Yes they were. iM DOING IT IN hISTORY AT SCHOOL
well if you look at all the Norman weapons and compare them to the English weapons, you can probably see why. the Normans were also more prepared and the English were tired after another battle just before. there were more Normans than English and the Normans sort of tricked the English during the battle.
The Normans (not the Norse) were in no way better than the Irish. The Irish populated Scotland during the pre-Anglo/Saxon eras. The Normans attempted to invade Scotland and Ireland time and time again after they conquered England, and if Harold's army hadn't been divided into remote territories, the Normans would have been pushed back into the sea. Harold knew William was out to de-throne him. He also had internal problems that he was fighting. He was busy with his internal problems when William invaded. The Normans were never successful in making any inroads into Ireland. England didn't take Wales until the House of Tudor. England didn't take Scotland until well after William, and that happened when a relative took the Scottish throne.
We do not trust the Bayeux Tapestry because it was written from a Norman point of view, this means that the Normans could have exaggerated their victory or left out great things that the Saxons did. They did this to make themselves sound greater and more powerful than they actually were. As a result of this, it made viewers think of the Normans as alot better than the Saxons.
It's all descended from the Norman invasion of England. The Anglo-Saxon words were considered lowly, for peasants only. So "buef" was better than "cu", just as "cuisine" is better than "food." In 1066, the invading Normans spoke French, the Anglo-Saxon natives spoke Old English. The resulting language, Middle English, included words from both. We have "pork" from the French and "swine" from Old English, as well as "mutton" from the French and "sheep" from Old English. Likewise, "veal" and "calf". Some have theorized that the Normans were not involved in keeping the animals, only in consuming the product, while the (Anglo-Saxon) peasants were the ones who raised the animals. Consequently, the Germanic words apply to the animals while the French words apply to the meat we derive from them. Although, as recently as 100 years ago, ranchers in the US would take inventory of the number of "beeves" on their land.
Although the English had more army many of them were badly trained as Queen Elizabeth had spend so much time getting things that were more important.
because the English would of be defeated. The Normans built castles better than us
Foo fighters are WAY BETTER. trust me. rock and roll is better than ome stupid romeo and Juliet song!!
its because the spanish had better armer than the incas and were better fighters.
no
If you put a Navy Seal in the ring the UFC fighter is better. If you put the UFC fighter on the battlefield the Navy Seal is better... WAY better.
well if you look at all the Norman weapons and compare them to the English weapons, you can probably see why. the Normans were also more prepared and the English were tired after another battle just before. there were more Normans than English and the Normans sort of tricked the English during the battle.
English in Malaysia is no better than English in India
This question is a matter of opinion. Some people like English budgies better than regular budgies or other people like regular budgies better than English budgies.
cos were better at everything.
NO
peaceful than after
Because it is easier