Normans were a meme just like vikings they descended from.
Normans were French.
>>581802
How? They founded 3 kingdoms and in England they colonized the whole English aristocracy and made it french
almost all pre-16th century european warriors are memes
>>581827
If that's true then any pre 16th century warriors anywhere are memes. Nothing particularly memeworthy of European warriors
Except Vikings didn't do dick while Normans established some serious kingdoms.
>>581833
>Vikings didn't do dick
>established a massive trade network that went from the Atlantic to Russia
>established kievan rus kingdom
>ancestors of normans
>>581838
>ancestors of Normans
I don't think being someone's ancestor counts as achievement you idiot fuck.
>>581830
>If that's true then any pre 16th century warriors anywhere are memes
no, because the pre-16th centuries warriors of other continents arent constantly discussed and pushed in the media as much
>>581842
Why are you getting so mad? It does count, because they established the customs and traditions that were the base of Norman identity. Norman warrior ethos was the direct result of Viking warrior ethos. They also continued using Viking style ships which were affective in invading England. Go back to Reddit with your 'le Vikings overrated shit'
>>581845
How about
>Japanese samurai
>Amerindian warrior chief
>Egyptian shit
>>581850
You sure seem to know what's popular on reddit. I for one don't go to that shithole.
>>581845
Also that's hardly surprising when you're only watching european/North American media. Try watching Arab or Japanese shit and it will obviously be different
>>581858
Different anon, you're a faggot
>>581850
This. Without the ancestors who paved the way, the offspring have a far less likely chance of ending up in the situation that they did. This applies to nearly every civilization, save a few lucky ones.
>>581858
Yeah sure you don't. You call me a 'fucking idiot' even tho you clearly know jack shit about the subject and just want to bandwagon on the whole hating on Vikings shit. Fuck off retard
>>581854
>Yes
>No
>You werent even able to came with a name.
Normans are the reason I have Langues de oil words in my language, and it has my Saxon ass buttblasted every single day.
Surely that counts for something.
>>581854
samurai are overrated, warrior chief isn't, egyptian isnt
>>581850
>It does count, because they established the customs and traditions that were the base of Norman identity.
Nope.jpg.
Read up on the concept of "Normanitas." It's pretty much "Thank Jesus we're not barbarian shits anymore."
"Gens Normanorum" were a combination of Norse and Frankish culture. But in terms of civilization and religion, they bowed down to an Frankish culture.
![BayeuxTapestryScene38[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/F8cXV9F.jpg "BayeuxTapestryScene38[1].jpg")
>>581850
>Viking style ships
Shit i didn't know this, anglos truly got buttblasted for ages.
first romans fucked them up, then the saxons came which are basically proto vikings.
then norman came to fuck shit up, can't even imagine 10+ generations getting raped by invaders.
>>581901
I never said they worshipped pagan gods or had berserker rituals... I just said that the same glorification of battle and conquering was descended from Viking precedents. In other words, even after they christianized, they never lost that warrior culture.
>"Thank Jesus we're not barbarian shits anymore."
That actually has nothing to do with normanitas. It was more along the lines of glorifying battle and conquest and being pious
>>581802
Fuckin normies
> were a meme
>>581913
Since when vikings were glorifying battle and conquering? Played too much Skyrim or something?
whatever they were, it wasn't french
>>582007
Oh yeah its not like the sagas and engravings and written sources aren't all full of references to violence or warrior rituals like the berserker rituals. Practically all they were interested in recreationally was drinking and fucking and killing. Epic trole tho
>>582028
sagas also mention magic and a woman who had army of monsters so I guess that's legit as well
>>582056
>not being able to separate reality from mythology
You're too stupid to be posting here
>>581802
Nigga normana where fucking hard cunts, their kingdom in southern Italy was top tier. I wish they had succeded in theor conquest in Tunisia and Greece. Imagine a dank mediterranean roman empire removing Kebab and Byzantine at the same time
>>582107
if you believe berserkers existed then you suffer from the same condition
>>581901
Farmer, farriers, stable boys. These are no soldiers. Most have seen too many winters. Or too few... Look at them. They’re frightened. I can see it in their eyes.
>>582220
Varangians in Constantinople are recorded as doing berserker rituals, in sagas, engravings and Nordic manuscripts they're recorded as well. Stop posting
>>582278
lol stfu lego, you are frightened too. Whine like a bitch nigga and board a ship to the west like the rest of them. kek.
>>582287
>muh memengian guard
first of all they weren't that good second later on it consisted almost exclusively of Saxons
vikings were shit in all forms deal with it
REEEEE NORMANS, GET OFF MY ISLAND!!!!!!
>>582278
Sauron did nothing wrong
>>582278
man I hate what jackson did to legolas and gimli
>>582418
>le varangians where saxons
this is the second time i have seen someone meme about this
hand over your sources please
>>582418
Did I say anything about their skill? No I didn't, dumbfuck. And how can you tell whether they were 'good' regardless, dumbass? Every byzantine source lists them as the most elite troops in the empire.
>vikings were shit in all forms deal with it
No they weren't. You clearly know nothing about the subject so stop embarassing yourself
>>582541
After 1066 most of the guard was actually Anglo saxon
>>582541
But you were given sources the last time.
>Likewise, the Byzantine civil-servant, soldier and historian John Kinnamos calls these "axe-bearers" which guarded the Emperor "the British nation, which has been in service to the Romans' Emperors from a long time back".[15]
>>581897
>nothing is overrated
>>581802
All this talk on Normans has me wondering, just how effective was their armour and shields?
There is always discussion over the effectiveness of plate armour from the 15th century but hardly ever of the more older historical people. So just how good was the typical Norman's kit, helm, shield and chain mail, in protecting them from harm?
>>582607
Molon lmao
>>582610
I know their kite shields are effective at making use of space, and their helmets look sick AF
>>582610
The metagame in the Norman hero was to fight with swords and spears. The "chainmail" armor (actually just aclled mail or maille) was popular mainly because it withstood sword slashes so well, and also protected against piercing weapons like spears and arrows to some extent. Mail would protect you from a sword strike, a spear thrust and mitigate the damage of an arrow, but thrust against it hard enough and the links will break. Or just bash the guy wearing it, mail does not absorb the impact over a larger area like plate armor would. The popularity of mail also comes from the simplicity of the infrastructure needed to produce it. You just have some guy sit in the smithy all day and make little metal rings. Then another guy clamps them together in the shape of the armor, probably one guy could only make arms, while another made coifs, one the chest, and a specific guy nailed (there were several methods to join the links) them together to form the complete armor (byrnie, or hauberk). There's some debate that the word maille is related to the word malleable (shapeable). So in the end mail was adequate armor that was simple to produce.
>>582642
in the Norman era*. no idea why i wrote "hero"
>>582635
I'm guessing too the kite shield were alright at absorbing arrow shots? Or is that too just Hollywood and games ruining me? I
know right?! I loved the Norman look almost as much as the War of the Roses period armoured Knight on foot.
>>582642
That's pretty cool actually. One of my obsessions with medieval armour (14th-15th century) was, at least from my understanding, it was one of the few moments in human history that armour, to a point, was superior to the weaponry.
Its nice to know the Norman armour and equipment was actually effective and didn't just look awesome.
>>582662
Norman kite shield would have no problem stopping an arrow, if you look at the Bayeux tapestry you can see a lot of depictions of warriors with their shields riddled with arrows. The main two types of shields at the time of the battle of Hastings was the kite shield and the round shield. The differences were that the kite shield covered your groin and thigs better, but being assymetrical it was not as easy to move around as the round shield. The kite shield worked best for horsemen or in a formation, for 1v1 fighting the round shield was preferred.
>>582662
I think material would effect projectile performance. And Italo-Normans look this best IMO, the British Isles ones are the ones that effected me personally the most but Sicilian ones are crazy interesting. As a Germanaboo I have mixed feelings about them, they're Latin Carolingian influenced Norsemen, and that's very cool, if polarized.
>>582678
Thanks again for the reply. I sometimes wonder if medieval armour and equipment was better protection than modern ages. Certainly sounds like it anyway. I didn't know (again Hollywood) Normans used round shields, I thought it was just the kite shield. Still, I can only imagine using one during a hail of arrows, would probably still be frightening despite the protection. Thanks anon, I really appreciate the response. I've always had a soft spot for history.
>>582714
Kevlar is basically supercloth, it's wonderful for absorbing sudden impacts but is really shit for a blade. It's just changed with warfare. We'll have the best for it up until the new thing comes. The best cavalry saber arrived just in time to become obsolete.
>>582714
modern soldier's helmet is a life saver I saw a webm where the guy got shot in the head (not up close of course) and survived thanks to it not to mention shrapnels
kevlar is pretty good too
just because something doesn't allow you to tank a point blank shot doesn't mean it's not protective
Huscarls > everything else desu
>>582771
Huscarls are admirable and a favorite of mine, but the Norman Knight sure proved it's might
>>582771
most underrated warriors in history
why is he wearing pink
Anyone know of any good books for Normans outside of the Osprey History books? Or would they be adequate reading?
>>582805
I think that's because
A) only Anglo Saxons had them as true military units
and
B.1) Norse Housecarls were merely bodyguards and
B.2) Vikings (their traders/raiders/settlers) are what's hyped up
>>582875
how good were the norse ones anyway? Were they even reliable guards?
>>581838
vikings were faggots who only attacked peasants. The little shit they tried to established ended up badly.
>>582771
>a fat warrior is better than everything else
>a fat warrior
>fat
>>583303
>how good were the norse ones anyway? Were they even reliable guards?
they were supposed to be the best fighters a noble could find, and had no other job then train and fight for their lord. they were supposed to be the absolute best warriors among the Norse.
Wether all of them lived up to that standard is another matter, but i doubt a bad huscarl would remain a huscarl for long.
>>583326
You're ignoring the
>established a massive trade network that went from the Atlantic to Russia
>established kievan rus kingdom
retard
>>583402
>established kievan rus
reaching
>>583427
Not at all. Rurik and the other varangians were all vikings. They literally came from scandinavia. They continued to have very close relations with the other vikings/scandinavians over a few centuries because the kievan rus royalty continued to ally and marry the scandinavians.
>>583402
if they were such great traders they shouldn't be fucking shilled as warriors
>>583505
You know that setting up trade networks wasn't an easy non-violent thing to do? They had to conquer the places where they set up trading bases. Iceland and Russia are examples of that
>>583524
this fucking Russia meme again Russians asked Swedes to govern them it wasn't taken by force
>>583723
Russians are swedes. Novgorod was founded by men from Roslagen.
>>583723
You could at least read the wikipedia page before talking about something
>>583723
Pls stop posting
>>582610
Heavy western chain is ridiculously effective. The better tests i've seen cited indicate that NOTHING is reliably defeating it one handed without a horse behind it.
Kite shields are excellent. They cover a lot of the body without overly impeding the user.
>>582662
>I'm guessing too the kite shield were alright at absorbing arrow shots?
Yes.
>>582678
>for 1v1 fighting the round shield was preferred.
I'd love to see a source on this that isn't just modern opinion.
>>582642
Actually maille armor couldn't be defeated by just normal thrusts. Accounts from oddly the Moors fighting Norman mercenaries (or working with them lol) describe varying effectiveness against maille armor with lances. One Norman was struck by a Moor couched lance and did not give a single fuck. Another was run completely through (but remarkably survived).
Also Maille wasn't a unanimous, single type of armor. Maille links could be made in a multitude of ways (riveted and welded being the two largest ones to my knowledge, typical hauberks IIRC alternated between welded and riveted links) and of thickness/weave. There is also the mysterious "double maille" used in tournaments or by individuals who significantly prided life over agility. We don't know if it had double the weave thickeness or it was actually one hauberk on top of another- but either way it would have been extremely heavy compared to the normal hauberk.
Also if you wore padded clothing like a gamebson over or under your armor, you could easily survive direct hits from arrows. Typically it was worn under the maille. The energy of the arrow would be completely robbed by piercing the metal links, and then it would have to punch through some significantly thick fabric. Either it would stop in the middle of the gambeson like kevlar, or it would penetrate but only inflict a minor fleshwound.
It's important to note as well that bows and crossbows were terribly inefficient at killing people. Even in maille armor you would survive a shot, even numerous shots- the real killing power was in the infection that may set in a week later (which was what killed Richard the Lionheart). Armor throughout the middle ages was extremely good at keeping you alive, and missile weapons were much more about suppression and routing troops than killing them outright.
>>582713
As a Sicilian with probably a fair share of Norman blood from my English side, I fuckin love Italo Normans as I feel almost like a modern one (father is heavily anglo-norman in ancestry, my mother is a second generation american sicilian). Their gear was awesome too, although it should be noted that helmet is in accurate- the eye slots were bigger like pictured.
Also Italo-Normans were based for completely BTFO'ing the Saracens in Sicily when a couple hundred Norman Knights literally fought thousands of muslim levies and kicked the shit out of them. But then they actually took the chivalrous route in their conquests, and the Normans didn't put the local muslims to the sword.
>>581833
>>583326
>>581842
=>>581901
>>582007
>>582418
>>583326
>>583505
Posting this again...
In any force in military history, context is important. How would you characterize the Vikings? They were a Germanic tribe in an era defined by the rise, fall and settlement of Germanic tribes.
But they had something unique for the period: Amphibious warfare and access to rivers that were only navigable to their extremely shallow draft boats.
Now there are some retards in this thread who talk about this as a negative. These people are as retarded as the norseaboos who think that they could do know wrong and were like Germanic Sparta. What they were, were people who had their moment in time. They could pick where they wanted to fight and so they chose to fight where their enemy was weak. That's not cowardice, that's using your advantage.
So, they could move freely. However, due to their status as marines, they couldn't take cavalry with them. When Europe was marked by its infantry based armies, this wasn't an issue. When chivalric, mounted warfare developed, they were completely outclassed and their prominence faded everywhere but Britain and Ireland and even that wasn't to last. So, they were potent for a time but that was based on their ability to outmaneuver their opponents. In the case of their war for control of England. They were able to fight the armies of the petty kingdoms of England to a standstill and hold large swaths of land for centuries and a Dane sat upon the English throne.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnut_the_Great
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_Empire
>Pic related
That's Hnefatafl. It's "Viking Chess" the object of the game was to fight your way back to your boats after being ambushed by a larger force.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gND2P1sHM3U [Open]
>>585287
>They were a Germanic tribe
Stopped reading there.
OP confirmed for Anglo-Saxonaboo. Should have use cavalry, Anglofags. Normans are way better than their Norse ancestors.
>>585325
not him but lol why?
>>585325
>Anno Domine 44^2 + 80
>Not knowing that the term "Germanic" is a blanket term that covers Scandinavia as well.
>implying that they did not themselves speak a Germanic language.
>Implying the people you refer to as Germanic didn't immigrate to mainland Europe via the Scandinavian peninsula.
>>585664
>vikings were a tribe
>>585685
Okay, you got me. I used a vernacular term. I'll amend it to say "norse" or "nordics" next time.
You may now continue with your regularly scheduled attack of autism.
Fuck flesky has such a fucking great theme but fucks it up with its fireworks effect which is annoying as helllllll
>>581802
>tfw no glorious mediterranean Norman empire with holdings in Greece and Tunisia and the main power base in southern italy
life is suffering
>>586092
Your wish has been granted already
>>586356
10/10 Wood berry
I wish they had succeded more in their conquests in Greece-Albania
>>581815
normans weren't french
>>586405
>Angli et Franci
>>585287
>That's Hnefatafl. It's "Viking Chess" the object of the ga
Is that what Thud! was based in part on?
>>586381
Guiscard wanted to conquer all of Greece. Imagine if he succeeded.
>>581802
>Vikings were niggers
>Saxons were memes
>China was better than rome
>Africans wuz kings n shieet
>>582635
>>588432
>>>/wewuzkangz/
>>581824
3? There was Naples and England, what was the third?
>>585207
As my father's side is about all Anglo-Saxon and my mother's continental Saxon, I feel this urge to be buttblasted at all frogs, Frankish, Norman, and Romano-Gaullic, but they keep being so fucking cool. It almost makes me feel better about the rape of our language.
>>588547
Either Normandy but that's too obvious and kind of covered by England or the Crusader states.
>>586356
forgot Portugal.
>>588640
Explain
>>588410
Great contribution to thread, upvoted!
So I'm curious as to what the ethnic identity of the Normans was. I know that their culture was a mixture of Frankish and Norse. But I can't help but feel that ethnically they were mostly just Franks who were being led by a mixed Norse and Frankish nobility. I mean there had to have been plenty of people in Normandy before Rollo and I don't think his band would have been big enough to subdue the entire population. Can someone more knowledgeable fill me in here?
>>589117
They knew themselves as Normans, which means Northman. They were well aware of their Norse roots, but embraced their Carolingian culture. By the time the Normans were established in the Mediterranean, it was likely an origin story they told their sons that didn't have much impact, but I'm not an expert.
is there any pictures that descripes norman arms and armour? something likes in the pic
>>590262
Osprey publishing is a meme
Why do Brits' jimmies get so rustled when the Norman's (partial) French culture/ethnicity is brought up?
>>590536
Well i dont care who does the illustretion i just wonder if there is any pictures that describes the arms and armour
>>590564
>unironic 9gag meme
>>588547
Antioch. Yes it was a principality, not a kingdom, but that barely matters. It basically functioned the same as a kingdom
>>590624
>shiteyes
>>590624
> your mom
Dank bants m8
>>590548
>Norman's (partial) French culture/ethnicity is brought up?
Because a dog born in a stable doesn't make it a horse, also they were culturally different to the French, hence why we call them Normans and not French from Normandy.
>>590707
But by the time they did anything significant (ie. Invade england, Sicily, Antioch) they had been settled in Normandy for more than a century. They weren't fresh off the boat from Scandinavia by any means. Within a generation they assimilated remarkably fast. I remember reading that even rollo took a french wife and his sons spoke french
God, and I thought "epic," was bad...
>>590707
>Because a dog born in a stable doesn't make it a horse
But a dog that can be saddled and ridden is a riding animal just like a horse
