The Elusive Definition of “Norman”

For centuries, historians have grappled with defining what exactly constituted “Norman” identity. The term has been used both as a noun and adjective, suggesting some measurable essence that distinguished Normans from other medieval peoples. Modern scholarship refers to this concept as “Normannitas” – the quality of being Norman.

Early 20th century works like D.C. Douglas’s The Norman Achievement and The Norman Fate treated the Normans as a distinct historical period. More recent scholarship, such as David Crouch’s The Normans: The History of a Dynasty, has narrowed the focus to specific Norman ruling families. François Neveux’s A Brief History of the Normans attempts a comparative approach across different geographical contexts over three centuries, demonstrating the complexity of Norman identity.

Competing Theories of Norman Identity

The debate over Norman identity centers on whether they constituted a distinct ethnic group. R.H.C. Davis famously argued that Norman identity was largely a “myth” constructed by 12th-century chroniclers like Orderic Vitalis. He noted their lack of common racial origins or unique language.

Graham Loud countered this view by demonstrating that 11th-century Norman writers like Dudo of Saint-Quentin clearly saw themselves as a distinct people. However, questions remain about how long this self-identification persisted. Charles Homer Haskins and later scholars like Cassandra Potts emphasized Norman assimilation as a defining characteristic – their “success” lay in disappearing as a distinct group.

Other historians, including Hugh Thomas and Laura Ashe, argue the Normans in England developed an English identity at the expense of their Norman characteristics. Meanwhile, Emily Albu suggests Normans deliberately distanced themselves from “Normannitas” due to negative associations with treachery and violence in historical accounts.

The Problem of Diverse Norman Experiences

The challenge of defining Norman identity becomes clear when comparing contemporary accounts from different regions. Arab historian Ibn al-Athir described Roger II of Sicily abandoning “Frankish customs” to adopt Muslim administrative practices, while in England, Aelred of Rievaulx’s account of the 1138 Battle of the Standard has Norman leaders invoking their Viking heritage to inspire troops.

These contradictory portrayals reveal the difficulty modern historians face in applying the “Norman” label across diverse contexts. Some scholars caution against using “Norman” for the Sicilian kingdom, while Anglo-Norman writers maintained connections between Norman territories. This ambiguity necessitates examining medieval understandings of Norman identity through several key lenses.

Scandinavian Origins and Connections

Early sources trace Norman origins to Rollo and his Viking warband from Scandinavia. Dudo’s chronicle emphasizes their pagan Scandinavian ancestors, particularly highlighting Rollo’s conversion to Christianity. Later chroniclers like William of Jumièges downplayed these pagan connections while still acknowledging political ties to Scandinavia that persisted into Duke Richard II’s reign (996-1026).

In England, writers like Henry of Huntingdon maintained the connection between Normans and Vikings, with William the Conqueror allegedly invoking their shared heritage at Hastings. However, southern Italian chroniclers showed little interest in Scandinavian origins, as two centuries had passed since the initial Norman settlements.

The Centrality of Normandy

Geographical identity played a crucial role in Norman self-perception. Dudo portrayed Normandy as a promised land divinely granted to Rollo’s people, rich in natural resources. Orderic Vitalis similarly emphasized Normandy’s prosperity, particularly Rouen’s importance as the ducal capital.

The 946 defense of Rouen against Frankish and German forces became a defining moment in Norman historiography, with chroniclers depicting it as the heart of Norman territory. Southern Italian writers like Geoffrey Malaterra, while ignoring Scandinavian origins, still identified Normandy as the Norman homeland, describing it in terms similar to Dudo’s idealized portrayal.

Norman Character and Behavior

Chroniclers frequently described Normans through their military prowess and cunning. Orderic called them “a fierce people” who were “natural warriors,” while Amatus of Montecassino compared them to ancient heroes hungry for conquest. Their military reputation extended from England to the Mediterranean, where Anna Comnena recorded Bohemond’s tactical brilliance during the First Crusade.

However, non-combatants could also display “Norman” qualities. Orderic praised noblewomen like Isabella of Conches who took up arms, suggesting military ability wasn’t the sole criterion. The complex relationship between individual behavior and group identity remains a key challenge in understanding what truly constituted “Normannitas.”

Conclusion: The Fluidity of Norman Identity

Attempting to define a singular Norman identity proves problematic given their diverse experiences across two centuries and multiple regions. As this analysis shows, Norman identity encompassed:
– Ancestral connections to Scandinavia
– Ties to the territory of Normandy
– Shared military reputation and behaviors
– Evolving political relationships with neighboring peoples

Ultimately, Norman identity was less about blood or language than about historical circumstances that prompted groups and individuals to identify as Norman when it served their purposes. As Marjorie Chibnall observed, the Normans were “not a blood group but a product of history” – a people whose identity emerged from the stories told about their conquests and achievements across medieval Europe.