Anglocentric/lack of historical knowledge to me (and I say that as an Englishman.) And it's annoying me, I've got to be honest with you. I do want what this article describes to be more clarified and more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GOLDIEM J (talk • contribs) 09:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If you look further up this page you'll see a discussion of a move to "Norman Conquest of England" that was rejected after a discussion -- that's why your move of the article was rejected. It's always a good idea when you're planning to move an article to check if the move has already been considered.  For the edit of yours that I just reverted, I have no problem with adding a note that it is primarily in England that people just call it "the Conquest", but you would have to provide a source that says that.  I don't even know if you're right about that, incidentally; I could imagine American or continental scholars of the period using "the Conquest" in their work.  But if you're right, and a source can be found, it can go in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I still think that in the first sentence we should start the article off with "The Norman Conquest of England" rather than simply "The Norman Conquest" in order to avoid any implications, as I have pointed out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GOLDIEM J (talk • contribs) 09:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessary -- the very first sentence makes it completely clear. By the way, please sign your talk page posts with "~" -- that will add your signature and a time stamp so other editors know who posted the comment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm still not comfortable with referring to this event as The Norman Conquest; for me, this isn't about "this makes sense" but rather the wording carries implications. It's not the Norman conquest. It sounds Anglocentric to me. I hope you understand where I'm coming from here. In fact, I would argue that Norman Sicily carried more glory than King Wills the Bastard could've ever brought himself. That was also a Norman conquest.GOLDIEM J (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)


 * For the title, we have to go with what the reliable sources use -- it's not up to us to decide based on our analysis. Let's see if others who watch this article comment on your suggested wording change. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

No quick facts?
Most war pages have a quick facts. I would expect to see this here, atleast regarding the initial invasions of William and Harold (excluding the harrowing).

This would provide a useful jumping off point for people to compare army sizes, look up the commanders, realise that William was leading a coalition of Norman/French/Breton nobles, had papal support ect. rather than discovering this information in the text.

Happy to begin the process if there is no disagreement? Pistol92 (talk) 12:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * It's been suggested in the past but ... no. There is no simple "facts" for this. We don't know the army size for the whole conquest, whether he had papal support is somewhat unclear, etc. There are no "quick facts" that fit easily into an infobox. The conquest was not a battle ... it was a long process that arguably did not end until after 1086. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)