Consume Product

Exhibit A: William the conqueror introduced jews to England almost immediately after taking power, not by mistake but purposefully, knowing that they were yids. This alone should be reason enough to hate the normans

Exhibit B: the normans formed an aristocracy that was incredibly pompous and elitist towards the anglo saxon people. Completely alienating themselves purposefully by speaking an entirely different language (french) that the people could not understand, not teaching them French at all, and sometimes even living in Normandy instead of England.

Exhibit C: the normans forced the English catholic church into much more direct control by the papacy, which was wildly unpopular (eventually this would be the impetus for the people converting to anglicanism), and changed mass from English language mass to Latin mass, which the anglo saxon populace did not understand and did not have the means to learn.

Exhibit D: the normans used genocide to great effect during the harrowing of the North where they burned down farmland, raped and pillaged civilians, and slaughtered every farm animal they could find to reduce the northern english population to virtually nothing just to stamp out a tiny group of rebels that posed no threat. This was very brutal even by medieval standards and mimics the holodomor.

 Exhibit E: the normans introduced feudalism to England to enslave the anglo saxon population and keep the norman elite fat, wealthy, and happy. Feudalism would have under normal circumstances been an advancement, but the system introduced by the normans was intentional slavery of the anglo saxons, and English peasants had it quite a bit worse than peasants on the continent because their lords just hated them.

Exhibit F: the normans would be the direct cause of the now hundreds of years old conflict between England and Ireland by invading Ireland for virtually no reason whatsoever, the only reason the normans even gave was a supposed papal bull. This would also be the case for Scotland as well, but the acts of union backtracked this to some degree.

Exhibit G: outlawing the property rights of the anglo saxons. This ties into the feudalism point. The anglo saxons had a strong belief in land ownership and the normans snatched it away from them and divided it among their own elite.

Exhibit H (this list is getting exhaustive): the norman forest laws. The anglo saxon populace was not allowed to cut down trees, own a bow, or hunt animals for food. The punishment for this would be to have the index and middle fingers cut off of the hand. If this isn't proof that they had an unnecessary hatred of the English, I don't know what is. This also ties heavily into the point about English peasants being significantly more fucked over than, say, a French or a German peasant.


Exhibit I: the normans dragged the English along into their stupid, still ongoing territorial disputes in France and would sacrifice, in due time, *millions* of people for territory that they would never even end up gaining in France, and later on, colonial possessions that they never even got control over either. The English conflict with France is actually fucking retarded and the normans were the cause of it. They had a hatred of France because of their ancestors war with the country and wanted to get back at them, and sacrificed the anglo saxons for a cause that never came to fruition at all. It was like the battle of isonzo, but on crack and over the span of nearly a millennium.

Exhibit J: this isn't really a crime against the English, because it never killed anyone or contributed to their slavery, but it annoys me anyways, and it is kind of fucked because it destroyed a culture. The normans filibustered England's dealings with scandinavian states and the scandinavian influence in England in favor of stupid wars with France mentioned prior. The anglo saxon English had a semi-scandinavian culture from dealings with the Norse for close to the entire existence of England. The mercy of alfred the great towards the Danes after the defeat of the latter led to a thriving blend of the 2 cultures (actual, white, multiculturalism) and the hybrid society was an incredibly efficient and vibrant one in just about every way, one of the most in all of Europe. The Normans kind of, you know, fucking destroyed all of it


Another point that doesn't tie into their crimes, but really more addressing your point about them being great conquerors, is that they really weren't. They just took advantage of rare circumstances for a war they otherwise would have lost, badly. The normans invaded from the deep south right after Harold Godwinson emerged victorious from a long war with the vikings in the far flunged northern corner of England. Godwinsons exhausted army covered the distance in a surprisingly short amount of time and came to the battlefield starving, war torn, and exhausted. Despite this, the normans were still losing for most of the battle of hastings, and only won because they took advantage of a flank and were able to kill Godwinson. If the opportunity didn't present itself at the opportune time, the English would have won. The anglo saxon housecarls were some of the most elite warriors in all of Europe

That should suffice. I will not provide sources because this is a topic I have been studying for a long time and finding everything to verify this would be exhausting at this time of the night (I live in Europe), but every thing is verifiable if you look it up yourself. If you want, I can compile the sources tomorrow