Normans

a weird people whose military prowess reached levels that make no fricking sense

Even when you read the sources of their ennemies, they describe them as undefeatable.

When you read into it a bit more, past the wikipedia articles and actual history, you see them attacking North Africa in groups of like 100-200 men and winning everywhere, then they attack the Italians and Byzantines all over the place, same small groups, win literally every time against ridiculous odds, and all these engagements written by their enemies.

Then you read about them after the battle of Manzikert, and you have various Norman bands roaming around Anatolia defeating Byzies and Turks alike, finally settling in Germanikea or whatever the frick that fortress city in Cilicia is called.

They were literally top tier in war.

It makes no fricking sense.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cerami

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Misilmeri

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mortemer

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dyrrhachium_(1081)

So why were they so good at war ?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >They were literally top tier in war.
    Hastings almost ended up as a draw.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Cherrypicking

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Godwinson was a chad thats why

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >usurper
        >died fighting the rightful king
        >Chad
        Ask me how I know you have Phoenician jeans.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          ask me how I know you have autism

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      > Hastings almost ended up as a draw.

      Because those are the pussies that stayed in Normandy.

      The Normans he is speaking of are the dudes that left for the Mediterranean nearly immediately after settling Normandy, right in the 900s already.

      >in groups of like 100-200 men and winning everywhere
      LARP

      > LARP

      It is literally so, Ibn Al Athir states 350 of them riding around Egypt during Almarics invasion, roflstomping everything, including an armly 2200 Mamluk Ghulams, and god knows how many Fatimid Arablets

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Based norman chads

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Hastings almost ended up as a draw.
      Yet after winning Hastings, the Normans were able to hold the English down for centuries despite being less than 1% of the English population.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        A significant part of England's fighting nobility was killed that day, that's why. And there were uprisings after that too, hence the Harrying of the Norf.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >And there were uprisings after that too
          Yet all of them failed, despite the Anglo-Saxons still having a massive numerical advantage.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            England was much more centralised than it had been centuries ago
            >YEAH BUT-
            If the Normans were the gigaubermensch you losers think they were they would not have been fought to a bloody standstill and later driven off the continent by the French

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Hastings for the english could at best have ended in a draw. Considering the odds, It is far more to william's credit that they actually managed to win given the overwhelming advantages the english had.

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Just throwing this out there. I'm a bong with Norman ancestery on both my Mother and Father's side.

    My surname can be found all over the world due to how fricking far the Normans actually went about conquering and exploring. I was shocked to find it turn up as far as SEA because some Normans followed the Arabs there after they conquered Southern Italy.
    Truely insane.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      > I was shocked to find it turn up as far as SEA because some Normans followed the Arabs there after they conquered Southern Italy.

      Source ?

      The only reason they achieved their biggest victory at Hastings is because Godwinson and his army just finished beating back the entire Norwegian army in the north of England, dispersing it, then having recall everyone to rush down south to face the invading Norman’s

      Even then the Anglo-Saxons almost destroyed the fresh Normans

      Im not talking about hastings in particular
      I know saxons were strong too
      Im talking about the rest

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      For me, my mother was from Norman ancestry and my father was from Anglo-Saxon fame. Although my father's side were from the mercantile class, sent to Newfoundland to run barter there, my father was still a brutal and warlike man. Then we have me; although I am unironically a homosexual, I am incredibly hard to kill and give off an atmosphere of fear to those around me. It's actually really shitty, but at least I can claim that in defense against the fact I want to suck dicks lmao

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >I am incredibly hard to kill
        That's easy to claim when nobody ever tried to actually kill you. And how the frick does this "I have Norman ancestry" thing even work, are you saying you have genealogical evidence that goes back one millenium? How much of that ancestry would be Norman anyways, with so many other genes being added over those centuries? Why would you assume it in any way defines you as a person, 1000 years later, mutted up by generations of intermixing with probably all kinds of other heritages? It all sounds like complete bullshit to be honest

      • 1 year ago
        Chud Anon

        >am unironically a homosexual, I am incredibly hard to kill and give off an atmosphere of fear to those around me. It's actually really shitty, but at least I can claim that in defense against the fact I want to suck dicks lmao

        homosexuals try to have one conversation without talking about their singular personality trait challenge: [IMPOSSIBLE]

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Singular personality trait
          That's pretty moronic because he brought up several other personality traits of his in the same post, are you dumb or what

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            [...]

            [...]

          • 1 year ago
            Chud Anon

            >That's pretty moronic because he brought up several other personality traits of his in the same post

            He literally didn’t and more than half the post was talking about being a gay.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I too love phrenology and sucking wieners. I'm also incredibly hard to kill due to my hard shell and the noxious homosexualness I emanate
        *steps back into the shadows*

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I too love phrenology and sucking wieners. I'm also incredibly hard to kill due to my hard shell and the noxious homosexualness I emanate
        *steps back into the shadows*

        What went wrong?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >I'm totally a badass bro!
        >Super hard to kill because muh ancestors
        >Why no I've never been in a real fight how could you tell?
        homosexual. Go actually accomplish something you fricking loser.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Is this a copypasta?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          If not it should become one

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >I am incredibly hard to kill
        brilliant line
        sorry about your affliction
        it was common among ancient priests. stay celibate my friend.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >I give off an atmosphere of fear to those around me
        Anon that's not fear, that's disgust...
        Unless this was all bait and I fell for it too, well done m8

        >am unironically a homosexual, I am incredibly hard to kill and give off an atmosphere of fear to those around me. It's actually really shitty, but at least I can claim that in defense against the fact I want to suck dicks lmao

        homosexuals try to have one conversation without talking about their singular personality trait challenge: [IMPOSSIBLE]

        Ikr lol

        I too love phrenology and sucking wieners. I'm also incredibly hard to kill due to my hard shell and the noxious homosexualness I emanate
        *steps back into the shadows*

        Kek

        [...]
        What went wrong?

        Honestly I don't know...

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      For me, my mother was from Norman ancestry and my father was from Anglo-Saxon fame. Although my father's side were from the mercantile class, sent to Newfoundland to run barter there, my father was still a brutal and warlike man. Then we have me; although I am unironically a homosexual, I am incredibly hard to kill and give off an atmosphere of fear to those around me. It's actually really shitty, but at least I can claim that in defense against the fact I want to suck dicks lmao

      Having a norman surname does not necessarily means you have norman ancestry, changing your second name for status wasn't a unheard thing

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Youre a fricking moron. Your surname ended up everywhere because of British colonialism not because of the Normans. Asians calling the Narendra Dwhogivesafrick arent doing it because of a norman explorer lmao. .

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      For me, my mother was from Norman ancestry and my father was from Anglo-Saxon fame. Although my father's side were from the mercantile class, sent to Newfoundland to run barter there, my father was still a brutal and warlike man. Then we have me; although I am unironically a homosexual, I am incredibly hard to kill and give off an atmosphere of fear to those around me. It's actually really shitty, but at least I can claim that in defense against the fact I want to suck dicks lmao

      >>I have a surname that is norman so that means I'm of "norman ancestry" and not of general north west european ancestry with a male line that happened to carry a norman surname
      This board is the most moronic of all IQfy. I fricking swear.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >my surname
      Dude, my wife is a quarter Portuguese. She has fourth cousins or closer on every continent except Antarctica.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The only reason they achieved their biggest victory at Hastings is because Godwinson and his army just finished beating back the entire Norwegian army in the north of England, dispersing it, then having recall everyone to rush down south to face the invading Norman’s

    Even then the Anglo-Saxons almost destroyed the fresh Normans

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Most English fighters present in Hastings had not Taken part in the battle of Stamford Bridge.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Cope. They rested weeks before the battle even took place.

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >in groups of like 100-200 men and winning everywhere
    LARP

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Is "I have Norman ancestry" the bong equivalent to "I have Cherokee blood" in the American south? How the duck would you even know, even a Norman surname could just be aqquired by marriage 300 years ago

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Census, family histories, unironic heraldry, haplotism

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        So, yes?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          He asked how one can know, so I tells him how to know.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Injuns are genocided
      Normans still exist and are mixed

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Injuns don't exist anymore
        Anon..

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Modern Normans are far more genetically valid than Ashkanazi israelites are, yet they made an entire moronic culture around being "israeli"

  6. 1 year ago
    Chud Anon

    Y’all homies need to read Ivanhoe, the novel got me interested in Normans, because they are the primary villains- it’s told from an Anglo-Saxon perspective and is pure seethe whenever Normans are brought up

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      It's the rich man's Odyssey

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Walter Scott

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Its made by a 19th Century Scottish English simp who added weird ethnic race-war bullshit into his historical fiction narrative that is not fricking present at all in 1200s England.

      It reflects 19th Century English-centric British nationalism more than 1200s England, whose aristocracy pretty much had muttified into an Anglo-Norman aristocracy who didn't give a shit about what happened 200 years prior.

      • 1 year ago
        Chud Anon

        I know, all the Normans in the book were written like Disney villains, still the book that got me interested in Norman culture.

        Plus, Reginald Front-de-Boeuf is one of the best names for a fictional villain.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Its made by a 19th Century Scottish English simp who added weird ethnic race-war bullshit into his historical fiction narrative that is not fricking present at all in 1200s England.
        Pathetic loud complain.
        >It reflects 19th Century English-centric British nationalism more than 1200s England, whose aristocracy pretty much had muttified into an Anglo-Norman aristocracy who didn't give a shit about what happened 200 years prior.
        And?

        • 1 year ago
          Chud Anon

          Have you even read Ivanhoe?

          I like the book, but it's full of ridiculous strawmen.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            It's kino tho

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Mitchell Heisman's suicide note is what got me interested in the Normans.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Why would you think anyone would read all that weird incel larpshit?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          imagine asking for a tl;dr for a tl;dr

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Those great illustrated classics were awesome I had bunch as child. Also robroy is best Walter Scott.

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    French heavy cavalry was legit broken against societies that hadn't learned ways to counter it, look at the first crusade.
    Plus viking ancestry (if diluted by this point) came with viking boats and the associated logistical mobility on water.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Normans weren’t good sailors and even feared crossing the channel

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Ancestry doesn't give you seamanship or shipwrights. Productive trade ports and a maritime tradition do, and the Normans had neither.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >French heavy cavalry was legit broken against societies that hadn't learned ways to counter it, look at the first crusade.

      Nah, more like fighting a broken Islamic Caliphate fresh from the Seljuk Invasions and the Fatimid/Abbasid divide did not make for an effective unified Muslim resistance vs. the Crusaders. Levantine Cities saw themselves as their own states ffs and didn't give a shit when Emir Abu Quq fell to some Franks.

      Besides most battles in the 1st Crusade were sieges. The one time they actually met with Eastern Cavalry by a people dedicated to cavalry-centric warfare- the Seljuk steppeBlack folk- they nearly got their asses handed to them until a reinforcements arrived and forced the tiny Seljuk Army to withdraw.

      >Plus viking ancestry (if diluted by this point) came with viking boats and the associated logistical mobility on water.

      Normans suck at seamanship bro. Normandy doesn't have that much ports and later on they always had someone else transporting them. Much of their activities in Europe & Middle East have always been terrestrial. They walked to Jerusalem you know?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Unlike how you're ignoring that the men at dorylaeum got attacked while in camp. It's useless for determining how they'd have performed against the Turks in a field battle.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Cope turks were literally scared of normans/crusaders
        You just a coping menashit

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Cope turks were literally scared of normans/crusaders

          The Seljuks just noted how their arrows didn't piece the Crusader Knights.

          It did their horses & infantry though, which is the more important thing.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            > It did their horses & infantry though, which is the more important thing.

            The Norman infantry was also armored and arrow proof, it was the other crusaders that brought shitfest light levies.

            and warhorses on both sides quite hard to kill with arrows.

            Read Baha ad-Din ibn Shaddad please.

      • 1 year ago
        Michael Ballack

        >Normandy doesn't have that much ports

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >the Seljuk steppeBlack folk- they nearly got their asses handed to them until a reinforcements arrived and forced the tiny Seljuk Army to withdraw.
        They faced a superior army at Antioch and defeated them in the field, and quite literally for nearly a century afterwards they were able to cope with fighting a numerically superior enemy in Egypt and the Turkmen tribes arriving in Syria.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        > Nah, more like fighting a broken Islamic Caliphate fresh from the Seljuk Invasions and the Fatimid/Abbasid divide did not make for an effective

        Not really an argument considering even broken up, all those states were larger than the majority of those in Europe and still fielded large armies.

        > Besides most battles in the 1st Crusade were sieges.

        and nearly all those sieges also had direct battles during the siege happening, either with Turks trying to relieve siege or the nearby army clashing with an opposing force

        > The one time they actually met with Eastern Cavalry

        Motherfricker they met the eastern cavalry in 4 direct pitched battles during the siege of Antioch alone.

        Stop learning history from wikipedia for fricks sake.

        > they nearly got their asses handed to them until a reinforcements arrived and forced the tiny Seljuk Army to withdraw

        Yes, the primarily non-Norman and infantry focused force had major issues, until the cavalry of Normans showed up.

        Thank you for furthering the argument.

        > Normans suck at seamanship bro.

        You utter moron, they sailed all across Sicily and southern Italy, conquered it, then raided nearly all of North Africa.

        Stop merging Normans from Normandy and the Normans that left Normandy for the Med.

        > They walked to Jerusalem you know?

        They sailed to Greece, then walked, because their first target was literally across the strait of Constantinople, you moron.

        They didn't walk to Jerusalem,
        they conquered to Jerusalem.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          > their first target was literally across the strait of Constantinople

          dunno why some morons think the crusaders just strolled through Anatolia,

          there were like 10 recorded battles there after Nicaea, though, only 1 has a wikipedia article, so I guess that explains it

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          And yet all crusades ultimately ended with failures, you dumb ass. Normans were nothing special. Maybe you should stop learning the fricking history from wikipedia.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            > And yet all crusades ultimately ended with failures, you dumb ass.

            Because the Normans died out dumbass.

            Also, interestingly enough, when Frederick marches to Jerusalem at an army that includes descendants of said Normans from Sicily, during the Sixth Crusade, the Ayyubids strangely enough fricking surrender the Holy Land without a fight lol
            > Normans were nothing special. Maybe you should stop learning the fricking history from wikipedia.

            The OP literally advised to look into historiography instead of wikipedia because wikipedia does not paint the proper picture of how horrifying the Normans truly were because most of their engagements have no wikipedia article.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Because the Normans died out dumbass.
            Oh yeah, if Norman race was so strong and powerful and superior like you claim, why did they die out? moron

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            > Oh yeah, if Norman race was so strong and powerful and superior like you claim, why did they die out? moron

            Because they kept marrying native women and their offspring got dilluted into the native population, moron

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Vikang bros I thought we wuz Norman conquerors…

            > it is also interesting to note that few of the participating nobles in the Battle of Hastings were from the Cotentin Peninsula. Moreover, and none were reported to have supplied ships.This would suggest a clear demarcation between Lower Normandy and the Cotentin Peninsula. In part, this demarcation could reflect continued resentment of William’s rule within this region, insofar as the revolt of 1047 discussed earlier was in fact led by a prominent Cotentin lord. Still another trend which is of interest is the relationship between the nobles’ and knights’ origins and the relative density of early Viking settlement in the duchy. According to a map of settlement names, there was a high density of Viking settlers in the Cotentin Peninsula and the Pays de Caux region. It is in precisely these regions where fewer Norman combatants originated, as opposed to the Bessin region around Bayeux which had far fewer Viking settlement names and thus fewer descendants of viking settlers. Therefore, the Normans who fought at the Battle of Hastings were more likely to have possessed French than Viking/Nordic ancestry

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            > Vikang bros I thought we wuz Norman conquerors…

            read the thread you fricking moron;

            > Hastings almost ended up as a draw.

            Because those are the pussies that stayed in Normandy.

            The Normans he is speaking of are the dudes that left for the Mediterranean nearly immediately after settling Normandy, right in the 900s already.

            [...]
            > LARP

            It is literally so, Ibn Al Athir states 350 of them riding around Egypt during Almarics invasion, roflstomping everything, including an armly 2200 Mamluk Ghulams, and god knows how many Fatimid Arablets

            > The Normans he is speaking of are the dudes that left for the Mediterranean nearly immediately after settling Normandy

            > Nah, more like fighting a broken Islamic Caliphate fresh from the Seljuk Invasions and the Fatimid/Abbasid divide did not make for an effective

            Not really an argument considering even broken up, all those states were larger than the majority of those in Europe and still fielded large armies.

            > Besides most battles in the 1st Crusade were sieges.

            and nearly all those sieges also had direct battles during the siege happening, either with Turks trying to relieve siege or the nearby army clashing with an opposing force

            > The one time they actually met with Eastern Cavalry

            Motherfricker they met the eastern cavalry in 4 direct pitched battles during the siege of Antioch alone.

            Stop learning history from wikipedia for fricks sake.

            > they nearly got their asses handed to them until a reinforcements arrived and forced the tiny Seljuk Army to withdraw

            Yes, the primarily non-Norman and infantry focused force had major issues, until the cavalry of Normans showed up.

            Thank you for furthering the argument.

            > Normans suck at seamanship bro.

            You utter moron, they sailed all across Sicily and southern Italy, conquered it, then raided nearly all of North Africa.

            Stop merging Normans from Normandy and the Normans that left Normandy for the Med.

            > They walked to Jerusalem you know?

            They sailed to Greece, then walked, because their first target was literally across the strait of Constantinople, you moron.

            They didn't walk to Jerusalem,
            they conquered to Jerusalem.

            > Stop merging Normans from Normandy and the Normans that left Normandy for the Med.

            Normans were fricking weaklings, and lost against sand people you dumb frick.

            > Normans were fricking weaklings, and lost against sand people you dumb frick.

            They literally roflstomped sand people while being comically outnumbered regularly.

            They conquered Maghda with 170 men.
            Took over Tunisia with 400.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Normans were fricking weaklings, and lost against sand people you dumb frick.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Hahahahahahahahahhahahahah
            Weaklings that beat sand people with just 200 or 400 men ?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Crusaders ≠ normans and even crusaders BTFOed the saracens/turks many times
            The turks/saracens eventually retook their land because they were in numerical superiority

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    They did a whole lot of hallucinogens which made them completely heartless and inhuman. They were born to kill and murder, with no other culture or higher thinking getting in the way.

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >So why were they so good at war ?
    High IQ

    https://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-highly-intelligent-normans.html

    > How did they do this? My impression is that the method seems to have been by superior organization supported by superior technology - especially technology in relation to what might be termed engineering or architecture.

    > It seems, as a rule, a small minority can only successfully dominate a majority by superior technology; and superior technology implies superior intelligence.

    > My understanding is that once the Normans had defeated the Anglo-Saxons natives in one locality, they would force the natives to build a castle; from which the minority of Normans could then dominate the surrounding population from a position of safety; then the military force would move on to subdue the next region, and force these new natives to build the castles which would then become the instruments of their own suppression.

    > Thereby, local and piecemeal superiority was swiftly converted to national and overall superiority. Once a network of castles were dotted over the whole of England, then the Normans could not be defeated.

    > In a nutshell, it looks to me as if the Normans were simply more intelligent than the Anglo Saxons - and not a little, but a lot more intelligent.

    > Presumably at least one standard deviation more intelligent than the Native English (i.e. if the native IQ was called 100, the Normans must have had an IQ of 115 or more).

    > (One SD seems to be the usual (minimum) difference which allows one group to rule another - whether the difference is between classes, castes or races.)

    > And I am not sure, but I think that Norman cultural achievements are also at least consistent with higher intelligence than the native Anglo-Saxons.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Basically the French foreign legion of their day consisting of various highly skilled upper class Viking men from Scandinavia who in turn married upper class Norman women who in turn created a multi generation military extended family all across England. Reminds me of upper class Dixie families.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      This also explains how Robert the Bruce was the first to successfully rebel against English knights on that scale. Taking out the castles Vikang style was an absolute necessity and creating new strategies in what victories he had against a technologically and by that point numerically superior army. A rare instance of genuine military genius.

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Its because they were great builders of castles and fortifiers of towns and also autistic record keepers and beureacrats. They came up with the common law which is still exported worldwide.

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    A couple of decades before the Normans, even a bunch of halfnacked Danes conquered all of England with ease.

    The Anglo-Saxons were some of the weakest and most pathetic populations of their time and conquering them was not really an impressive feat

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Normans didnt only conquer anglo saxons

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    They were ahead of the curve in military practices. In short they were knights at a time when it was becoming a thing

    Magyar and Umayyads introduced the Franks to cavalry and they recognized the need to issue land grants to raise their own. Now the dark age cold period was ending, Francia and its vassals had adapted to resist raids by vikings and each other and achieve a level of stability. Normandy had become rich with vast improvements in grain agriculture in its environment and growing trade. However new troubles arose as the new feudal barons constantly tested each other and their overlords.

    Another element was the castle, something else pioneered by the Normans. Castles were very useful in these power struggles, if you did not deal with them the garrison would ride out and strike your supply lines, taking a castle was costly and sieges often lasted longer than the campaign season. The problem is garrisons are small, so the pressure was on to develop the best trained, equipped, motivated and organized small groups of soldiers, somewhat comparable to modern special forces, and they had the means to do so.

    They soon found the "shock" effect of heavy cavalry charges had other uses. Under normal circumstances 200 cavalry could not defeat 5000 infantry, formed up into disciplined lines, but if they caught them on the march or otherwise disorganized, such as if they quickly kill their leader, the infantry won't be able to bring all their force to bear on them. If not the mobile cavalry can easily retreat. An analogy might be 1 professional boxer going up against 100 men one after the other in the ring. These small groups could also travel far with more ease than a large army, a ship becoming their mobile "castle", rather like their viking ancestors.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Magyar and Umayyads introduced the Franks to cavalry

      The amount of moron takes on this board never ceases to amaze me.

      The Germanics had a cavalry tradition since the fricking late Bronze age.
      They literally served as cavalry auxiliaries since Julius Caesar.

      For fricks sake it is so tiresome

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Its the eternal, "everything/invention came outside Europe"

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >that moment the Germanic auxiliaries route the Gallic relief force at Alesia

        kino of the highest order

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Germanic people had a cavalry tradition since atleast Caesar times
        It wasnt ummayads/magyars who introduced them horses

        Its the eternal, "everything/invention came outside Europe"

        >that moment the Germanic auxiliaries route the Gallic relief force at Alesia

        kino of the highest order

        what the frick, I never said they never knew about horses, that's obviously not what I meant, why are you all putting words in my mouth

        I took the time to answer OP's question and you nitpick one tiny thing I say and deliberately misinterpret it to try and degrade my post, then the rest of my thread is people ranting about how "normans suck", "medmutts" and "menashit". Why are people here such shit?

        New forms of cavalry were introduced by the Umayyads and Magyar and adopted by the Franks, new breeds of horses and innovations like the stirrup and saddle tree just happened to originate outside Europe, that's all. I am not saying "normans suck", it was Normans after all who then developed heavy cavalry that were pivotal in Norman conquests in England, Sicily, across the Mediterranean and in the crusades and came to typify European knight hood for centuries after.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          > what the frick, I never said they never knew about horses

          Not the issue;

          > New forms of cavalry were introduced by the Umayyads and Magyar and adopted by the Franks

          This is the issue, it is wrong, and moronic.

          > new breeds of horses and innovations like the stirrup and saddle tree

          That already reached Europe with the Avars you imbecile.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Germanic people had a cavalry tradition since atleast Caesar times
      It wasnt ummayads/magyars who introduced them horses

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    A combination of equipment and mobility aided by focusing on smaller engagements. Most of the ones that went adventuring were the cast offs back home, the extra sons that wouldn't inherit any land. Because their families weren't psychopathic Americans they sent their sons off with the best horses, arms and armour to help set them up somewhere else. So when they come up against Arabs, Greeks and Italians that outnumber them it will be a few hundred Normans in their best armour, all of which are mounted Vs a more 'balanced' force of infantry and cavalry. Their opponents equipment would be based on wealth as well. So 200 Normans might be fighting 500 Arabs, 300 of which are mostly lightly armoured infantry and archers, 150 are light cavalry and only 50 were rich enough to wear the best gear and come with horses.

    Being highly mobile, or at least more mobile than their enemies also meant they could choose where and when they'd actually fight too. Smaller bands of Normans in their hundreds could loot and pillage completely unopposed while the locals scrambled to gather a force of a few hundred heavily geared men to face them. In instances where they rely on locals to increase numbers, we see the result.

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Germanikea
    Truly honorable Roman castle.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      > Truly honorable Roman castle.

      You should really read into what happened there.
      It is truly epic.
      A bunch of Greeks, Normans and Armenians craft their own small faction in the mountains and fend off Turkish attacks for decades.

      When the crusaders of the first crusade arrive there, they are greeted by the sons of these dudes still holding out.

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Everyone has their limits
    BTW its intersting this man is welsh cause he look like edward kenway who is welsh

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >richard hibbard
    >Hibbard is a name that was brought to England by the ancestors of the Hibbard family when they emigrated following the Norman Conquest of 1066. The name Hibbard comes from the Norman personal name Hildebert, which is composed of the Germanic elements hild, which meant battle or strife, and berht, which meant bright or famous. One of the first records of the name was Hygbert, the Anglo-Saxon bishop of Lichfield. [1]

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >100% Welsh
      >his name makes him non-Welsh
      cope

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    What kind of revisionist cope is this to portray them as christian when they literally pillaged the papacy for funsies?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I always assumed they were "officially" Christian, but had a lot of hangups and totally different views on moral/religious stances left over from their old religion/culture.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Normans were crypto pagans ?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >crypto
          They were openly pagan and anything else is christian revisionism/plagiarism as is the case for everytime they fail to genocide the white man.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Ah yes. The Normans who were known for being zealots, who fought in the Reconquista, and who played a major role in the Crusades were actually crypto pagans.

            Oh wait, they were actually open Pagans. Of course.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Normans were responsible for the conversion of St. Olaf of Norway, who killed and tortured many pagancucks. Bless be upon Normanchads.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I assumed that their views on god, Christianity, and what he wanted would have been totally different then what the church espoused/supported, let alone the state it is in today. Some hangups still exist and are a merging of Romanized Christianity and Germanic theology, like how most people view the afterlife to be like Odinsakkr or Elysium, or how the cycle of death and rebirth is present in the NT.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The pre-christian peoples had more SOVL

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Odinsakkr
            wtf is odinsakkr?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The field of the dead, where the is apparently no pain/death, no wants and no needs.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            > Germanic theology

            lo not a fricking thing

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      They literally kissed the pope’s feet when they captured him after battle

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Was it the Pope or Charles the Bald that they literally picked him up by his foot in order to complete this bizarro westoid feet worship ritual? Imagine humiliating someone that powerful in front of his entourage with zero fricks given.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          It was Charles the Simple. And it was one of "Rollo's" guys that did it.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Because medieval weren't pozzed so they could hold the Pope both as a secular leader of lands and as a spiritual one without them conflicting.

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    By the way anons, do you have any good starter material to learn about the Franks and Normans? I never really had an interest in them until recently, and always preferred Anglo-Saxon/Celtic history. That being said, this thread is really piqued my interest.

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Baibars pushed all of the crusaders shit in along with the Mongols so much that they actually considered teaming up against the Muslims. KEK

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Cope
      Also we talking about normans here you moronic homosexual
      Not crusaders

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        The only reason they were successful against muslim italy was because it was already suffering from internal strife, these guys were glorified vikings in armor, they got their shit pushed in against the mamlukes. You guys are only giving them this much credit for fighting essentially city states. This vikings weeabooism is getting out of hand, last time i was on here some of you were crying about the battle of seville was only lost because it was just a small raiding party, the cherry picking cope makes my dick hard, almost has hard as the thought of those boys who were sold to slavery in the children's crusade, imagine the shota galore. 😀

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >shota galore
          >Little European boys fricked adult mena women, that mean we won

          OK low iq inbred

          Also turks and mamluks were scared shitless of franks/normans
          So much that they even considered them equals

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >soijaking yourself
          My work is done here

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I assumed that their views on god, Christianity, and what he wanted would have been totally different then what the church espoused/supported, let alone the state it is in today. Some hangups still exist and are a merging of Romanized Christianity and Germanic theology, like how most people view the afterlife to be like Odinsakkr or Elysium, or how the cycle of death and rebirth is present in the NT.

          Actual Vikings who fought Muslims in Spain always got their asses kicked. Normans were not vikings. They were frenchoid Christians.

          > I assumed that their views on god, Christianity, and what he wanted would have been totally different then what the church espoused/support

          William the conqueror wanted his coronation on the day Jesus was supposedly circumcised. They were very christcuck. They also tried to ban slavery, which is the most unviking thing you can do.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Actual Vikings who fought Muslims in Spain always got their asses kicked. Normans were not vikings. They were frenchoid Christians.
            I didn't say the Normans were vikings, and it doesn't seem that they partook in it either aside from the occasional raiding while on campaign (which was the norm). Of course people going on a rid would get fricked by large standing armies though, they weren't meant to be fighting, they were meant to get in, grab loot, get out.

            >William the conqueror wanted his coronation on the day Jesus was supposedly circumcised. They were very christcuck. They also tried to ban slavery, which is the most unviking thing you can do.
            Id argue their mercenary-ing and martial ways are also quite unchrist like. They liked St. Michael though, and often chose him as their patron IIRC.

            >not a fricking thing
            Yes it is. They have their own pantheon, folk traditions and rites. Granted we don't know much about it now, but what we do know is fairly interesting.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah fighting for the spread Christianity and killing pagans is actually so pagan. Does that mean pagans have no one to blame but themselves for their own destruction?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I mean, considering it was the best way to gain political influence, ties to Rome, monetary aid, and reduced the number of casus belli an enemy had to use against you I can see why it became so popular. Also yes, but no. It was often political leaders who enforced it top down and the laymen had no say. Other times it was an enemy army coming in and enforcing it, like Charlamagne.

            >Vikings were shit. They never achieved anything while they were pagan.
            You mean sea raiders looking for glory and loot, often sons who wouldn't inherit anything, poor farmers and the like? They had quite a few trading exploits and were quite good seamen.

            >They never achieved anything while they were pagan.
            You mean the Germanics and Celtic peoples? Negative. Everything in the middle ages that you see is a build up from iron age Germano-Celtic society melded with Romano-Hellenic trappings (which already had Celtic/Germanic influence in some places).

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Vikang Pagans were losers. They could only loot and pillage and runway. They have absolutely nothing do with the people with people in your picture, who were firmly Christians who fought for Christ and killed pagans like you. If you went back in time, they would bush your skull in larpagan.

            > Everything in the middle ages that you see is a build up from iron age Germano-Celtic society melded with Romano-Hellenic trappings

            Nope it’s purely Christian with Latin linguistic backing.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Vikang Pagans were losers. They could only loot and pillage and runway.
            Thats...literally what they were anon. Raiders. They weren't there to conquer, they were there to gain wealth and syphon it away from other areas.

            >They have absolutely nothing do with the people with people in your picture,
            Except everything. They are both Germanics with the same material culture and same roots.

            >Nope it’s purely Christian with Latin linguistic backing.
            AHAHAHAHAAHAHA WHAT A FRICKING IDIOT. AHAHAHAHA.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Keep laughing. No medieval historian believes you. Medieval historians emphasize Christianity above everything else. Every well read medieval historians consider Christianity to be the number one ingredient to understanding Medieval culture.

            > Historians of medieval Europe often treat the expansion of European Christian culture during the early and high Middle Ages as a protocolonial endeavour. Much of Central Europe was conquered or colonised by Christians, and the expansion of Europe’s frontiers came as a result of conquest, colonisation and mission.

            > During the centuries after 800, the area of western, Christian culture—of Latin Christendom—at least doubled, as it came to encompass much of eastern and northern Europe and, in due time, also the Iberian Peninsula. This was a momentous development; it caused the population of Europe to reach a critical mass, which made possible the great ascendancy of European civilization that continues to this day. That greater population laid the foundation for more intense land use, more commerce, the reorganization of government, the expansion of education, and military innovations, among the many developments of the high Middle Ages that make up the historical background of modern western society. Europe’s expansion during the centuries around the year 1000 was, thus, not only a precedent for Europe’s colonial expansion to other continents in the early modern period, but also a necessary precondition for it.

            Muslims in the Middle Ages had far more access to Greek and Roman culture than Western Europeans so Hellenic influence is absolutely ridiculous larper. There was nothing pagan about the Middle Ages except for pagans being destroyed by those who love Christ and would happily destroy those like you again. Middle Ages was an extremely dark time for pagans cause of how much they got slaughtered. It was one of the most anti-pagan times in history and I wish such an age would return again.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            laughing at your opponent in all caps immediately makes me think that you're unintelligent and not capable of producing a convincing argument

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I don't really give a shit. If he can't see the Germanic/Celtic ties to the medieval ages I can't help him and I am not going to argue. Pretty much everything that was present with the Celts and Germans was amplified in the medieval era due to them finally getting a foothold and a hegemon instead of a bunch of bickering tribes.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Vikang Pagans were losers. They could only loot and pillage and runway.
            Thats...literally what they were anon. Raiders. They weren't there to conquer, they were there to gain wealth and syphon it away from other areas.

            >They have absolutely nothing do with the people with people in your picture,
            Except everything. They are both Germanics with the same material culture and same roots.

            >Nope it’s purely Christian with Latin linguistic backing.
            AHAHAHAHAAHAHA WHAT A FRICKING IDIOT. AHAHAHAHA.

            > we pagans wuz Christians and shiiiet

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Vikings were shit. They never achieved anything while they were pagan. Every success they achieved happened when they were Christian like cnut finally conquering England. Even the Goths who took down the Roman Empire were not
            pagan. German pagans have always been absolutely useless. Anyone who has read history can clearly see this.

            They also converted to Christianity out of fear cause they recognised Christians will always be manlier and will eventually destroy them.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Actual Vikings who fought Muslims in Spain always got their asses kicked.

            It has already been explained above that the Muslim sources are obviously biased, just as the Christian ones.

            Also IRL the vikings raided Muslim Spain as well as North Africa a number of times and their raids were successful for the most part.

            It was only when some of the whiteoid scum ventured inland(on foot lol, without any cav) that were they surrounded by the army of the Caliph and cut down.

            Stop learning history from wikipedia and seethe/bait posts on websites.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Why are brown people like this. They just burst into threads and spam white female interracial fantasies, of which they have dozens saved on their PC.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Don't dance around what I said slave.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      > Baibars pushed all of the crusaders shit in along with the Mongols

      Baibars and his Ghulams were Turkics you moron, they assraped Arabs more than they did the crusaders.

      Do you not understand that the Ayyubids annihilated the Fatimid Caliphate, and the Ayyubids were replaced by Mamluks then?

      All the semitic houses in the Middle East, from the Buyids to whoeverthefrick, all were replaced by Turkics.

      The only reason they were successful against muslim italy was because it was already suffering from internal strife, these guys were glorified vikings in armor, they got their shit pushed in against the mamlukes. You guys are only giving them this much credit for fighting essentially city states. This vikings weeabooism is getting out of hand, last time i was on here some of you were crying about the battle of seville was only lost because it was just a small raiding party, the cherry picking cope makes my dick hard, almost has hard as the thought of those boys who were sold to slavery in the children's crusade, imagine the shota galore. 😀

      > The only reason they were successful against muslim italy was because it was already suffering from internal strife

      Normans were also in constant internal strife you idiot, and the armies those Muslims raised in that internal strife were still much larger than the norman warbands.

      > they got their shit pushed in against the mamlukes

      No, the dudes the Mamluks defeated in the 13th century were not Normans, those were usual franjocucks.

      If you want to read what actually happened when the Normans fought Mamluks, read into the Almaric invasion of Egypt, where 450 Norman knights ransacked the area for months and eviserated several armies and were not even halted by a massive Mamluk force of 8500 Ghulams and Qaraghulams, where they feint retreated, the Normans pursued, and still slaughtered so much Turks that the Turks retreated even though the few Normans were near scattered.

      The Fatimid Caliph had to pay off Almaric and the Normans to frick off from Egypt because he literally ran out of Turks to send at them.

      > You guys are only giving them this much credit for fighting essentially city states.

      > Zirids(and their vassals on Sicily)
      > city state

      actual moron

      > i was on here some of you were crying about the battle of seville was only lost because it was just a small raiding party

      The force was not small, the ones who got caught were a raiding party.

      Again, read the sources, the Muslims clearly state the viking fleet on the west coast simply sailed home with all the loot, the ones who got destroyed were a group separate from it.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        > the ones who got destroyed were a group separate from it.

        And he also states that that group largely just surrendered, converted to Islam, and simply settled there lmfao

        Whiteoid cumskins win even when they lose

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >get reduced to cheesemakers
          >still state themselves as the victors
          The delusion with you snownigs is out of this world.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        You guys have an exuse for every defeat, the only reasons the Spanish got assraped by the nafris and arabs was because of a civil war, the crusaders who lsot were franco cucks not normas, if it was normans it's because they were divided even though you keep boasting about their ability to overcome overwhelming odds in small numbers. Same things with the tribal bedouins that assraped the Persians and Byzantines at the same time. The copium is astounding, you circlejerk eachother and when someone counters you with info, you discredit their sources, even if its wikipedia lmaoo.

        Turkics defeating arabs isn't what I'm adressing, the arabs' prescence in the levant was already diminshed when Saladin tookover with his Kurdish dynasty, don't try to change the subject. You pricks claim every ethnicity's achievements because of their skin complexion while everyone else can only claim their own nations history. You probably a mutt in a ZOG.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          you could rewrite this entire comment and reverse it and the exact same would apply

          > don't try to change the subject. You pricks claim every ethnicity's achievements because of their skin complexion

          Except that is literally not what was happening here.

          The thread was about Normans specifically, and a number of comments were made against them, both baiting comments and obvious seethe comments,

          including your own.

          You were the one who changed the thread into this, before it it was merely a listing of Normans being kewl, nothing more,

          in fact, listings of both their conquests and obliteration of both Europeans and Middle Easterners who stood in their way, absolutely nothing alike the "muh whites beat browns" take you took for some fricking reason.

          Even among the whiteoid morons here, it is you who need to take a chillpill.

          >get reduced to cheesemakers
          >still state themselves as the victors
          The delusion with you snownigs is out of this world.

          >get reduced to cheesemakers
          > victors
          > The delusion

          Most Christians and Muslims in Spain were doing farmwork.

          Being relegated to cheese would be a major step up for the majority of those starving nords who come from barely arable land.

          But that is, at least I suppose, not the point he was making, the point he was making, was the usual weird stipulations in the story, both Muslims and Christians made at the time when "winning" against pagans.

          It is very often the pagans still leave with the loot, and often they are not obliterated but some weird tale is written about them being given shit or being put into service, which is very suspicious(from England to Sallarids in Persia it is very similar), further so since the pagans were illiterate scum so we have no idea what they would say about it.

          All in all, if pagans aren't straight up slaughtered by either Christians or Muslims at the time,
          be sure to suspect they weren't really defeated that much.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            > Sallarids in Persia

            Ah yes lol, the Rus invasion of Persia by Ibn Miskawayh,

            where the Rus annihilate several Muslim armies according to Ibn Miskawayh, but also somehow are beaten, but also somehow most leave with the slaves and loot

            Not suspicious at all lol

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Persians are prone to making themselves look good in all cases, whether claming uzbeks as persian during the Islamic golden age or the safavids as persian instead of kurdish.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The real debate was if Nordic-Medmutts were better at war than Slavic Nordmutts

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >medmutts
            French arent meds
            They are celtic in genetics

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            > The real debate was if Nordic-Medmutts were better at war than Slavic Nordmutts

            Well Slavic Nordmutts created a state five times the size of France, and handed off fiefdoms the size of England to random warlords like candy, and formed cities out of villages that became so large that the Rus princess that visited Paris in the 12th century considered it "meh",

            so I guess there isn't really a competition here, more of a "just how more fricking awesome the Rus were compared to virgin west sailing vikinigrs"

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Did mongols destroy all of this slavic-germanic wakanda ?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Not him but we had a thread about it a while back. Apparently Kiev was a very beautiful city that Med travelers even thought was impressive. The most disastrous results from the Mongols was that they killed off so much of the aristocracy, followed by destroying the beautiful and well established cities in the west. This created such a strong power vacuum that Slavs east of Poland have been subject to autocracy on a fairly constant basis since. Because of the autocratic system and the lack of urban development, the mongol invasion did kind of permafrick them.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            > Did mongols destroy all of this slavic-germanic wakanda ?

            Unironically it was kinda wakanda.

            Novgorod had wooden paved streets, over 19 000 fragments of separate individual pieces of glassware was found there, it was very rich for the day, and unfathomably rich for that region.

            any Scandinavian city of the period was a rumpscum shitfrick in comparison

            It was basically a wooden urban center on a lake, in the forest, basically fricking Rivendel.

            Kiev during it's height and until the Mongols was one of the largest cities in Europe, and he is right, the Kievan princess loathed Paris when she saw it lol

            adding to this, they had over 20 of such cities, centered upon quite large regions of centralized regional political authority, centralized regionally, decentralized in the sense that nobody of those cities gave a shit what Kiev said.

            It was quite aestetic and cozy, shame the Mongol subhumans had to lay waste to it, the damage they did to Eastern Europe and the Middle East is fricking incalculable :I

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >made of wood
            that made it easiy for the mongols

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            > that made it easiy for the mongols

            What made it easy for the Mongols is that they annihilated the Turkic tribes and forced the survivors to fight for them in the front ranks, those same Turkics were fighting the Rus and also being friends with the Rus for generations, so they knew absolutely fricking everything about the Rus, including their land, and cities :I

            I recently read few Muslim sources about just how many Turks the Mongols killed in Central Asia and eastern europe and I find it interesting how overlooked it all is, and how Turks today glorify Mongols, who literally wiped out nearly 100 Turkic tribes off the fricking map, and reorganized the survivors into merged tribes with Mongol overlords to destroy their identity.

            and we fricking praise these motherfrickers

            The Russians were far, far, faar more lenient when they conquered, and left those who didn't resist be.

            The Mongols killed often times even those who made pacts with them, purely for killing.
            The betrayed the Cuman-Kipchaks, who had a pack with them, and fricking slaughtered them in surprise.

            The worst steppe scum ever.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            > and we fricking praise these motherfrickers

            Yeah, Turkish praisal of the Mongols is quite weird considering that Mongols slaughtered more Turks than anyone else side the Chinese

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            tfw you will never know how any of the other major Rus cities looked like because the Mongols ruined everything

            you will never know how the Cuman-Kipchak caravan settlements looked like because the Mongols genocided half of them and ruined their culture

            tfw you will never see Turks settling in peace with the Rus in Polotsk

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I have to admit it is often the morons who come from arid lands that often have a period of pure ass-kicking that sets off the birth of a new power like the Rashidun Arabs, Early Mongols and Turks. My question is why are this specific group of people so special if they failed to set off the Ibn khaldun cycle of "Chad moron takes power and sets off golden age that makes Onions hedonist creates hard times hurr durr." They were glorified mercenaries that disappeared with a wimper rotting their teeth away drinking sugar water.

            We can go back and forth about how muslims or christian historians lie and that the enemies defeat was glorious but ours had a reasonable excuse, but at least have the sensibility to realize it's both sides who are guilty of this.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            > My question is why are this specific group of people so special

            Because they were better at fighting than anyone else during their heyday, it's that simple.

            > They were glorified mercenaries that disappeared with a wimper

            I wouldn't call the kingdom of England and literally forming the kingdom of Sicily out of thin fricking air nothing, I mean, it's not a continent spaning Calipthate, but it's something.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The queen was a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad so we share the glory of britannia together, especially since it's essentially pakistan now.

            In all seriousness though, I forgot about my homie William the chad, I'll give u that one.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            How did they stack up against the Franks? It seems their main thing was having a small, elite group of cavalry/infantrymen who specialized in shock tactics/hammer and anvil. They were extremely well armed and had a penchant for fighting/mercenary work, not too dissimilar to the Varangian Guard. Was watching some israelitetube about their battles in Sicily, lower Italy and Greece, and it seems like they used their shock cavalry to decimate and route most of their foes, and could afford to do so because of their training, skill and better equipment. The only time it seemed they had issue were against other Germanics like the Swabians, who were also heavily armed and armored.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          MENA cucks and israelites are ZOG
          Not us

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >not us
            >israelites gained power in western europe
            >not us

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Strong words coming from a turbanoid who hasn't achieved shit in centuries.

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Makes perfect sense when you think about the fact that they had I1 blood, same as Varangians

  21. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    normans were pretty normal

  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    They were just like me.

  23. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    All of these are just franks.
    Also yes, heavy cavalry aristocracy with shock tactics > all until the invention of gunpowder.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Normans defeated franks and were far superior in battle
      Even if franks were already strong as frick

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Copecel

  24. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Field_(astronomer)
    >John Field or Feild (1520/1530–1587), was a "proto-Copernican" English astronomer

    >https://www.g4fas.net/JohnField.html
    >In 1834 Yorkshire historian Edward Parsons wrote :-
    "As it now appears from the household books, or privy purse expenses of our ancient kings, queens, nobility etc, that they scarce did one important act without first consulting their astrologers - - - as John Field and ** John Dee pursued the same profession with equal reputation at court, one as the great astrologer of Elizabeth

    >https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Field-488

    >https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Del_Feld-9
    >Born between 1020 and 1040. Hubertus de la Feld went to England with William the Conqueror in the year 1066 from near Colmar in Alsace, on The German Nord of France. Colmar, an imperial city during the middle ages, near Strasburg, in Alsatia, on the German border of France. He was of the Counts De la Feld, who resided at Colmar as early as the sixth century.
    >The name of Field is an ancient and honorable one in England, and can be traced far back of the Conquest. Probably not a dozen families in England can prove so high an antiquity
    >Freeman says in his history of the Norman Conquest that there is no well ascertained case of a strictly hereditary surname in England before the Conquest

    I'm the descendent of Normans who went on to become Barons and knights, and who also acquired an hereditary title that passed on along male and female lines; United Empire Loyalist;

    >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Empire_Loyalist
    >Those Loyalists who have adhered to the Unity of the Empire, and joined the Royal Standard before the Treaty of Separation in the year 1783, and all their Children and their Descendants by either sex, are to be distinguished by the following Capitals, affixed to their names: UE or U.E. Alluding to their great principle The Unity of the Empire.

  25. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Anglo masturbation thread FRICK OFF limey pigs with your dead queen

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *