Thank you for bringing that up. I considered mentioning it, but thought it might be too confusing or misconstrued as an argument that some Eastern European ethnic groups don't exist.
You aren't understanding what I'm saying. I said Anglo-Saxon was already similar to Norse... French IS similar to English. Although the two cannot understand each other, there are many cognates between the two languages. They're more related than English to Spanish, as English was created out a mix between the Normans, whose language was very similar to the French and the Anglo-Saxons, hence the comparison.
If what you're saying is true, then yes, they were. The Italians had much more of a connection with the Greeks than the the Saxons did with Norse, though more religiously than linguistically. Of course, Christians cared more about religious identity.
As for your link, if you compare the known Old Saxon words with Icelandic (or at least, what Google Translate says is Icelandic), you can see similarities. Not too big, but big enough that it does not rule out the possibility that the Saxons and the Norse had a similar enough languages to understand each other.
The big difference here is religion. A Christian fleeing to a Christian kingdom would be met with more hospitality than a Muslim to a Christian kingdom. The Norse were just simply much more violent, which is why they would treat outsiders differently if they could not understand them, even if they were the same religion.
French comparison is a bad one in a sense that knowing English doesn't really make reading or speaking French any easier. However knowing Old Norse actually helped me when I wanted to learn the basics of Anglo-Saxon. And I can actually understand quite a bit of the Old Saxon texts based on my understanding of other Germanic languages. Some words and structures are actually quite close of their Scandinavian equivalents.
This seems to be crucial to your argument, but I don't think it can be substantiated. There are lots of historical examples of people fleeing or being exiled to places they didn't speak the language.
'They' as a group may not, but members of the group may well (much like recent immigrants to new countries today) - there can hardly have been zero contact between Saxony and Denmark. Given trading contacts, a fair amount of the Greek nobility would have been able to either at least follow Italian, or employ somebody who spoke it (not least because a fair number were already taking precautions in the event of Ottoman attack by 1453).
As a native French speakers I disagree. Especially for reading.
Many English word are from Latin origin (over 50%) and many of them share the exact syntax as their French equivalent thus for a French speaker it is quite easy to have a decent vocabulary in only one or two years of learning english (in which much of the vocabulary focus is on the words from germanic origin).
Even without I could actually play many text heavy game in english like Age of Empire when I was 7 years old with only a few dozen english words in my vocabulary and still mostly understand what was written.
Well most of the time at least.
In my view English is as easy if not more (due to simple grammar) to learn for a French speaker than any other Romance language.
Now I don't know how it goes for the reverse but on many website French is often on the Top 3/5/10 most easy language to learn for English speakers.
As an old english teacher of mine used to say with humour:
If you're having a discussion in English and you happen to be unsure on a word just say the French one but with an English accent !
You have 50% chance to be right. And if your interlocutor doesn't understand try a synonym !
In a similar way you can understand some Latin if you know the English language, because there are plenty of loan words from Latin. However knowing some words doesn't make it any easier to understand the structures of the foreign language. Personally I think that knowledge in Latin and other Romance languages is much more useful when person is trying to learn French than what knowledge in English is..
Sure but I still maintain that knowledge og English does make reading and speaking French easier. It maybe doesn't help learning grammar/conjuagation but it's only a part of learning a language. Vocabulary can be just as difficult especially if your native language doesn't share much with the language your learning.
We are talking of thousands of words to learn to be fluent one day.
I happened to have an english course with other nationalities most being from other Romance countries and while we were all quite fluent in English it was very clear that I had an edge on vocabulary.
Not that it surprised my british teacher.
Now I don't know if learning latin is better to learn French for an English than sharing a lot of vocabulary with us but I only said that this knowledge did make the learning easier not that it was the easiest way to learn French.
Knowing any language helps at learning new languages. But here we are discussing if Saxons could communicate with Danes or not. I'm still claiming that English and French are a bad comparison and I'm also claiming that it was easier for a Saxon to communicate with a Dane than it is for an Englishman to communicate with a French.