Does anyone else find it strange when the English claim that England existed before the Normans?

>no response

lel

t. Pajeet

>The Germans never claim they existed before the 19th century
hahahahahahaha

Modern Germans really don't and that is historically wrong. Germans were the Kurds of Europe for more than a 1000 years.

German identity has existed for hundreds of years. No German will claim that Germany and the idea of being German magically started in the 1800s.

>No German will claim that Germany and the idea of being German magically started in the 1800s.

I went to a lecturer at my uni who was obviously very left wing and she had a book literally with that title on her shelf.

The German myth: How Germans were invented in the 19th century

Something like that. Pretty sure I could find a couple of anti-German sociology or history papers in the same vein easily.

No...? They had an understanding of themselves as a distinct people (and so did the Germans for that matter). The English/German nations are seperate to the state/political entities of Britain and 19th century Germany.

I think one of the steps to be crowned Holy Roman Emperor was to be declared King of Germans, but I may be wrong

>The German myth: How Germans were invented in the 19th century

You europeans disgust me

A nation is not the state it currently resides in.

Then what was the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation?
Why did the Early New High German dialect become so well distributed among the German states?

Also, if you're applying these rules to being a nation, then Italians or Japanese didn't exist until the 19th Century. They had different states but they shared language, identity and religious leadership.

Well this is what losing two world wars will do to your educational system. But I am pretty disgusted myself sometimes to be fair.

Amazing how so few people understand this.

Athelstan was literally titled “King of the English”

Mate, have I not already let it seep through that I know all these things? It is ideology and propaganda not history. People usually omit facts and argue things like that Germans with different dialects couldn't understand each other and paid allegiance to their local lord instead of a people, had no concept of race (which is a twist of words) ,that the HRE wasn't ethnically 100% German and stuff like that.

So who/what is "english" anyway.
Obvious answer is Anglo-Saxon but that pair of words derives from Angles and Saxons - Danish and Germans, respectively and to put it bluntly.

sorry i misunderstood

Angles were West Germanic rather than Danish, who hadn't quite gotten to Jutland yet by the time the Angles migrated to Britain. The English as an ethnicity are a combination of pre-migration era Britons (celts), the Anglo-Saxons (Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians), Viking Era invaders (Mostly Danes, some Norwegians, likely Scanians as well due to its inclusion in the Danish realm), and smaller amounts of Normans (Normans (Norse descendants, Gauls and Franks, Bretons, Flemings)

Yes, Italy never existed until the 19th century. Japan has been united way before though

>The German myth: How Germans were invented in the 19th century
oh for fuck's sake

Attached: 1585113345506.png (641x855, 534.28K)

The Masterrace

Japan was never truly united until the meiji restoration.

>Then what was the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation?
While I agree entirely that Germans existed since the middle ages, the holy roman empire was a bit of a different beast. Inside of it, what was commonly thought of even then as the German people did exist, but the empire was meant for all of christian nations under the roman mission of protecting them.
The best a leftist could argue is the existence of nation states, but when it comes to nations (as in people) themselves, these go back much farther than the peace of Westphalia.

the English didn't stop being English after the battle of Hastings. they just became a little Frenchified.

English people be like yeah I'm a pure anglo saxon m8. What? So the normans successfully conquered the Anglo saxons?? Haha no way I've got norman blood, I'm a proper Anglo Saxon me lad, honestly

you're not autistically gonna take mass DNA tests to know if you had a Norman ancestor. Normans were the ruling elite anyway, not the lower class.

The history department at NTNU in Trondheim also propagate this about the Norwegians in the 19th century.

The whole argument is that they make a very narrow definition that is based on the 19th century romantic definition of nationalism. And lo and behold, nationality only emerges in the 19th century.

It is circular reasoning in it's best form.

There is no denying that people identified themselves and others as different nationalities from the earliest of written records in both Norway and Germany.

Was it not the "Holy roman empire of the German nation", not the "Holy Roman empire of Weltbürger"?

It's all so tiresome, friend

Attached: viking ancestors.jpg (1200x793, 67.51K)

The Normans and others (Bretons, French, Flemings) who came to England were of the same sort of ethnic stock as the English anyway (Celts mixed with North Germanic mixed with West Germanics)

Angles are from the Angeln peninsula in Germany

The nation state hasn't always been a very precise concept in the past. The people were there, but the state they lived under was far less "official" as it stands today.

honestly based & true

England was very famous before the Normans

Well, just because she has literature like that in her bookshelf, doesn't mean she swallows it whole. I have many books on my bookshelf that I do not necessarily agree with wholeheartedly.

It was a precise concept in Norway. Norway was ruled by one king, one archbishopric and one law since the 13th century. People spoke one language and they identified themselves as one people and were so by the outside world as well. During the Denmark-Norway era, Norway and Denmark were separate realms with different rules, and there existed separate national identities.

The other books on that shelf were complementary and I had short discussions with her that fit into this image.
Moreover this was just an example for this guy with the Japanese proxy who didn't want to believe that any German person could hold such beliefs. Quite the contrary, two of my history teachers in highschool said similar things (Napolean created Germans, not even Bismarck lol) and a feminist Polish lecturer at Uni made a remark like that as well. People in my peer group think the same and feel smug pointing this misconception out.
It is probably a majority belief especially among people with an academic background.

No country has ever spoke one language

>There is no denying that people identified themselves and others as different nationalities from the earliest of written records in both Norway and Germany.
fucking this

Attached: based olaf.png (981x87, 8.6K)

meant for

>120801488
>1488
Germany, I...

Attached: 1 (2).gif (229x199, 418.29K)

Attached: august von mackensen.jpg (720x1104, 173.27K)

Mutually intelligible dialect with a navy then.

There have been places where it was a thing, obviously, starting from the earliest nation states going back to Mesopotamia, but the concept became a universal thing only fairly recently, and even today there are places around the worlds where it's still a bit foggy how it actually works.

>No country has ever spoke one language
A dialect is a dialect that's why it's not called a different language.

>or Japanese didn't exist until the 19th Century
when somebody says "the warring states" what exactly do you think the word "state" refers to?

This thread is still going. Mad stuff how the english cope that theyw ere made by French.

Indeed, that's why I'm saying they're not Danish. However, areas of SH which are now German were under Danish control in the past, as evidenced by the Danewerk being in Germany for example. This is irrelevant to the history of England's Angles, however, as they left to Britain before the Danes arrived. According the the venerable Bede, so many Angles left that the area was deserted.

I read somewhere that englishman have alot more briton heritage than people give credit for, and that anglo-saxon-jutes were a (large) minority when they migrated.

>earliest nation states going back to Mesopotamia
Dude, lay down whatever you are consuming.
>but the concept became a universal thing only fairly recently
German education again. Most people considered themselves one people and were by others considered as such, since the dawn of history. Ancient Romans, Chinese, Greeks etc. fucking loved to record the physical and cultural differences between them and others and gave it a lot of importance.

well I mean saying Norway always had one language is wrong. Languages are going extinct every month. For example, Wendish, Jutish, and Frisian are still spoken in parts of Germany. Eventually they will all die out or their children will be speaking exclusively German

in that way, Europe is becoming more homogeneous

The original argument is not that these nation states did not exist until the 19th century but that German and English people as a concept didn't.
They are conflating nation and ethnicity on purpose for ideological reasons.

Might as well say Scotland is over 2000 years old because Gaelic language is that old right? No I would be called stupid. But since English language is descned from one common one then they obviously are that old
.

English people are just a mix of Anglo Saxons, celts/Brythons, Vikings and Normans in that order

Around the late 20th century there was a historiographical movement trying the de-emphasize the importance of migration in history. I think it was more than just a small elite. For example, when the Franks invaded France, they were indeed a small elite, and their adoption of a romance language testifies to that. No such adoption of Brythonic language occured in Englad. Surely many Britons remained and intermingled with the incoming invaders, and it is likely the the majority of English autosomal DNA is indeed Celtic rather than Germanic. However, there is definitely an east-west gradient there. I would urge you to consider a middle option, in which moderate amounts of Anglo-Saxons migrated. It fits best with the evidence available to us, and it is wise to be weary of extreme opinions anyway.

That's very nitpicky and relativistic and I am not even sure if it is true for all countries. I guess Japan doesn't have such minorities anymore and didn't have them during their history either since the Ainu are a new addition to the state and virtually extinct and the Okinawans assimilated.

William of Normandy conquered England after having claimed the English throne by way of his relation to Edward the Confessor. If England and the English people did not exist prior to 1066, which crown did William lay claim to, then? Which people did he conquer?

The Kingdom of England was founded by Alfred the Great in 886, predating the foundation of France by two years. By that year, Alfred had conquered or earned the allegiance of all other Anglo-Saxon (i.e. English) rulers, and crowned himself the King of them all. If you would doubt that Alfred was King of England because he called himself 'King of the Anglo-Saxons', notice that the contemporaneous king on the other side of the channel, Charles the Bald, was styled 'King of West Francia'. West Francia came to be called the Kingdom of the Franks came to be called the Kingdom of the French came to be calle France, same as Wessex came to be called the Kingdom of the Anglo-Saxons came to be called England.

All countries do. UNESCO classifies endangered languages as those which will probably not be spoken in 100 years. 60% of the world's languages fall into this category.

Julius Caesar conqured the Celts.
That does not mean celts are one ethnicity.
No one in that Britain thought of themselves as english . they were Northumbrian , Kentish and so on.

Well, the definition of a kingdom as a territorial entity is younger than the nation state. For example Roman citizenship was originally an exclusive right to tied to the borders of the empire, but rather legal privileges and status. It was first under Caracalla, I think, that citizenship was extended to all the inhabitants of the empire.

And the Germanic kings that invaded Rome, were not kings of territorial kingdoms, but kings of tribes/nations, and only later acquired the territorial kingdom. When they conquered territories like Italy and Spain. The Germanic kingdoms let the Romans in their territories live by Roman law, while themselves had their own Germanic laws. Showing that the nation was not tied to territory, but community/nationhood. Thus the oldest definition of state, is usually not territorial, but national.

In today's world the territorial state and it's internationally defined borders pretends to be nation states, but are nothing of the sort, as the populations in various countries are fragmented in myriads of regional nationalities, and the only way peace can be found is to eradicate the other nationalities sense of self. (Or just change the borders, but for some reason this is the height of evil).

This guy is just trying to get a rise out of people, doesn't matter that the historical record contradicts him