>not even soldiers just pirates
>avoided combat prefering to attack undefended targets
>when they fought they lost majority of time
>run away on multiple ocasions
>muh brave warriors
What the fuck? Hell even among pirates they were pussies if you compare them to the guys from golden age of piracy.
>facing larger enemies is what it takes to not be a pussy
>>349137
>What the fuck?
It's your own fault, you should know better than to listen to 19th century historians on any subject, it's always nationalist propaganda.
>>349137
The same could be said of most people.
Going against stronger or equal forces is dumb most of the time.
Two reasons for that:
1. Christian kings overrating the Viking threat and portraying them as the devil in order to scare the population
2. Retarded 19th century Scandinavian retards and their attempts of national revival
>>349144
No but facing enemies at all is. Can farmers and monks can be called proper enemies? I think not.
>>349137
They were pretty scary because they had naval superiority and could go up river really really far.
For intents and purposes they owned teleportation devices of their day and age, striking where they wanted pretty much unopposed save for a standing army meeting them in the field.
>>349159
Weren't the vikings farmers themselves? I mean what part of their raiding group consisted of full time professional warriors?
>>349173
>>349176
Jarl's warriors other than that yes most vikings were part time raiders.
>>349181
In that regard they aren't that different from the Saxon Fryrd and the small professional core of Anglo-Saxon kings or the Frankish armies.
>>349188
Saxons and Vikings had other similarities as well such as similar (or the same) fighting style and same gods (altough Saxons converted to Christianity earlier of course and they called them different names)
>>349200
If only they had had a navy and cavalry...
>>349137
>>349285
wow a group of mercenaries serving more competent commanders too bad vikings on their own were pure shit
>>349137
Meh, they definitely weren't as bad as you put them, but they weren't particularly good, either. They were pretty much an average early medieval military - you had a lot of peasant levies and a professional core (jarls and their retinues). The only differences from other militaries of their time would be that they had excellent navigation on the sea, their nobility usually fought on foot and most peasants were also part-time raiders. Much like raiders never fought trained armies, they themselves weren't a trained army - just simple farmers. There was also a lot of infighting in viking jarldoms and kingdoms, which along with decentralization lowered their power considerably. They also had some successes while they were fairly united, like the invasion of Britain, even if the conquest was brief.
>>349158
>>349285
Varangians weren't Vikings. Viking isn't a synonym for Norseman.
>>349446
Except he is right. If not the XIX century snowflakes barely anyone would even know vikings existed.
>>349137
Fucking ironmen
>>349446
>>>/historychannel/
>>349137
So what does that tell you about the English? Losing their country to such wimps and cowards.
>>349553
you mean Normans who mixed with the local population, spoke french, were culturally french and were as nordic as Russians are Mongol? Yeah they weren't exactly vikings.
>>349567
Not him, but he is probably talking about the invasion of Britain by the great heathen army.
>>349553
If you mean Danelaw and shit like that, it happened because the Anglos and Saxons were busy killing each other. Have you never played Crusader Kings?
>>349572
they were driven back so conquered my ass
>>349589
What about Canute the Great? They won the war.
>>349496
Even worse since they still use longships.
I thought /his/ liked Vikings? I just ordered a bunch of history books on the Vikings Ffs, gonna have to cancel my order now
>>349300
>who is Harald hadradra
Bootybothered faggots in this thread
>who were Normans
>who conquered Dublin
>the rus
>Canute the great
Maybe not the greatest warriors but they did pretty well for themselves all considered
>>349660
Normans were Franks you imbecile.
The Irish were basically illiterate barbarians back then.
The Rus weren't Scandinavian.
Cnut is the only valid point, but still not very impressive.
>>349137
>le vikings were all complete shit meme
when will this reddit meme die?
>>349648
Only teenagers and stormfags like vikings.
>>349660
>the rus
mix of Swedes with slavs that's who they were
>normans
by the time they conquered England they were practically fully french
>>349690
on reddit kids are getting assblasted over them being shit everytime someone points it out he gets downvoted to fuck I know because I made some viking bashing threads there
>>349144
But that's true
Vikings overrated on their warrior abilities (but still impressive, look at those long boats), but underrated on their exploring, traveling, and trading abilities. They settled from Newfoundland to the Volga river. That's awful impressive.
>>349677
>Normans were Franks
Just plain wrong
>>349705
>Literally a Redditor
You're not welcome here
>>349648
No, all history is liked here, this is just retards trying to b8 /pol/
>>349137
Scandinavians were great warriors. The problem is all the best ones migrated and eventually took Spain and Italy, so all they had left at home were the Danes who were kind of meh.
>>349774
>Just plain wrong
Well, you're kinda right since using the term "Frank" after 843 is retarded
He should have used "French".
And Normans were indeed French by 1066 (when they became famous), after two centuries of living by French culture and mixing with the locals
>>349806
The king still called himself king of the Franks until 1200 something though.
The Chinese and middle eastern still did till the 19th century.
>>349648
I don't like the Vikings myself but
>reading books based on what is currently hip on a Vietnamese knitting board
>>349690
Actually VIKINGS WERE SO AWESOME AND BADASS LOOK I GOT A VIKING TATTOO AND WEAR A THOR'S HAMMER is more reddit than anything else on the planet.
>>349820
It was appropriation
Kinda like the HRE called itself Roman
As someone who look back at history, you should use the right term to define post 843 Franks (French is Western, German is Eastern)
>>349137
That's because viking was a fucing occupation and not a nationality/race. It was hugely popular and fucking loads of people did it, but on top of the glorified pirates, you can also count among vikings some of the most successful invading forces and statebuilders of their era.
>>349806
Normans took on a lot of French culture, but they still had a separate identity, and were Norse origin. They received vassalage when the Franks gave it to them to stop getting hammered, and, funny enough, they didn't speak Old French. They spoke Old Norman, which was just another Langues d'oïl. It's understandable to say they became "Frenchified", but they were not simply French.
>>349834
Learning to separate meme from reality will do well for you. Look at them for their strengths. Did the Celts settle in Newfoundland?
>>349835
>tfw no central Francia
>>349865
What's so impressive about that? They were Vikings Ergo they were reddit shit.
>>349865
speaking of Celts they drove vikings away
everytime someone mentions vikings he means their warrior aspect simply because being traders and settlers is not fucking interesting
some people on /his/ have this autistic rage against Vikings which is quite hilarious.
>>349894
>trade and settlement
>not interesting
>>>/pleb/
>>349847
>They received vassalage when the Franks gave it to them to stop getting hammered
They actually received Normandy after being defeated by the French
The French king gave them a swamp on the coast in exchange of them protecting it from other vikings
Dunno why so many uneducated fucks believe they conquered it
>funny enough, they didn't speak Old French. They spoke Old Norman, which was just another Langues d'oïl. It's understandable to say they became "Frenchified", but they were not simply French.
Your ignorance on the topic is speaking
Old Norman wasnt a language, it was a dialect of Old French
Langue d'Oil is literally a synonym of Old French
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/langue_d'o%C3%AFl
Normans spoke a dialect of Old French, it was the same language with some words being spelled differently (Like British and American English)
Because Americans think comic books are real life for some reason.
>>349947
traders shouldn't be constantly showed with weapons and compared to soldiers should they?
>>350002
I don't see the relevance of this
>>349989
To be fair, it was the European romanticist authors who kept rewriting history to suit their romanticist delusions. Some shitty bandits and highwaymen became "heroes of the class struggle", some shitty pirates became "badass pagan warrior race defeating the evil Christians" etc.
I'm saying this as a non-American.
>>349894
>speaking of Celts they drove vikings away
Celts are overrated as fuck, they've been on cultural retreat since the bronze age. The 1 (one) Celtic country (the other nations are all keked by Germanic and Latin countries) is speaking a Germanic language.
>everytime someone mentions vikings he means their warrior aspect simply because being traders and settlers is not fucking interesting
Maybe if you're a mong you aren't interested in settlement and trade
>>349887
>What's so impressive about that? They were Vikings Ergo they were reddit shit.
>>350023
Yeah that's a good point. I'm Swedish and we scrambled to build a national identity during the romantic era. A huge amount of misconceptions about vikings can be traced back to this.
>>350024
it doesn't matter if they were overrated or not this thread is about vikings and they got their ass kicked by pretty much everyone they went up against and speaking of cultural retreat they assimilated and abandoned their traditions quickly
/his/ is definitely blinded by its contrarian attitude.
It is true that they have been definitely overhyped in popular culture but vikings did achieve some relatively impressive things.
They were't nearly as bad in warfare as OP implies. Vikings were able to muster very large raiding parties that were essentially armies. They even sacked Paris which is very impressive and were paid to leave Paris alone the next time.
Housecarls were impressive more elite units that the vikings had, easily comparable to a dismounted knight.
And of course their trading missions and "colonies" were very impressive.
What's romantic about vikings is that they are 'free'. They made their own boats, their own weapons, and lived by their own laws.
As for bravery. Who is more brave? The blacksmith that allows his family to starve living under shitty conditions, paying taxes to his church and baron... or the blacksmith that becomes a viking and plunders to keep his family fed, or even better plunders with his family!
>>350062
by that logic drug dealers who sell heroine to feed their kids are heroes as well
>>350054
If we're going to speak ONLY of the raiding groups, there's that, but speaking of the entire Norse group gives a more comprehensive understanding. They still raided abd settled far and wide, Normans had England, Normandy, Sicily, and even the eastern Mediterranean coast under their control, and they were Norse origin.
>>349951
I admit, you know more than me on this. Tell me more.
>>350080
hence why I said vikings not Norsemen
as for Normandy it was given to them they didn't even conquer it
>>350073
Perhaps
In five hundred years.
You never know.
>>350073
Are you seriously some guy hanging outside a highschool with plastic bags of cocaine to a guy who has the courage and skill to
-leave his home and village for a life of danger
-organize and work with a team of hundreds of others
-distribute resources and roles among the hundreds
-create his own weapons
-learn how to use the weapons
-spend his entire life being a nomad
-create an entirely new culture that is awesome enough so people will still find it romantic 1,000 years later
-risk his life in battle
-not only run from the 'police' of his time but sometimes fight them to the death
A better analogy would be comparing Vikings to something like Bonny and Clyde. Which our culture DOES respect.
>>350125
>life of danger
>going against monks and farmers is dangerous
>everyone created his own weapons
>sacking monasteries and villages was a heroic battle
what the fuck am I even reading. Too much Skyrim?
>>350090
There's not much to say
Normans were originally a bunch of Danish vikings lead by Rollo
In 911, they got defeated by the French at the Siege of Chartres, and the French king proposed them to settle in a swamp, Normandy, if they agreed to protect French coast from other vikings.
They agreed and the Duchy of Normandy was born
As generations passed, they became more and more French, both in culture and admixture (they interbred with locals).
By 1066, they spoke French, were all christians and had over 50% French admixture.
>>349137
They had an opportunist doctrine you dunkass, that's why they stopped raiding when it stopped being profitable instead of doubling down. They weren't out to fight a war, they just did ~400 years of smash-and-grab because it was easy and lucrative.
The main reason that people consider vikings to be excellent warriors is because their entire culture revolved around martial prowess and they were excellent in their niche - any militaries were usually militias, raiding was something almost every male did for at least a year or two and serious disagreements and offenses were usually resolved through a trial of combat plus they had an incredible amount of mobility, range and speed and pioneered lightning raids. Individually and at small levels of organization they were excellent combatants - well-equipped, well-trained and generally much larger and stronger than their opponents.
>>350112
Well, we've already romanticized a meth cook.
>>350125
The Mexican Cartels wouldnt want to have a word with you.
>>350149
>I killed a monk I'm le berserkir xD
>>350139
>implying a village cant muster up any defence
>implying pic related cant kill a man
>implying that people just said hey its the vikings lets just give them all our shit
>implying there wasent a reason for why vikings where armed
>implying they wherent usually outnumbered even when they went up against a chicken shit of a village
>implying raiding monks aint just smart
>>350149
they weren't ''much larger'' you fucking memeing tardshit it was like 3-5 cm difference and most people don't even know about their blood feuds and duels (it's a shame though) they just unironically believe raiding villages involved battles against soldiers
>>350175
where the fuck was that implied?
or are you just spouting plebbit level memes because you have nothing els to say
>>350139
The vikings, as a community DID, create their own weapons. That's what the black smiths did.
Also as other annons have pointed out they didn't just fight monks and farmers. They had formal battles as well.
Put it this way. Imagine if today a group of ordinary citizens made a society that consisted of thousands of people and they went around robbing banks and occasionally got into fights with the cops and won. People would find that impressive.
Also
>monastaries
Don't you know the priests are always the bad guys. These are the guys that are going to take away your life savings to get you to buy an indulgence. The vikings are essentially the criminals that steal from other criminals :^)
>>350185
sorry forgot pic
>>350185
...yes? That's exactly what vikings were all about - unexpected attacks so the village won't be able to muster any real defense and sure they were outnumbered by unarmed men and so were the terrorist in the Paris attack. Your point?
>>350198
>blacksmiths
exactly. Blacksmiths. Not every single fucking warrior creating his own weapon.
let me just make this clear for everyone
vikings =/= norsemen
viking literally means to go raiding
Vikings were like a bunch of niggers with AKs robbing an unprotected grocery store.
You can call it smart and opportunistic and whatever the fuck but it sure isn't "brave" and "badass".
>>350210
It would be dumb as hell to talk about Marines in the Pacific War without discussing the Navy and industry backing them.
>>350202
most villages could muster their militia at the ring of a bell anon
and for those who arent part of the milita there are plenty of objects cable of killing a man lying around in a medieval village
>>350217
Except they weren't unprotected they fought knights and won. And the priests at the monastery could shoot holy lightning, havn't you heard of a battle monk? The bishop ones could even summon angels as minions.
>>350222
I would love a source not even trying to be a cunt I would love if it turned out vikings actually fought against militia and there was at least some form of battle going on and their reputation as warriors was justified
>>350225
as usual a vikingboo resorts to memes because that's what his favourite group of ''warriors'' is - a meme that has nothing but made up tales to offer
>>350237
No that's what you call a false flagger or a shitposter
>>350202
lol the vikings could just as easily be the ones caugth by suprise
if the village saw them landing their boats the vikings would all of the sudden be facing a milita force just as large as their own and a even bigger force of pissed of farmers who knew exactly when and where they where comming
>>350244
examples?
>>350244
So, you're basically proving the point of this thread? That means that vikings, (or the greatest warriors ever, for the reddit crowd), weren't great at all, since they were beatin by a poorly equiped farmer's militia.
>>350274
He never said they were easily beaten, nor did he say they were always beaten. If a bunch of farmers could beat them, then explain Daneslaw.
>>350274
They themselves were a farmer militia. They worked on their fields part time and raided part time. On the other hand, Norsemen in general had a pretty decent early medieval army, not unlike that of Saxons or Franks (the difference being that Norse nobles usually fought on foot, as heavy infantry instead of knights).
>>350349
There were some proffesional warriors as well why everyone forgets Jarls had warriors that worked for them?
>>350333
But he's still saying that they had trouble fighting with farmers. He was trying to defend viking image as the ˝brave, fearless warriors˝, which they were clearly not. They were great explorers and good traders, but even early slavs did beat (or drawed, whatever that means in Historia Langobardorum), organized Langobard defence in north Italy.
>>350349
Vikings were militia, but they had actual weapons, which they used for actual riding, for which they actualy trained. I don't think an average farmer could train most of the day, since they worked the fields for the whole day.
>>350359
"On the other hand, Norsemen in general had a pretty decent early medieval army, not unlike that of Saxons or Franks (the difference being that Norse nobles usually fought on foot, as heavy infantry instead of knights)."
Jarls are nobles. I have mentioned both them and their retinues, but they weren't the ones raiding (unless to procure supplies for their army, if it was raised)
>>350368
slavs also burnt down Hedeby
>>349137
Though the lens of modern warfare we would consider that good tactics
>>350377
through the lens of modern warfare we would consider attacking civilians a war crime
>>350368
He said they could be surprised by farmers. He never said anything about them being great warriors in his post. You're grabbing things out of the air.
>>350381
I didn't realize Vikings were signatories to modern treaties regarding the conduct of warfare.
>>350368
And peasants didn't have weapons? Also, peasants too trained, to keep bandits from sacking their villages. That's why there is a peasant militia. Also, vikings didn't "train the whole day". They were peasants too, not professional soldiers. They trained about as much as a common peasant militia, the only difference being that they weren't defending themselves from the bandits because they were the bandits.
>>350395
I'm not the one who started comparing modern times to viking age why are vikingboos so retarded?
>>350401
vikings often had slaves to do the dirty work a lot of them had the time to fuck around
>>350404
You can most defiantly compare modern theories on tactics to those practiced in times gone by.
>>350407
Common peasants (the ones who raided) didn't exactly have enough money to purchase, guard and feed thralls. Thralls were mostly property of noblemen or rich landowners. (the ones who actually were professional warriors)
>>350386
>thread being about how overromanticized vikings are today
>grabbing things out of the air
Look, he was talking about vikings attacking unarmed civilians and I'm still going with the thread's red line. You should read the OP post. Face it, vikings weren't even close to what people see them today.
>>350401
>peasants had weapons
Scythe, fork, cleaver, axe etc. are tools, not weapons. They could be used as one, but still that's not a weapon. And I'm not saying that they didn't have any knives or swords, but they couldn't have much of them at the time of viking invasions, that shit was expensive
>trained
First time I heard it, post some citiation, I'd love to hear it from there. I always thought, that the farmers ˝sold˝ themselves to the lord, so they could be under their protection, didn't they?
>they were the bandits
Exactly, vikings weren't anything much, but a simple robbers. I still don't get it how they are so romanticized today?
>>350415
>defiantly
it's definitely you fucktard
>>350423
He was talking about Vikings being attacked by armed villager militias. Did you even read his post?
>>350423
>what are spears
Knives on a pole. Not exactly expensive or difficult to use, yet enough to defend yourself with.
>peasants never trained
Common sense would suggest wrong. Forests were full of bandits and they could be levied at any moment to fight in a war. Your duke's retinue isn't going to protect you from raiders, so you protect yourself. Also, many peasants had some war experience. They were far from a good or professional army, but to say they were defenceless would be idiotic.
>they were bandits
I never suggested otherwise. They were part-time raiders who robbed villages of other kingdoms. That's about it. They were a militia, and so were their opponents. Meanwhile, common Norse armies would have been pretty similar to other early medieval armies - peasant levies and a core of jarls and their retinues.
>>350431
Yeah I did. So what're you trying to say?
>>350447
>spears
Ok, fair enough, they could make spears, but spears are pretty shitty weapon, when used against infantry
>common sense
Stop the bullshit, give me areference from where you're pulling that out. Never ever I read about peasants defending themselves in case of an attack.
>they were bandits
So you're agreeing with the whole thread's topic, that they're too romanticized today? Vikings I mean. That they weren't anything special, not more than other tribal cultures back then?
>>350464
That you're talking shit. Every claim you've made about his post has been false.
>>350464
spears were good against everything there is a reason why they were most common weapon at the time
>>350496
They were the most common weapon, because they were cheap to make.
>>350507
so were the axes yet they weren't as prevalent
>>350464
I never said they weren't romanticized. What part of part-time peasants-part time raiders didn't you understand? They were what they were, a militia.
>>350140
Them being danish is disputable so rather just say norse.
>>350517
whch is why they mostly served as sidearms huh?
>>350517
>swords are the best all round weapon
Well, there goes your credibility on medieval warfare.
>>350185
>wasent
>wherent
I knew only kids like vikings and yes people did pay them to be left alone and vikings were armed for the same reason gangsters are.
bump for butthurt stormfags and scandis
>>349137
How has no one brought this up?
>>350924
Danelaw was created by Danes, who were more or less English anyway. They weren't Vikings.
>>349709
>>350929
le what
>>350924
they had a kingdom only because england was war torn not because they were amazing fighters
>>350929
>>350983
You see when we are talking about the bad things about vikings it only means all norse when the connotation is bad but when it is good they are norse.
>army wins against aglo-saxons it is a norse army
>same army later loses against another aglo-saxon army and suddenly it is a viking army
>>350929
...Wat?
Actually, given Lingual drift, it would be more accurate to say that the Anglo-Saxons were basically Danes back then.
>>349847
Ive seen the crusaders described as Franks. The first ones, that is. By a well regarded historian too. Thomas Asbridge in his one book about all the Crusades. Can't remember the title at the moment.
>>349847
By 1066 Normans spoke French and were French culturally.
Source: My Anglo-Saxon lecturer today.
>>350534
Not him, but what would the average weapon for a soldier in the 15th century be? A blunt weapon, or a chopping? Or maybe a piercing? I know swords were mostly side arms.
>>350534
He's right though
>>351265
"Frank" after 843 refers only to Western Franks (French) only used in the context of Europe
French back then still called thelselves like that (even though very different from Charlemagne era Franks both in culture and language), so you can see some historians using that term to describe them sometimes, but it's pretty bad as it can create a confusion with the actual Frankish people that existed before the birth of the French and German ones in the 9th century.
For the crusades, it's another story
The thing is that most crusaders were French, so the muslims generalized the term to all Europeans and even ended up calling Europe "Frankistan".
In the context of crusades, historians sometimes use the term "Franks" to refer to all europeans like muslims did (even though it's just as bad as the situation above).
>>351287
And even genetically due the the interbreeding
Rollo's son was already 50% French genetically
So imagine how French his grand-grand-grand-grandson William the Bastard was....
What's the dumbest viking-meme you know? Mine is LE VIKINGS DIDNT HAVE CAVALRY XD even though the Norse people were renowned for their horses and riding skills which surpassed the Romans, which is why many of the leading Roman cavalrists were infact Norse.
>le vikings were foot soldiers they didnt have horses!! hurr im a retard
I blame Mount and Blade
>>351333
When did Norse people ever interact with Romans you retard
And if you're talking about the Byzantines, the Varangians fought as infantry.
>>349137
>Liking vikings soley for their fightan' abilities
No, dumbass, vikings are significant for a lot more than being shitheel pirates.
>Traveled all over the place
>Traded extensively with distant nations
>Settled in England, France, Russia, the Baltics, Greece, Italy, and the Americas,
>Influenced languages
>Changed the borders on maps
>Became ingrained in the consciousness of Europe
>>351343
>When did Norse people ever interact with Romans you retard
During the Roman imperial era... What kind of stupid question is that?
>>351354
Ok, tell me more about the Norse cavalrymen in the "Roman imperial era"
>defeated by a woman
>>351361
Many finds of these Roman cavalry masks have been found in Scandinavia.
Also, the stirrup was introduced to Scandinavia much earlier than to Southern Europe.
Look, the point is that the Nose were some of the best riders in Europe, excluding the steppe people, and the fact that many RPGs portaits them as somekind of "intfantry civilization" is beyond retarded
>b-but the memes!
>>351310
Makes sense.
Jesus is LORD.
>>351382
I guess the fact that there were Roman ruins in England also means Saxons had god tier roman legionaires?
I don't get it how the Normans are never brought up in viking threads? Yeah, sure, they spoke French, but that's just assimilation. They were viking descendants. It's even right there in the fucking name.
>>351438
"Viking" means raider or pirate and the Normans were neither of those things.
>>351438
what about ''they bred with the local population'' don't you understand? After two generations they were french it's like calling Americans Brits
>>351449
This thread is about early middle age Scandinavians and you know it.
>>351449
not that anon but you could make the case about the Normans being raiders. They did seem to have a reputation as violent, ambitious marauders and "adventurers" (which back then basically had the connotation of a sort of combination of thief, murderous bandit, and mercenary).
>>351467
so basically they were RPG characters?
>>351455
>America isn't a British product
>>351474
Bingo
>>351474
Yeah, basically.
>>351477
And french, and spanish, and dutch, and german.
>>351485
We speak English and use common law, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. This is an Anglo culture, with immigrants from other places.
>>351484
Except the term viking isn't really that straight forward. It can mean just a Scandinavian pirate, or it can include merchants too, or it can mean all Scandinavians at the time. The last one is usually what one means when referring to the vikings, although it's technically incorrect.
I don't see how their early descendants are irrelevant to the discussion.
>>351516
Dude, the Normans were Christian Frenchmen.
They were not ebin vigings :-DDDD
>>351501
>We speak English
Except for all the Spanish and German speakers in the country.
I get your point, but I feel it's my responsibility as an anon on 4chan to be as pedantic as possible. Plus I don't want to marginalize the influence that everyone besides the britsh had on the country.
>>349137
Because they too were also 90% bumfuck farmers trying to get sweet raid spoils to show off to their nordic waifus once they got back home.
Of course they'd turn around when they met a large standing army- most viking raid groups were just un/slightly-trained common folk who volunteered to plunder monks n' shit.
>>351660
>Of course they'd turn around when they met a large standing army
They're there to rape and pillage, not to mention that they would have no reason to stick around and fight. They were such a nuisance back then because of their mobility, not because they were giant horn helmet wearing badasses.
>comparing light raiding parties to armies
>bring up actual Norse military campaigns (Cnut, Normans, etc.) and people immediately disregard these
Well yeah, by these bullshit rules of course the Norse are going to look bad.
>>351521
they were not Franks. They were Norsemen culturally assimilated. Doesn't make them a non-Norse product.
>>351806
>half-breed
i agree. but this whole thread is dumb because
A. were comparing a light raiding party to genuine militaries, and then ignoring when Norsemen actually made empires and kingdoms.
B. take a frenchified Norse group, and claim that non of their exploits can be an attribute to the Norse identity and attribute it all to the Frenchies.
>>351816
to add, its like saying Ireland cannot be Celtic because of English influence, and that their doings are not Celtic at all.
Normans is pretty much what happened when some fuckhead thought it was a good idea to teach the Norse mounted- and organized warfare
>>351864
>"Pierre you retard you've just doomed us all"
What's the big deal with pirates too while we're at it, I'd imagine most of them were just exceptionally swarthy and sometimes polite businessmen more or less.
>>349176
Some were. Viking wasn't a profession as much as it was something you'd do. In Old Norse the word Viking is a verb, and means essentially to raid.
They conquered England.
That gives you an idea of just how shit the English must have been. To try to make it seem less embarrassing, the English then turned the Vikings into superhuman war machines.
>>353192
Northmen were enlisted from time to time Christian kings to go to war for them.
>>351300
polearms and ranged weapons. 15rh century is start of widespread use of firearms.
>>353187
>vike
>verb
>to go viking
>>350534
In viking age it was. Polearms, powerful crossbows and longbows etc. came later. Even massive use of lance armed heavy cavalry came around end of 10th century
>>350024
Germanics and Latins (and even Slavs) were the true Master Race. The fact that so much attention is lavished on losers like the Vikings and Celts is only because of American fetishization of them, by plastic paddy descendants (in the latter case) and white nationalists/heavy metal fans (in the former)
That Vikings and Celts were great, is the little lie that these defeated and marginalised people tell themselves, no different from "we were kings in Africa"
Pic related: Amerishit history
>>353483
>Germanics are the master race
>Vikings are losers
Anon...
>>353483
vikings were germanics. last "uncivilizated" ones actually.
>>349137
So using tactics makes you a pussy? You're not very bright, are you?
Varangian guard
Kievan Rus
Danelaw
Dublin
Norman conquest of England
Norman conquest of southern Italy
and the list goes on...
Silly revisionist trying to mock the effectivity of the vikings
>>353509
None of those count as norsemen by my definition.
>>350073
Wow slave morality is strong with this one.
>>353513
How are the varangian guards not norsemen? Dumb fuck.
>>350368
He didn't say they'd be in trouble, he said they could be the ones surprised instead of the ones sneak attacking.
>>349928
I feel like /his/ reacts to vikings the same way sword fans react to Katanas.
You know it's overrated, but they focus ONLY on the negative while disreguarding all the achievements
>>349137
Vikings ranged from shitty farmer dude #451 to professional badass. Of course they would at times be defeated: if we compared the military results of a country's use of militia vs their use of professional soldier there will be a discrepancy, it doesn't mean they are shit it just means different subgroups of their population have different degrees of military training.
>>353513
Well get the fuck out of /his/ then...
Read these and then come back:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Varangians-Byzantium-Sigf%C3%BAs-Bl%C3%B6ndal/dp/052103552X
http://www.amazon.com/Kievan-Russia-The-History-Series/dp/0300016476
http://www.amazon.com/The-Northern-Danelaw-Structure-c-800-1100/dp/0718500148
http://www.ncte.ie/viking/boks.htm
>>353513
Well then your definition is stupid, you are retarded, and your mom is fat. Kill yourself.
>>353516
to be accurate they were mostly swedes and geats and some danes, not norse
>>353543
Do you know what the word norse covers? ... It does sound like you believe norwegian and norse is the same... It's not...
>>353543
This has to be bait.
Otherwise you are probably the dumbest person i have ever seen on 4chan.
>>353545
>It's not...
it is.
>>353532
This. I personally don't like Vikings because I see them mostly as glorified bandits, but dismiss them just as bunch of bandits only is equaly stupid as glorifying them as best warriors eva.
Same is with Celts. Some people here see them as shit, because they were no longer relevant since late antiquity, maybe sooner. But in times before that they were one of most important groups of people in Europe and some of them were prized mercenaries, for example Galatians.
I'm not sure I have ever heard of group of European people who can be considered a complete utter shit.
>>353552
Please kill yourself
>>353552
wat
a--a
taw
>>353556
>I'm not sure I have ever heard of group of European people who can be considered a complete utter shit.
Lithuanians
>>353552
You don't even need to source your claimd because we all know it: your ass.
So take your shit opinions, and shove them alongside your head far up down your source, then do like a fa/tg/uyand roll, ROLL, ROLLLL far the fuck away from here.
>>353564
Litterary the niggers of northern europe before the african niggers arrived.
>>353564
well, id don't know anything about them except that they were part of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and that they used to be pagans in bad need of christening, so maybe...
>>353564
The Lithuanians were based as fuck.
They btfo the Teutonic Knights and built a kingdom stretching form the Baltic to the Black sea while still being pagan
>>353587
lol nope. they were and are nothing but buttsluts to germans, poles and russians. poles tried to be somewhat nice to them at the end because no one wants thousands of angry savages in their backyard.
>>351766
Canut is legit Normans were french they had fuck all to do with scandinavians by the time they conquered England.
>>349790
>Danes
>meh
>who conquered Normandy
>who conquered England
>who conquered Sicily
You're just a stupid little shit, aren't you?
>>353649
lol yes. You are either a butthurt German or a Pole. Battle of Grünwald, you mad? Wilno nasze, you mad?
>>349155
>Showing Redcoats as an example of forces that were light raiders that avoided conflict
Shiggy-Diggy
>>353913
>who conquered Normandy
No one did
A bunch of Danish vikings received it after being defeated in 911
>who conquered England
Normans
>who conquered Sicily
Normans
At least you tried
>>353913
>Normandy
they didn't conquer Normandy Franks gave it to them after defeating them
>>353483
>Germans
>A Celtic race
Lrn 2 fucking history
According to Ibn Fadlan the Vikings were pretty badass warriors, and he also considered them very honorable people, which is pretty weird considering he was a Muslim among kafirs.
this thread is kinda shitty tbph
isn't /pol/ meant to contain this shit?
>vikings were cowards
>christians are kikes
>blah blah blah
>>349137
Why would you want to engage a larger force than your own head on?
The "vikings" only actually bothered to amass real armies a few times in history.
>>350929
Anon, I hate to break it to you, but at that the time, the Norwegians and the Danes were practically the same.
>>353947
Nah, Normans were initially norse people who, in exchange for their fealty (and the garuntee of no further norse incursions), received the fiefdom.
>>355627
>Nah, Normans were initially norse people who, in exchange for their fealty (and the garuntee of no further norse incursions), received the fiefdom.
After being defeated by the Franks
What he said is true.
They initially a bunch of Danes who invaded France and got rekt, but they were good enough at war for the French king to decide they could be useful as coast guards for his kingdom.
>>353932
Maybe he meant not going up against a larger force like those redcoats did against the zulu?
vikings are meme tier shitlords killing farmers might be impressive to Reddit and Skyrim audience but I prefer proper conquerors
muh valhalla
Plebbitor in charge of lacking history knowledge
>conquests and colonization from the Americas to Eastern Rome
>elite army of the emperor in a region known for being a crossroads of the world and one of the most sought after conquests in it's time
>trade network that would be impressive today, much less for it's time
>still making retarded pop-history reading faggots assmad in the year of our lord two-thousand and fifteen.
>>349158
>Christian kings overrating the Viking threat and portraying them as the devil in order to scare the population
The vikings almost succeeded in conquering all of England at one point, so I would say they had a healthy respect for the vikings. Not that they overrated them.
>>355986
>eastern rome
are you retarded?
>>350244
>If you're a rapist, there's a chance she'll snap off your cock
The might! The bravery!
>tfw the vikings are famous for all the wrong reasons.
>>356079
Varangian Guard, fuccboi
>>356456
that's not the same as conquering it you nigger
>>356474
they did not, you are right.
but the topic here is of their warrior abilities, and they were chosen in Byzantium. why do you lot have to rampantly hate on Norse legacy?
Holy shit, viking hater btfo ITT
>>356486
that's because these people are dumb as Rome-haters, Persia-haters, and any other influential group. They all have a place in history and did something to get noticed.
>>356483
Byzantium also employed Turks, Slavs and pretty much everyone
>>356498
Not to such stature, and what do you mean? Are they all too shit?
the damage control is ridiculous, do you even see what you're arguing for?
