>muh ultimate warrior viking
>muh honorable samurai
>muh epic and brave knight
are these easily histories most overrated warriors? If so, who are the most underrated warriors of history?
>>465505
>histories
*history's
Gallowglasses are p. cool
These
>>465505
>viking at the front
>the fuck
>are these easily histories most overrated warriors?
knigts aren't, they formed europe, which formed the world. if you read about what it meant becoming a knight, those guys had a life of war and battle since the youngest age.
>>465529
>those guys had a life of war and battle since the youngest age
Just like the vikings and the samurai?
>>465533
>Just like the vikings and the samurai?
I think you mean
>Just like every warrior caste in history
>>465533
Vikings are a meme and are simply a word to describe farmers who occasionally acted as pirates and got the shit kicked out of them. They didn't know a life of battle, at best they knew a life of a couple skirmishes.
>>465529
>knigts aren't
yes, they are.
>>465533
>vikings
vikings were peasants that were so poor that they went into raids and pillaging to gain some loot
>samurai
becoming a samurai was hereditary, ofcourse training was involved, but to become a samurai you just had to be born as one, into a clan that belonged to the caste of the samurai
>knight
becoming a knight started from a young age, a child was given to a lords house to commence his training, from the age of 7 - 14 they were Pages, from 14 - 21 Squires, those were trained in physical and martial prowess, if a Squire proved himself in the battle or in a tournament (in times of peace) he would be granted the title of a Knight.
>>465505
the most underrated warriors are american soldiers.
in every war it fought after 1812, the american military had a ridiculous k/d ratio
>>465554
>of 7 - 14 they were Pages, from 14 - 21 Squires,
would they ever get fucked by knights?
>>465505
You'll be called a viking if you were a goat farmer that sailed and raped a nun
You'll be called a samurai if you papa was one
You'll be called a knight, if you spent half of your life training how to fight, ride, kill and lead, then proving it in battle.
Those are the differences
>>465554
>vikings were peasants that were so poor that they went into raids and pillaging to gain some loot
I think for the purpose of this idea, we should probably be discussing Huscarls, not vikings.
>>465568
Depends which Knight you were given for training, traditionally no, fucking children was against christianity, however catholic knights may have had the preferrence.
>>465508
Gallowglasses are based as fuck but I doubt they would compare to the best continental troops
>>465571
t. alberto barbosa
>>465554
Just had my exam on older Norwegian history and can confirm that you're pulling that shit out of your ass.
>>465505
>are these easily histories most overrated warriors? If so, who are the most underrated warriors of history?
Samurais and Knights did some actual fighting, and were raised and trained exclusively for warfare. Vikings were pillaging pirates, that fought against unnarmed monasteries and local peasants, retreating at any sight of actual battle.
>>465594
who were the vikings then?
>>465596
Read a book please. They fought a shit ton in England and held most of it for a long time. They were also hired by European kings as.mercenaries to fright in big battles.
>>465596
who cares if they fought, im tired of seeing them, they are not the only warriors in history nor are they the best warriors of their time.
>>465604
>They fought a shit ton in England and held most of it for a long time.
Fighting against nuns aint fighting, maybe for Swedoos it is but not for Europeans.
>They were also hired by European kings as.mercenaries to fright in big battles.
We hire all sorts of criminal scum even today, but you don't have them in essential positions
>>465611
Sigh...
>>465562
Most of those wars were well picked or against brown people. America hasn't been in a "fair" war since 1812, everything after was won before shots were even fired.
This reflects well on American politicians, not soldiers. If the quality of soldiers determined wars, Germany would rule the world. It doesn't though, and that's why Germany got fucked and more sly nations like America prosper. Having the best geographic location on earth helps.
>>465571
Is this a new /his/ pasta I missed?
>>465610
> they are not the only warriors in history nor are they the best warriors of their time.
Knights were the best warriors of their time in Europe, but were surpassed by light infantry (e.g. Ottomans), you can see this in the fights against the Serbs that had a strong tank like cavalry composed of heavily armored knights against the Ottoman light infantry.
> source: Memoirs of a Janissary _ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Mihailovi%C4%87
He describes that the art the knights fought was unefficient against the Turks that as he says "knew no honour in battle". Knights were used to close fighting, destroying the line through hard V penetrations and liquidating it from there, Turks however had a superior tactic of light infantry that made it possible for them to evade and harass the more slower Serbian one.
>>465601
The reason they left was because it was a shortage of land due to population increase. They were mostly traders, not warriors, and settled all over England and Normandy. The Norwegian Vikings at least. The Swedes traveled to Constantinople and the Danes were also in England, but traveled on the great rivers into Europe.
Vikings are cool in games and movies since they fight with axes and are wild, but mostly they were just regular traders and settlers. They have found coins from northern Africa, greece and the eastern Roman empire in Scandinavia.
>>465627
>light infantry
my mistake by LIGHT CAVALRY
>>465505
It feels like we have this thread every fucking week.
Samurai were utter shit. Like not "overrated" or "just average", but actually trash.
>>465611
Are you saying the British isles had no armies at all around 800-1030?
>>465633
B-but a katana can cut through anything sanpai D:
>>465633
They can't have been that bad if they dominated during centuries of civil war covering an entire archipelago.
>>465643
The fact that Japan was dominated by the samurai says more about Japan than about the samurai.
>>465643
It's easy to dominate peasants.
>>465623
Yes and it's extremely annoying because it kills any serious discussion about an entire continent
>>465562
>>465620
>everything after was won before shots were even fired
The reason for that was the US entry into the war, though. See WWI, Churchill's reaction to Pearl Harbor, etc.
You should also keep in mind that up until post-Korea the US had a nasty habit of almost completely disbanding its military after each war, forcing it to start from square one every time they got into a war. Once that was out of the way the US armed forces pretty much crushed whatever resistance they came across.
And on that note I want to nominate the French for having underrated soldiers. Unfortunately the French have long been plagued with ineffective leadership and letting their sense of courage and honor overcome their reason. That said, their soldiers have been second to none throughout history.
Some other things...
Many of the Eurasian steppe nomads (Scythians, Huns, etc.) with the possible exception of the Mongols get short shrift despite being extremely militarily successful and having extensive careers as mercenaries. Hell you don't even hear about the Mongols that much.
Makedonians and Romans seem to be a bit underrated compared to the Spartans, who really don't have that impressive of a history.
A lot of the Celtic/Gaelic warriors, most people only know of them from being defeated by Julius Caesar which is more of a commentary on how badass Caesar and the Roman military was rather than Gaulish incompetence. Celts were infamous for fighting prowess and managed to conquer the Balkans and Anatolia back in the 3rd century BC as well as sacking Rome back in the 4th century BC.
>>465562
The civil war.
>>465529
>viking at the front
>the fuck
why shouldn't history's mightiest warrior be front and center?
>>465881
1:1 k/d ratio
>>465893
that isn't Mongol nomad
Archers and Artillerymen
spearmen are the most underrated
>>465628
>Vikings are cool in games and movies since they fight with axes and are wild, but mostly they were just regular traders and settlers. They have found coins from northern Africa, greece and the eastern Roman empire in Scandinavia.
So what, we have coins from Northern Africa all over Britain from 300 BC forwards.
Vikings are just parasites.
ctrl + f
>No fucking spanish tercios
To be honest Spanish soldiers have always been great even up until the 20th century where Hitler commended the bravery of the Spanish blue division against the Russians.
>>465643
Jap military history was largely confined to their islands. They have a spotty military record overseas. They didn't even have a proper naval tradition or seafaring until they made contact with Westerners. And even after they built galleons in the 17th century, Japan went full autist and renounced the outside world. They didn't amount to shit until 1905 when they "beat" the Russians.
>>465524
THANKS FOR SHARING DEBBIE ! I REALLY DON'T THANKS OUR TROOPS GET ENOUGH RESPECT WITH THAT MUSLIM OBUMMER IN THE WHITE HOUSE ! CANT WANT UNTIL HE'S OUT. HOPE THE KIDS ARE WELL. TELL DAVE I SAID HELLO !
>>466098
You should check what "overrated" mean.
>>465861
Thanks for mentioning the French. I'm so goddamn sick of HURR SURRENDER I could choke someone.
>>466519
means*
>>465524
Modern day soldiers of the state are made for conventional warfare. The bomb ensured that a conventional war will never happen again.
Overrated? No. Outdated? Yes.
>>465505
Overrated but gameplay wise, none of them fought in formation and were mainly based around personal combat. This also leads to a lot of glorifing.
Most of the actual great warriors in history fought in formation which is almost what specifically made them so effective.
And nobody gives a shit about native american warriors or African warriors. Rule of cool and the like.
TL; DR stop sperging over dumb shit
>>466525
>boots on the ground are outdated
That sounds stupid tbqh.
>>466525
>The bomb ensured that a conventional war will never happen again
So why are conventional wars still happening? All the bomb did was prevent another *direct* global war. There are still proxy wars, and proxy wars are fought by soldiers.
>>465505
The French.
They lose two wars, and suddenly they're the butt of every joke.
>>465505
meso american warriors
spain could never have fucked over meso america with out the help from local mercenaries/city states that where pissed off at the aztecs
>>465549
still tho they where pretty darn brave for being pirates
>be farmer
>get some weapons and a boat and a few friends
>sail for months on the open sea in your tiny ass boat to places you dont even know the name off
>raid the shit out of it
i mean just the transition from farmer to pirate raiding towns 500 miles away goto take some serious balls
>>466557
Vikings fought in a formation actually.
>>466635
>goto take some serious balls
nah man, only ignorance
>>465570
>You'll be called a knight, if you spent half of your life training how to fight, ride, kill and lead, then proving it in battle.
Knighthood has been hereditary since the Carolingians, so they fall into the same category as samurai. You can also be a man-at-arms or sufficiently wealthy member of the gentry and distinguish yourself in battle or in jousts and be knighted as a result, which is not much different from how some peasant fuck who found a sword and a few scraps off the battlefield could become a ronin and enter service as a Samurai retainer should he distinguish himself.
>>466635
not really
>>465655
You could say the exact same thing about Knights and Vikings. When the French Gendarmes charged any kind of disciplined regular infantry (such as the Spanish or Swiss) they were more than often defeated or halted.
>>465596
>Samurais and Knights did some actual fighting, and were raised and trained exclusively for warfare.
hahahahahha
haha
Sure, there were hereditary Samurai. But most bannered knights and noble samurai started with some peasant or landowner finding or buying some weapons and armor somewhere, deciding he wanted to fight in a war and then doing well enough alongside the infantry that their lord decided to knight him / employ him as a retainer. This happened so fucking often in Japan that the Tokugawa shogunate confiscated all weapons belonging to nonsamurai so that they wouldn't have to fight off a civil war every other year.
>>465574
Now the huscarl is a kind of warrior I would like have as overrated. It deserves it more than the "viking".
>>465575
But non-catholic knights are meme knights
>>465604
Pretty sure that was mostly actual warriors from the scandinavian monarchies and not vikings looking for loot family mate senpai. While some of those warriors would go for adventure, raid and trade I doubt most of them had the necessity having a lord paying their needs.
>>466817
people use ''viking'' as a term for all Norsemen in general
>>466588
The best is that the french soldiers themselves were great in WW1 considering the situation of France itself, but fuck that. The memes are more important, and the Franco-Prussian War and WW2 come before and after that, so let's laugh at the french that were once the terror of Europe.
>>466840
But they should not and for the sake of /his/ let's not do that. We can even use a broad non-autistic definition, there's no need to be picky, but not so broad.
>>465505
>If so, who are the most underrated warriors of history?
The Tercios. They had epic win and also epic loses (in the good sense)
Also the Landsknecht. They used flamberges and wrecked heavy infantry
>pic related
>>465505
>two axes
Was this necessary? I know it's a videogame, but I'm sure that even in the videogame probably this isn't very optimal. Ok, you like romanticised warriors and you like vikings, that's fine and it's gonna sell well. But what's wrong about a two handed big axe or shield and axe?
>>466854
The 1918 mutinies don't help much, though they're also very misunderstood.
>>466920
It's just cover art m8. The characters are customizable.
>>465508
Pretty based senpai
>>466939
That's precisely the reason of my complain, no need to have a silly two axes viking when even in the game that isn't necessary. Are you gonna argue that people will be expecting a two axes viking? That they will like the game, the cover art or the viking less without the silly dual weilding?
>>466952
have you considered that preteens that may not be so concerned about history who are the primary demographic for this kind of game find dual wielding to be cool?
>>466959
Give a tanto to the samurai and let the axe guy alone then, family. Give the viking a two handed axe, preteens don't like them? I liked them when I was a preteen and loved vikings.
>>465588
This is the only time I've actually laughed at this.
>>465893
>this meme
Kill yourself, i cant believe i fell for this shit b8
>ctrl+f
>no Cossacks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reply_of_the_Zaporozhian_Cossacks
Lusitan warriors are underated
>>465505
Vidya art is a menace like Dennis
>>466952
Id argue nobody who intends to buy the game is going to not buy it because there is a Viking with two axes on the cover.
I don't think anybody gives enough of a shit to sperg out about it except for autists like you.
It's irrelevant.
>>465505
>knights
>overrated
Not really,they're the absolute pinnacle of weapons technology until guns completely take over, and were quite capable to boot.
Vikings were nothing special, and samurai are just infer knights who lag behind in technology and like bows.
>>465554
Wow, you're full of shit!
>vikings were peasants that were so poor that they went into raids and pillaging to gain some loot
Vikings were norse who went on raids. No better or worse than contemporary infantry.
Which isn't very good compared to later forces.
Or some earlier ones.
>becoming a knight started from a young age, a child was given to a lords house to commence his training, from the age of 7 - 14 they were Pages, from 14 - 21 Squires, those were trained in physical and martial prowess, if a Squire proved himself in the battle or in a tournament (in times of peace) he would be granted the title of a Knight.
Pages start as youg as five.
Squires don't need to be 21 to become knights, it happened when your knight felt you were done-or maybe never in later periods.
Meanwhile, a wealthy squire might be better armed and armored than some knights.
>>465627
Oh look. A turk.
>>466635
Not really. Killing people with no weapons isn't hard. Viking sailed around places likely to fight back when raiding unless attacking with an entire army.
>>466557
Literally of them fouhg tin formation. Be less of a meme history fuckatrd.
>>466673
>Knighthood has been hereditary since the Carolingians
Except it wasn't. Every word for it just mean "cavalry" for a long period of time, and that's all it meant. If a Norman in 1064 didn't own any horses or know how to ride, went to war, and said he was one of the milites because his dad was, he'd be laughed at.
>>466787
Not in europe. You started off with arms and armor, or you weren't getting to what people think of as knightly status, with a few rare exceptions in mercenary units.
>>466619
Anon technically war has never been on equal footing, and the british were not on equal footing in 1812
>>467271
were monasteries one of the places likekly to fight back? lmao
So... How badass actually was Varangian Guard? Were they the absolute top soldiers of their time or just average mercenaries hired only because they weren't involved in byzantine intrigues?
>>467271
he is right the ottoman light cavalry surpassed the cavalry of the heavy knight. warfare in the Middle Ages tended to be dominated by raids and sieges rather than pitched battles. in order to counter the raids of the ottoman light sipahis a new understanding of how a cavalry should be organised was needed. see origin of hussars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussar#Origins
this essentially reformed the complete european cavalry in the late middle ages and meant the end for the age of the heavy knight.
>>465549
Vikings colonized many places, including the Americas. Do not pretend that they are just feckless dummys
>>467399
Big woop they conquered America. That means fucking nothing, they probably just spread their bluepilled degeneracy.
>>465571
it was /pol/ tier, keep your we dun erryfink silly crap there
>>467381
Except heavy lancers existed alongside the hussars.
And the hussar has nothing to do with the end of heavily armored cavalry. Nor does the turk.
Go back to your oil wrestling.
>>467419
>burger speaking about european warfare.
I am polish you mongrel nigger
do your ancestors speak to you you vikiboo?
>>467380
I'm no expert, but I know they fought the pechenegs and the selyuk turcs. They defated the former, they were defeated by the later. In general I'll say they were just another foreign guard valued because they were more likely to be loyal to the monarch than locals with private interest inside the empire
>>467442
truly vikings were shit in all forms
>>466619
war isn't fair
korean marines during vietnam
>>466959
I hope the game dies. It's an abomination.
>>466525
>The bomb ensured that a conventional war will never happen again.
Bombing Afghanistan hasn't helped Murricans win the war you dumb fuck
>>465505
>If so, who are the most underrated warriors of history?
MING WARRIORS
>>466513
I can taste the Euphoria in this post through my screen.
>>467636
when people refer to "the bomb", they're referring to one thing, and one thing only.
>afghanistan
>conventional war
please gain reading comprehension
>>467271
>Except it wasn't. Every word for it just mean "cavalry" for a long period of time, and that's all it meant.
>These mobile mounted warriors made Charlemagne’s far-flung conquests possible, and to secure their service he rewarded them with grants of land called benefices.[18] These were given to the captains directly by the Emperor to reward their efforts in the conquests, and they in turn were to grant benefices to their warrior contingents, who were a mix of free and unfree men. In the century or so following Charlemagne’s death, his newly empowered warrior class grew stronger still, and Charles the Bald declared their fiefs to be hereditary.
>declared their fiefs to be hereditary
>Not in europe. You started off with arms and armor, or you weren't getting to what people think of as knightly status, with a few rare exceptions in mercenary units.
That's what I just said, you bought or found some arms and armor somewhere, usually through selling or reusing your loot/pay as you roved around with whatever mercenary band you happened to have signed up with at the beginning.
>>467654
>>conventional war
How about Ukraine then?
Syria?
Libya?
>>467648
Nice style of the picture.
>>467431
Oh, so you're that one fucking autist that needs to make like four threads on this shit a day.
>>467683
>Syria?
civil war, state backed by russia, rebels backed by multiple different parties
not conventional
>Libya?
armed uprising backed by western air strikes
not conventional
>Ukraine
armed secession funded by russia
not conventional
>>467688
>like four threads on this shit a day.
five, you can only make five
>>467431
>polish
If you're a pole, you should be well aware that heavily armored cavalry survived until well after the medieval period ended.
>>465508
They mostly operated in an areas even more ass-backward than where they hailed from though.
>>465505
>>466939
Depressing artwork desu.
>>467224
>Not really,they're the absolute pinnacle of weapons technology until guns completely take over
Source?
>>465505
Any army in world's history sucks dick compered to Roman Praetorians in the best period of the Empire. It's historically accurate to say that the Roman Elite departments were absoultley top notch in organization, weapon and armor quality and training. Absoulutely unbeatable by any other army of that period.
Vikingfags pls
Jesus doesn't want you to waste time stinking up the basement with cum and sweat
>>466513
quality shitpost fellow american
>>465620
Feelsgoodman.jpg
>>465571
>The continents were closer together back then (see Pangea) and these Africans creates settlements throughout the world.
>>466522
But actually. "Attaque à outrance" is a phrase for a reason. If anything, the French need to know when to fight a smarter war rather than throwing in all the reserves.
>>466627
whatissmallpox.jgp
>>466635
>months.
Weeks, possibly. Days with a good wind. /his/torian, do you even navigation and seamanship?
>>465505
>who are the most underrated warriors of history?
4 ft tall steppe archers riding ponies have fucked over almost every great civilization in History.
>>466781
>Gendarmes
>Police
>U wat mate
>>467224
>Not really,they're the absolute pinnacle of weapons technology until guns completely take over, and were quite capable to boot.
Depends on how you define 'knights'. If it's "professional soldier on a horse", your comment might have some leeway. If it's strictly "European guy in armor holding a melee weapon", then you're super wrong.
>>469283
I really do hope you're baiting.
next time some idiot tells you samurai were honorably you can tell them bushido was anti-foreigner propaganda to protect japanese isolation and nationalism. it was created in an age were samurai were more wealthy nobles then a warrior caste, jap military history is full of backstabbing, assassination, poisoning, bribing, and generals turning on their own allies and joining the enemy when it looked opportune, even in the middle of battles.
>>465620
lol maybe it's because America kicked up its game and pretty much became a military superpower? The only fair wars since then were against other European powers, and we all know how those ended.
Also fuck yea the US's geography really helps.
>>466860
we could use varangian, since it doesn't actually denote region. Plus they were the norsemen that were badass enough to be drafted by powers such as the byzantines
Benin warriors. Don't know shit about their method of combat, but I enjoy the aesthetic.
>>466513
>>469995
what were their shields made out of? And why are the Zulu the only warrior from africa that gets recognition?
>>470090
Just because Zulus beat the brits in one battle and Anglocuck perspective dominates mainstream English speaking history.
>>470090
Also: wood.
>>470090
Their shields were wooden and sometimes brass, I find that their swords were much more interesting.
The Zulus get a lot of recognition for their victory over the British at the Battle of Isandlwana. Otherwise, I'm not certain. I mean, they weren't the only ones to win battles against conquering forces and they most certainly weren't the most advanced of African warriors.
>>467380
They were held in great regard by the byzantine elite, and when one emperor bowed under, the guard would be payed insane amounts of gold to ensure their loyalty.
Obviously this means they had great value for the emperor, which could lead you to assume they were valued for their loyalty, skill, or position in society
>>467380
Contemporary Byzantine chroniclers note with a mix of terror and fascination that the "Scandinavians were frightening both in appearance and in equipment, they attacked with reckless rage and neither cared about losing blood nor their wounds".[21]
When the Byzantine Emperor died, the Varangians had the unique right of running to the imperial treasury and taking as much gold and as many gems as they could carry, a procedure known in Old Norse as polutasvarf ("palace pillaging").[21]
>>469282
steppe niggers are incredibly overrated
>>470258
Maybe among History fans, but not with normal people. I mean, Vikings over Mongols or Huns?
>>470267
>I mean, Vikings over Mongols or Huns?
why not? the vikings were mighty warriors, some of the fiercest this planet has ever seen.
>>470267
perhaps, I know j*hn gr**n loves to suck their cock
Viking and Samurai are really hard to beat
>>470201
>so basically niggers on PCP
>>465552
>formed the most influential culture the world has seen to this day
>overrated
stop hating what you dont understand, it makes you look like an idiot.
>>470403
medieval europe really wasnt that influential during it's time
>>465505
>If so, who are the most underrated warriors of history?
Epaminondas, and his sacred band of Thebans.
>>470272
Most Vikings were actually traders. Raiding and pillaging was more of a hobby to them.
Most overrated: Samurai
Most underrated: Zulu Impi
>>470459
>Most Vikings were actually traders. Raiding and pillaging was more of a hobby to them.
then why does the media constantly portray them as the word's greatest warriors?
>>470482
Because they were good at fighting. That does not make them warriors. As far as I know, the Vikings never once fought an actual war.
>>470482
why did the media make out ninjas to be super cool super soldiers who constantly wore black pyjamas?
it sells
>>470490
>Who is Knut The Great?
>>470490
>Because they were good at fighting
fighting who? defenseless monks?
>>470537
Among other things. They once burnt down a monastery because the nuns were ugly.
>>466098
>ywn be in a tercio with lord elessar.
>>466513
Underrated post.
>>470414
not during their time, sure
but the western ideas of honor and morality dates back to the values of knighthood, so they influenced the world on a large scale even after they werent significant anymore.
>>470537
>vikings only ever fight defenseless people xDDDD
>im such a dank memster
stop this shit already, its annoying, and nobody believes you, anyway.
>>465612
le sigh...*
>>470674
>and nobody believes you, anyway.
I do vikifag, and history documents it. fighting fucking nuns is maybe a martial art in sweden and denmark scandiboi but not in actual europe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkt1vAX0MRM
>>470501
How is a king invading another nation a viking? Was Napoleon a viking?
>>469885
But varangian cannot be used in the context of western europe, which is what most people want to talk about all the time for some reason.
>>465505
>f so, who are the most underrated warriors of history?
SJW
>>468034
>source?
Is there any other civilization that fielded men armored in head to toe with steel, with s selection of light, but powerful steel weaponize capable of defeating all but the bets armor directly, and being used to defeat the best armor with precision hits or wrestling tactics?
No.
Most parts of the world got to, at best, full mail with reinforcement and weapons of a type you'd see a century earlier in europe, or armor that you'd expect to see on a lower level soldier sin Europe-or possibly a cataphract-with weapons that, again, are missining elements a European might expect, or would belong on lower grade foot soldiers.
Other places (IE, china) would have had better armies, by virtue of number and organization, but not better arms.
Man to man, very few people are going to take on knights at their height and have a chance to win if they are forced into close combat, be it on foot or horseback.
>>469299
By the time europeans start wearing full suits of chain, they're better armored than just about everyone in the world, and this doesn't change until they start shedding pieces of armor in the renaissance.
By the time they have full plate. yes, there's an actual technological edge allowing them to arm themselves better, and this bleeds through into weapons as well.
In terms of tactics, logistics, and organization, they usually lagged behind everyone else, but not in equipment.
>>469885
>norsemen
>drafted
No, those were rus.
The norse who ended up in the guard weren't drafted, they traveled over to volunteer-as did a fair number of saxon huscarls.
>>470459
>impi
>underrated
Not really, no. If anything they get too much credit.
>>471252
true danish muh ancestry
>>465505
The peasants.
>>465505
Idiot on the left is sparing one hand to hold a fucking scabbard
center idiot has bare arms, as if being swole will keep his hand from being chopped off or his arm meat from being rended
right guy is alright, but a flail is a bad choice in fighting a shield wall
>>465575
le catholic pederast meme
>>471731
>meme
tell that to the buttfucked children of europe, you disgusting piece of shit
>>465552
The European armored knight is the pinnacle of meelee combat up to this day. I mean, without a doubt the most effective in 1v1s at least. Has been obsolete for 600 years, for a time even in the period they existed in, but that's still something.
>>465549
>Muh knowledge that vikingr was a word to describe the act of pillaging and adventuring
Posts like yours are a meme at this point. Vikings is a collective term we use today, the Norse had professional soldiers just like anyone. It's true they didn't excel that much when they were facing equally potent armies, but I'm quite confident that was more of an issue of lack of organised military tradition and discipline, not individual skill and experience as a fighter.
>>465648
>The fact that Japan was dominated by the samurai says more about Japan than about the samurai.
It says that Japan didn't face much external threat up until the modern era. Samurais were perfect to do what was needed to be done. Not that they weren't disciplined and skilled soldiers like any other.
>>466627
That's right, those filthy Spaniards in their shitty plate armour could never have shot a half-naked footman wielding a club from horseback
>>471907
Samurai happened because the Chinese style state military began to fall apart, the threat of invasion was remote and most of the courts internal enemies had been subdued. In those pitched battles that did occur, Calvary had proven decisive.
So the state military continually degraded and private professional warriors took over their roles, they were rewarded with money, land and court titles for their services. In time they just took over.
>this fanwank tier Ultimate Warrior discussion
its like babbys first martial arts discussion.
>hurr durr Judo is the best form
>no you're wrong its krav magga
>no you're BOTH wrong its boxing
No faggots, its none of those, skill counts on the individual not your background or lineage.
>>465529
>they formed europe
More like when they were exterminated that Europe advanced. Feudalism was a cancer.
>>466513
Best post in this thread
>>472387
>fucking clapistani cancer
please burgers gtfo from threads about european history, noone gives a fuck about your billy bobs and debrahs and that fagarmy crap of yours.
>>471603
>>norsemen
>>drafted
>No, those were rus.
>implying that the rus wasn't founded by Swedes
Are you that asshurt Russian that denies history? Just read about the Varangians for like 10 minutes, bud.
>>471346
Well, I get what you're saying, but varangian doesn't actually mean just eastern norsemen. It was just the greek word for all of them. Knut rolls in from the Shetland isles? He's still a varangian to the Byzantines. I understand the connotations behind the word, but I feel that if anyone could look past the common understanding it's us.
>>471753
Implying potato niggers are even humans
>>472061
Even in 1v1 it's the quality of equipment that counts the most
Knights aren't overrated at all.
>>466901
Wow that looks just as ridiculous as the Etrian Odyssey rendition
>>473461
You failed to greentext there, edgelord.
>But that wouldn't have made you look less retarded
>>466519
>single force keeping the Spanish dominance in Europe
>everything went to shit as soon as they got defeated
It´s pretty clear that they did a pretty damn good job. Spain has always had very good soldiers, probably because it´s been in a constant state of war since before recorded History.
Not joking. I think there hasn´t been a single moment longer than 20 years in which there wasn´t any war or military rising going on in the last two thousand years. There´s been no peace until the last century.
>>465596
Vikings were known to be worse in combat than standard English troops of the time.
>>466991
Looks like the guy on the right is wearing tracksuit pants...even back then...
>>466513
Quality
>>467636
By "the bomb" he means the nuclear bomb. And by "conventional warfare" he means battlefields shared by two super powerful nations with clear enemies and regions of gain and clearly won/lossed battles. The last time this kind of war was fought between superpowers was WWII. Since then, any super power has only fought against guerillas. That is his implication at least.
>>476699
This is true for most of the world. Pax Americana is a very real thing, at least for the wealthy part of the world.
>>470127
Did they use them leopards in battle?
>>466525
>implying strategic atomic bombs will ever be used.
Everyone's too shitscared of armageddon to use nukes.
>>465524
>Engaging an enemy (inbred, opiate-addicted snackbar with a rusty AK) from 1000+ yards, often times when they are scarce to be seen, then ordering an airstrike and praising yourself as a badass is now worthy of the title of warrior?
>>465620
>fair war
What the fuck is a fair war
Wow okay this thread is full of misinformation.
First up: knights.
A big misconception people have: knights are just heavy cavalry with the status of being landed nobility, though uniquely the title of Knight is not hereditary (usually). What makes a knight different from a mercenary cavalryman or a common man-at-arms is that he has a feudal contract with a lord that grants him land in exchange for his military service and enjoys the prestige and privileges that come with that title.
Now, some knights are noble from birth, and earning a knighthood is more of a formality to them, or perhaps more of a familial obligation to fulfill the family's honor. For such knights, they will have been trained from a very young age to fulfill the duties of a knight and will often spend much of their childhood and adolescence and even adulthood in service to some knight as a squire. For these knights, the promise of land is less alluring than the fulfilling the obligation of honor.
However, many knights were of common birth and were raised to knighthood as recognition of their deeds. These knights were much poorer and often less well equipped than some squires or men-at-arms. For them, gaining land and privileges is an enormous boon, the income from their fief can be used to buy horses, arms, armor, and even hire a squire and groom.
It's really debatable about which type of knight is a more impressive fighter.
This post got long so I'll leave off before getting to samurai.
>>479300
Now for Samurai.
Samurai were originally a kind of retinue warrior, professional soldiers sworn to the service of a lord. These kinds of warriors enjoyed some privileges and a great deal of prestige, but were not a social class per se until after the sengoku period, when the Tokugawa Shogunate solidified its power and redistributed land to the various samurai who served in the war, thereby creating a slew of feudal contracts with an emergent samurai warrior caste. Unlike in Europe, samurai status was hereditary, but unlike knights the samurai never really had to fulfill their obligation to fight for their lord after the Tokugawa solidified their rule over Japan. Instead they got over 200 years of peace and took up poetry, flower arranging, and creating dojos to pass on their fighting techniques in lieu of any battles to fight. Samurai at the height of their power were glorified landlords with too much free time.
Samurai in their earlier stages are far more interesting, and far different than most people imagine them. They are known for the two swords, but this was an affectation of the Tokugawa era, more a status symbol than anything. Early samurai used bows and spears for the most part, and often fought on horseback alongside their lord, often serving as his bodyguard.
Early samurai had to be extremely skilled, but most of the time they just fought poorly equipped and trained peasants. The same can be said for knights and vikings though.
Vikings next.
>>470201
>hey Sven, you won't believe what happened
>what?
>I told the ministers that we had a tradition back home of being able to walk into our lord's treasury and carry out as much as each of us could hold on our own, as a reward for loyal service.
>yeah?
>Sven, the goat fuckers believed me! They said we can do it first thing tomorrow
>Jamal yuo are of genius
>>479345
Vikings are, as others have pointed out, mostly just hyped up pirates from Scandinavia. However it is being far too dismissive to call all vikings up-jumped farmers. Viking was a very general term applied to any and all raiders, be they farmers who had a bad harvest that year or professional warriors. The vikings had professional armies and what they lacked in discipline they made up for in ferocity and mobility. They could strike very quickly at soft targets by navigating rivers deep inland. This made them a terrifying foe to fight, because almost nowhere was safe from them. Armies mustered to fight them would march for days to the last sighting only to find out they'd sailed ahead of them and struck two more towns.
They were not hindered by cold or by wilderness as southern armies were. They would not suffer desertion or attrition in winter or on a long march, nor would logistics impair them from striking with impunity deep into enemy territory.
The main advantage of the viking was this omnipresent threat. In a straight battle they often suffered defeats, where the lack of discipline was telling on their battle lines. Individually they might be great fighters or they might not be, but a battle is not won by great fighting skill alone.
![b8b21da0d54d30cbd1630c305663ad02[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/IYrW4EN.jpg "b8b21da0d54d30cbd1630c305663ad02[1].jpg")
>>465505
>inevitable arabian themed DLC
>rag on head, no helmet
>worn baggy yellow clothes, no armor
>curved sword
>>472405
>thread about european history
>a sea gypsy, a japanese noble and a german mercenary walk into a bar
>>479369
Knights tend to be under rated, since most people don't know the role heavy cavalry played in the early and high medieval periods. Samurai are extremely overrated, especially by weeaboos. Early samurai notwithstanding, most of what they are famous for is all mythologized bunk.
>>465505
Pirates. They would occasionally drill holes in their own ship so there was no other choice but to take the victim's ship.
That's some hardcore operating right there.
>>479410
More like fucking retarded. Why ruin a perfectly good ship? Take the enemy ship and now you have two ships. You have any idea how valuable a ship is? Keep it and you can take on that much more crew and become a larger, deadlier pirate fleet.
Or you can just sell it to some other pirates and get drunk and fuck every whore in port if you're not ambitious.
>>466585
>So why are conventional wars still happening?
I don't think proxy wars count anon
>>467683
holy shit are you this retarded
get buttfucked by a train of niggers
>>479434
He meant boat not ship.
>>471753
Alright
They need to quit bitching about the stupid ass meme
>>470671
kek
you can't be serious
>>479300
>For these knights, the promise of land is less alluring than the fulfilling the obligation of honor.
nooooope.
Knights were all about dat land. Read marshalls biography.
Being born into the class doesn't mean you have land. Far from it. His father was lord of a castle, he started his career with no horse and dmaged armor, yet rose to be regent of england.
Knights were virtually all motivated to be excellent fighters-it made you rich.
>>465596
Uh, lad, the title of "samurai" had nothing to do with one's fighting ability in Feudal Japan, but rather it signified that you were of noble birth. So everyone of noble birth was technically a samurai, including women.
why are vikings even in the game? They were pirates will Blackbeard be there as well?
At least he fought against fucking navy instead of monks and other faggots.
>>466513
V nice post
>>465505
Its kind of a shame how there's a whole black spot where khmer culture is because now the only cambodians that have any historical martial knowledge market their schools like McDojos
>>479909
>it made you rich
This is the universal motivation of humanity throughout history desu senpai,
All comes down to genetics: more resources, more baby making power.
>>465505
Probably a well trained knight would win out against most medieval style warriors.
A Katana wouldn't do shit to plate armor, and the only time Vikings were renown on the battlefield was when they were in the command of another country.
>>465505
in terms of ordinary folks
>Samurai
hugely overrated due to late 19th century propaganda and 1970s-80s pop culture
>Vikings
also overrated
>Knights
generally underrated, since the common image of a knight tends to evoke the ideas of chivalry rather than their martial prowess
>most underrated
The French in general, due to WW2 and the 2nd Iraq War creating the image of the cheese eating surrender monkeys
>On 4chan
>Samurai
hugely underrated due to anti-weeb reactionaries
>Knights
generally overrated. There's really nothing exceptional about then other than being rather heavy shock cavalry/infantry and there's plenty of examples of them being BTFO by non knightly forces, let alone other cultures
>Vikings
tend to swing back and forward between depictions as glorious germanics and snowniggers.
>Most underrated
on this board, probably Hellenic or Muslim armies
>>466619
WW1 was fought and won by artillery
>>482157
That's pretty much perfect.
Even on /his/ you see plenty of ignorant people, acting like stormfront.
Muslim armies tend to be underrated among ordinary folks, I think.
There's only one Ultimate Warrior in history, and it ain't no pansy ass men in metal suits
>>482230
its because all the white people here fear the caliphate, they're insecure about the fact that fanatical devotion and loyalty of Muslim warriors can best any cowardly conscript or "professional" soldier employed by militaries, they fear the fact that ISIS has revied the Rashidun Caliphate and threatens their existence once again.
>>466991
This
I also thing hussars and The Janissaries are underrated as fuck
> ctrl + f
> no Ghurkas
you fools are kidding
>>470090
What is... the fucking moors, rhodesians, carthaginians
>>482504
>Ghurkas
>Not lauded as the craziest motherfuckers allowed to operate alongside human beans
Every time a thread about badasses gets posted there's always a different story with these guys
>>479152
you mean pax britanno-germana you mean.
burguers cant keep shit
>>479674
hello tumblr
>>466787
hideyoshi not tokugawa did that
>underrated
French infantry in any war, ever
Winged Hussars
Swiss/Spanish Pikemen
Horse archers
Mapuche
The Spanish "Blue" Division in WWII
The 442nd Infantry Regiment
Chindits
The Sikhs
>>482504
I dunno, Ghurkas are pretty famous
>>465611
Varangian guard. The personal body guards of the emporer of byzantium. The Viking mercs that lead the conquest of Sicily for byzantium.
>>469282
>great civilizations
does Khwarizmi count as a great civilization? Thats the only place that didnt make a comeback after expelling these inbred fucks
The French
Tercios
Gurkhas
Aztecs
Polish Hussars
Gallowglass
Spaniards in WWII
Brazilians in WWII
>>478942
Almost anyone who knows the polish hussars loves them imo. The fact is that they are pretty unknown.
Motherfucking Sherdens
>>482299
>but a pile of bones in a wooden box
>ctrl+f
>no mamluks
Defeated the Mongols and removed Crusaders from the Levant. Easily top 10 underrated warrior traditions
>ctrl+f
>No Swedes
Untill you see the whites of their eyes
>>467828
I find it interesting that this is one of the only instance of seeing a duelling gauntlet,.
>>482157
Post of the day.
>>465505
I feel Cataphracts deserve more respect. Now this isn't really specific to any particular culture or region, but that drives home the point even further. You ask the average Joe and they'll probably not even know what a Cataphract even is.
>>466627
Of course, otherwise many of the battles between Cortez and the Aztecs would have placed the Aztecs with a 100:1 numerical advantage.
>>467828
>19th_century_Irishmen.gif
>>465585
They did.
Scottish and Irish Gallowglasses were popular mercenaries on the continent.
>>479379
Actually, I'd like to see an Ottoman themed 4th faction. Janissary, Sipahi, Qapukulu .
>>465505
Norse warriors aren't overrated, except by idiots who play too many videogames and think they're some kind of special elite unit.
There's good reason they were among the elite guards of the Roman Emperor in Constantinople for over three hundred years. (1. You can trust foreigners more than your own countrymen, and 2. They were hardy as fuck compared to almost everyone else the Greeks knew.)
>>465861
>That said, their soldiers have been second to none throughout history.
True that.
>>466663
Indeed, the classic Germannic shield-wall, and the tercio-like "pig snout" formation.
>ctrl-f
>hessians
>0 results
Mein gott.
>>466901
>Also the Landsknecht. They used flamberges and wrecked heavy infantry
"Landsknecht" is just the german word for "mercenary", really. They were equiped much like other pike-and-shot units at the time.
You might be thinking of the poor sods known as "Doppelsoldner" -those with double pay, for having some of the most dangerous jobs, namely attacking a pike-wall head on, usually with a Zweihänder, to aid their own side's pike formation.
>>466991
Cossacks in general have a very bad track record. As light cavalry they were pretty good in that limited role.
>>476733
[citation needed]
