So /his/ seems to agree that the Vikings were absolutely shit overrated warriors who got rekt every time they faced someone stronger than monks or peasant women and children.
But how incredibly shit does that make the English? The English are the only ones who not only lost to Vikings, but got entirely conquered and ruled by them.
Vikings were slave raiders, and they succeeded in organizing a vast global slave network using people from Ireland and Briton they captured.
Everything else they kind of sucked at.
>>360431
>never conquered
>most successful crusade
>originators of the Norman dynasty
>first to travel to the New World
>top notch traders and best shipping technology of its time
>>360444
>most successful crusade
wut
>originators of the Norman dynasty
That just shows that anyone turns into master race in France.
>>360388
>So /his/ seems to agree that the Vikings were absolutely shit overrated warriors who got rekt every time they faced someone stronger than monks or peasant women and children
It's a single pissed of polish guy from /int/ who keeps spamming /his/ with threads about how viking sucks. Don't deny it, Ivan.
>>360506
Ivan is more of a Russian name.
>>360506
Did you just admit going to /int/ lmao. Might as well be a redditor.
>>360388
England and the whole archipelago was literally the backwater of Europe before the 1700s.
Also, norsemen =! viking.
>>360388
Vikings are specifically the fucks that went raiding seasonally for loot. England was conquered by the Kingdom of Denmark, an actual state that could actually keep an organized army fighting for longer than a summer.
>>360537
*before the 1500s
But I agree otherwise.
>>360545
No, in the 1500s it still was hardly a secondary actor at best.
Actually, if anything, it was more important in the 1400s than the 1500s.
>>360564
>what is the age of fucking discovery
>>360485
It was primarily the military abilities of the Normans combined with the idea of conquering rather than rading that resulted in their success. It was a good combination between both cultures.
Look up Harald Hardraade.
>>360584
>england
>discovering shit
It was all about Portugal, Spain and the Netherlands for a long time. Before the aforementioned 1700s the brits were barely more relevant than Sweden.
>>360628
But Sweden was a superpower back then.
>Gustavus Adolphus
>Great Northern War (best named war ever)
>>360636
>Gustavus Adolphus
>1500s
Nigga you're a century off.
>>360636
In polish the name is even better; 'Potop' - 'The Deluge'
>>360636
I though we were talking about the Americas (or colonies in general) fro the time you mentioned "age of discover" m8
>>360645
He said before the 1700s
>>360654
>what is New Sweden
>>360657
A ridiculous holding that shows how irrelevant was Sweden in the matters of discovery and colonization?
>>360665
And the Swedish Gold Coast?
>>360444
>never conquered
who would conquer wasteland rich only on rocks and pinecones?
>most successful crusade
French + Italian ifluences
>originators of the Norman dynasty
French influences
>first to travel to the New World
and results were nothing, nothing and abadoned settlement in "Green"land
>top notch traders and best shipping technology of its time
still poor as fuck
>>360388
very shit. It was long way before they were civilized by Romans, Saxons and Frenchmen.
>>360388
Vikings heavily settled areas in Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Frisia, Baltic Coast, Russia, France.
The English defeated the Vikings militarily and slaughtered large numbers of the colonists.
The vikings were weak keks that whose only real reason their conquests were so initally large was purely speed and unpredictability of their attacks.
When fought conventaionally they were handily defeated by the professional armies of the rest of Europe.
There's a reason Danish isn't spoken in Britain or Ireland.
>>360679
>Danelaw
>long before Romans and Saxons
Better be bait
>>360388
vikings and anglo-saxons weren't that different. both were germanic invaders who saw an opportunity in the green and pleasant fields and forests of lloegr. it's just that the saxons had arrived 2-3 centuries earlier and had grown fat and complacent and christian.
when the danes settled down in the north, they also grew fat and complacent and christian.
and when the normans came, they settled down and grew fat and complacent.
that's what happens when you live somewhere green and pleasant.
>>360669
While not impressive I suppose this one would've been profitable, at least. Except because they lost it to the danes after a very little time.
But hey, still better than Poland/Courland.
>>360700
But normamdy is just as green and pleasant...
>>360680
The normans were keks?
>>360736
the normans also gave us primogeniture - not quite so pleasant for 2nd and 3rd sons.
that's why the normans remained hungry for more shit.
>>360431
Eh, I think it's been argued pretty convincingly that even the raid on Lindisfarne was actually part of a substantial invasion.
It's just the chroniclers only record attacks on ecclesiastical centres.
>>360680
>There's a reason Danish isn't spoken in Britain or Ireland.
English was heavily influenced by Danish though, so influenced that some linguists consider it a Scandinavian language.[1]
1. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121127094111.htm
>>362280
Old Norse certainly had a considerable influence on Old English, but that claim is a bit over the top. Refuted here:
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4351
>>360444
>most successful crusade
Okay, just no. The two most successful crusades that had lasting impact were the spanish crusade (spain exists, duh) and the Northern Crusades (lasting teutonic influence in baltics, christianization of everyone but the latvians, etc)
>>360388
The French lost to them too, Normandy got its name from the norman vikings.
Anyways the amount of times the english were raided by the vikings its no wonder they eventually lost.
Viking-age Norse didn't just conquer much of England. They also took big portions of Scotland, Ireland, and France, in addition to founding the Russian state.
Vikings may be overrated, but if so it's because their considerable feats have been exaggerated, not because they were pushovers.
>>360680
the viking never really settled ireland m8, they actually met fierce resistance
>>363003
What are you talking about? Ireland is full of Viking placenames
>>362687
It did have a big impact as to influence a great deal of grammar structure. If it was basic, then it did have a huge impact
>>360537
Prior to 1066 the archipelago was the greatest place in Europe.
>>360537
>Also, norsemen =! viking.
OH WOW NOW LETS JUST COMPARE THE DEDICATED LIGHT RAIDING PARTIES TO LITERAL FUCKING ARMIES
>>360444
>First to travel to the New World
>beat by a few millennia by the natives
kek
>>360679
>influences
Alright. Then no one can claim shit because of influences from foreign nations.
Britain cannot claim the British empire since the Chinese invented gun powder, which gave the Europeans a military superiority. With that logic you'll get fucking nowhere.
>>360388
GCSE History here
>>364360
By 1066 Normans couldn't speak old norse and were culturally French, it's a bit more than influence.
>>360388
At the time of the first viking invasions, anglo-saxon succession meant that a lot of the english kingdoms were unstable which is why the vikings walked all over them.
Wessex was stable because Alfred's father(?) slaughtered all the aethelings other than his kids so they could inherit pretty much straight away, which is partly why they got their shit together.
During Alfred's reign the vikings couldn't get anywhere near wessex because he so capably stopped them.
heard ya'll snowniggas started a viking thread without me
>>364374
>The military strategy
But this is wrong, they fought like French. They conquered so much land because Normandy was very powerful relative to its size, by 1066 it was probably the strongest northern european power other than England.
When William conquered England he did it with a coalition of French forces, from Aquitaine to Flanders. He didn't do that by fighting norse.
No Britain didn't lose. At all. It's made up.
>>364372
Vikingboos on suicide watch.
>>364402
germanic language speaking taig detected.
>>360388
They sacked paris in 845 and claimed large territories from Normandy to benelux
You ignore anything the Vikings did in mainland Europe
>>364412
>large territories
>from Normandy to Benelux
>large
>>364412
Normans were given Normandy after losing against the French.
>>364415
In feudal terms these are pretty good gains for a bunch of raiders.
>>364382
I don't disagree with most of what you said, but I think the Count of Flanders was stronger than the Duke of Normandy.
And if you count him as Northern European, obviously, Henry IV was stronger than any other individual at the time (he also had huge problems with huge Civil Wars).
>>364415
>thinking actual size of the territory matters
Medieval Benelux was worth more than half of Scandinavia
>>364382
Idk m8, their weaponry and ships were of the same structure and design as the Norse military equipment and ships.
>>364423
>Normandy
The Vikings started to raid the Seine Valley during the middle of the 9th century. After attacking and destroying monasteries, including one at Jumièges, they took advantage of the power vacuum created by the disintegration of Charlemagne's empire to take northern France. The fiefdom of Normandy was created for the Norwegian Viking leader Hrolf Ragnvaldsson, or Rollo (also known as Robert of Normandy). Rollo had besieged Paris but in 911 entered vassalage to the king of the West Franks, Charles the Simple, through the Treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte. In exchange for his homage and fealty, Rollo legally gained the territory which he and his Viking allies had previously conquered. The name "Normandy" reflects Rollo's Viking (i.e. "Northman") origins.
>>364423
No, they made an agreement with the French king that they would come to aid if the French were attacked.
Kingdom of France in 1066, Power Rankings:
1- Duke of Aquitaine
2- Count of Flanders
3- Count of Barcelona
4- Count of Toulouse
5- Duke of Normandy
6- Count of Blois
7- King of France
8- Count of Anjou
9- Duke of Burgundy
But I'm sure I'm forgetting someone.
>>364500
The count of Champagne was one of the six secular peers, so he must have been important.
>>364412
They got absolutely rekt in Paris in 888, and again at Paris and Chartres in 911, and Rollo, who had led all of those attacks, was captured. Following that, he converted to Catholicism and swore fealty to the king of France, in exchange for being made duke of Normandy and allowing his people to settle there.
This wasn't a conquest, it was a deal the French king Charles the Simple made with a defeated Viking leader to get him to protect the French coast from other Viking raiders, which was otherwise very difficult and costly to defend.
>>364374
>The military strategy remained Norse
No it didnt
Normans didn't fight anything like vikings, be it both in tactics and strategy
>>360537
>implying insular monasticism didn't preserve Europe's intellectual foundation during the entire medieval period
continentals... when will they learn?
>>364408
>anon posts Alfred
>gets called a taig
wot
>>364457
After losing to the French at Chartres in 911
What you say doesnt disprove what he said
>>364756
this - if anyone fought like the vikings it was the saxons with their shieldwall.
the saxons historically fought like tuhe vikings, and the influx of danes into the saxon feod didn't really change anything - both saxons and danes were wedded to the shieldwall and knew how it worked.
william, on the other hand, introduced armoured cavalry and a more organised use of archery, iirc, together with more aggressive rather than defensive tactics.
>>364780
WE WUZ KANGS BEGORRAH AND BEJASUS
>>364786
>implying pretending to retreat to lure the enemy out of position wasn't the secret to the Normans success
>Frenchmen
>winning by running away for almost a thousand years
>>364794
Alfred was Anglo you bellend.
>>364801
>he doesn't appreciate my cultural appropriation may may
fuck off back to stuttgart, klaus
>>364798
Funny cause that's exactly what Wellington pulled against Ney at Waterloo to make him waste the cavalry
>>364808
Calling someone a taig for posting the father of England is just retarded m9.
>>364811
All is fair in love and war.
>>364798
The more typical French tactic has been to blindly charge into rains of arrows or machine gun fire while screaming incoherently.
>>360388
>So /his/ seems to agree that the Vikings were absolutely shit
One person keeps spamming threads to that effect, yes
>But how incredibly shit does that make the English?
Is this the punchline? The new phase of the master plan?
