Talk:Norman Conquest

message: "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)
thread_title:  Confusing sentence 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  .... and Scotland and Wales 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KGb9P2SfEWsC&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false 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. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Then what about this one?  --Coldtrack (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  BRD 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lead... 

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

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

message: :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)
replies: text: Norman Conquest →  – Current title not specific enough Titus Gold (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Titus Gold, there is a formal template for this type of proposal. Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial, and specifically the section entitled 'Requesting a single page move'. Thanks. Agricolae (talk) 05:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Just added the template. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Or we could just call the page what people generally call it. Agricolae (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Requested move 27 June 2022 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Adjectives on Harold's army 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Title

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  No quick facts?