2006-07-22 08:15:21 · 15 answers · asked by Z, unnecessary letter 5 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Celts. The damn Saxons and Normans stole our land!
2006-07-22 08:33:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
I would have sided with the Anglo-Saxons. As someone pointed out earlier yes the Anglo-Saxons were a mix of Danish and Briton descent. But that is exactly why I would have sided with the Anglo-Saxons because the Anglo-Saxons integrated into the Briton and Pict culture and actually adopted their culture into theirs while the Normans attempted to change everyone else into being Normans.
2006-07-23 08:58:28 · answer #2 · answered by West Coast Nomad 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Anglo Saxons
2006-07-22 08:18:13 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That depends whether I have knowledge of the present or not. If I travelled back in time and still knew what I know now, I would side with the Normans. Not just because they won, but because I would know that their victory would lead to a civilization that nearly conquers the world, and out of which my own civilization was built. Without a Norman victory, my world would not exist.
On the other hand, if I didn't know any of that, I'd side with the Anglo-Saxons, just because they're being unjustly invaded by a foreign power.
2006-07-22 08:24:30 · answer #4 · answered by Tim 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ignoring who won, I would have sided with the Anglos-Saxons when you look at how brutal the Normans were to the people of Britain.
2006-07-22 08:18:34 · answer #5 · answered by cyn1066 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the common time period may be English, that is a mixture of Celt, perspective, Saxon, Jute, Norse and Norman. there has been a lot dilution over the centuries that it may take a DNA attempt to verify the precise answer. do you recognize that Norman and Viking were just about a similar? Norman = Norsemen. The Vikings only settled in Normandy interior the 880's, and it grew to develop right into a Norse Kingdom interior the early 900's. those bred with the close by Gallo-Breton inhabitants, so even as the Normans invaded, they were only bringing "British" bloodlines again.
2016-10-15 02:09:46 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Anglo-Saxons
2006-07-22 10:25:28 · answer #7 · answered by bumpocooper 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Anglo-saxons.
2006-07-22 08:17:50 · answer #8 · answered by emwads 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
normans had just as much if not more right to britain as did the anglo saxons,normans were a mix of vikings and britons who settled in normandy 100s of years before,in fact william the conquerer had more right to the english throne than harold (as by blood),so the outcome was the best result.
2006-07-22 14:44:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The anglo-saxons, trying to keep the shield wall intact on the right side of Harold's line, rather than chasing William's left flank, only to hurtle into annihilation. Plus, i wouldn't have sent my houscurls up north to defeat Hadrada until William was dealt with.
2006-07-22 08:30:07 · answer #10 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Anglo-Saxons. Even though William did prove to be an effective, if ruthless ruler.
2006-07-22 08:19:53 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋