>>581842 Why are you getting so mad? It does count, because they established the customs and traditions that were the base of Norman identity. Norman warrior ethos was the direct result of Viking warrior ethos. They also continued using Viking style ships which were affective in invading England. Go back to Reddit with your 'le Vikings overrated shit'
>>581850 This. Without the ancestors who paved the way, the offspring have a far less likely chance of ending up in the situation that they did. This applies to nearly every civilization, save a few lucky ones.
>>581901 I never said they worshipped pagan gods or had berserker rituals... I just said that the same glorification of battle and conquering was descended from Viking precedents. In other words, even after they christianized, they never lost that warrior culture.
>"Thank Jesus we're not barbarian shits anymore."
That actually has nothing to do with normanitas. It was more along the lines of glorifying battle and conquest and being pious
>>582007 Oh yeah its not like the sagas and engravings and written sources aren't all full of references to violence or warrior rituals like the berserker rituals. Practically all they were interested in recreationally was drinking and fucking and killing. Epic trole tho
>>581802 Nigga normana where fucking hard cunts, their kingdom in southern Italy was top tier. I wish they had succeded in theor conquest in Tunisia and Greece. Imagine a dank mediterranean roman empire removing Kebab and Byzantine at the same time
>>582418 Did I say anything about their skill? No I didn't, dumbfuck. And how can you tell whether they were 'good' regardless, dumbass? Every byzantine source lists them as the most elite troops in the empire.
>vikings were shit in all forms deal with it
No they weren't. You clearly know nothing about the subject so stop embarassing yourself
But you were given sources the last time. >Likewise, the Byzantine civil-servant, soldier and historian John Kinnamos calls these "axe-bearers" which guarded the Emperor "the British nation, which has been in service to the Romans' Emperors from a long time back".
>>581802 All this talk on Normans has me wondering, just how effective was their armour and shields?
There is always discussion over the effectiveness of plate armour from the 15th century but hardly ever of the more older historical people. So just how good was the typical Norman's kit, helm, shield and chain mail, in protecting them from harm?
>>582610 The metagame in the Norman hero was to fight with swords and spears. The "chainmail" armor (actually just aclled mail or maille) was popular mainly because it withstood sword slashes so well, and also protected against piercing weapons like spears and arrows to some extent. Mail would protect you from a sword strike, a spear thrust and mitigate the damage of an arrow, but thrust against it hard enough and the links will break. Or just bash the guy wearing it, mail does not absorb the impact over a larger area like plate armor would. The popularity of mail also comes from the simplicity of the infrastructure needed to produce it. You just have some guy sit in the smithy all day and make little metal rings. Then another guy clamps them together in the shape of the armor, probably one guy could only make arms, while another made coifs, one the chest, and a specific guy nailed (there were several methods to join the links) them together to form the complete armor (byrnie, or hauberk). There's some debate that the word maille is related to the word malleable (shapeable). So in the end mail was adequate armor that was simple to produce.
>>582635 I'm guessing too the kite shield were alright at absorbing arrow shots? Or is that too just Hollywood and games ruining me? I
know right?! I loved the Norman look almost as much as the War of the Roses period armoured Knight on foot.
>>582642 That's pretty cool actually. One of my obsessions with medieval armour (14th-15th century) was, at least from my understanding, it was one of the few moments in human history that armour, to a point, was superior to the weaponry.
Its nice to know the Norman armour and equipment was actually effective and didn't just look awesome.
>>582662 Norman kite shield would have no problem stopping an arrow, if you look at the Bayeux tapestry you can see a lot of depictions of warriors with their shields riddled with arrows. The main two types of shields at the time of the battle of Hastings was the kite shield and the round shield. The differences were that the kite shield covered your groin and thigs better, but being assymetrical it was not as easy to move around as the round shield. The kite shield worked best for horsemen or in a formation, for 1v1 fighting the round shield was preferred.
>>582662 I think material would effect projectile performance. And Italo-Normans look this best IMO, the British Isles ones are the ones that effected me personally the most but Sicilian ones are crazy interesting. As a Germanaboo I have mixed feelings about them, they're Latin Carolingian influenced Norsemen, and that's very cool, if polarized.
>>582678 Thanks again for the reply. I sometimes wonder if medieval armour and equipment was better protection than modern ages. Certainly sounds like it anyway. I didn't know (again Hollywood) Normans used round shields, I thought it was just the kite shield. Still, I can only imagine using one during a hail of arrows, would probably still be frightening despite the protection. Thanks anon, I really appreciate the response. I've always had a soft spot for history.
>>582714 Kevlar is basically supercloth, it's wonderful for absorbing sudden impacts but is really shit for a blade. It's just changed with warfare. We'll have the best for it up until the new thing comes. The best cavalry saber arrived just in time to become obsolete.
>>582805 I think that's because A) only Anglo Saxons had them as true military units and B.1) Norse Housecarls were merely bodyguards and B.2) Vikings (their traders/raiders/settlers) are what's hyped up
>>583427 Not at all. Rurik and the other varangians were all vikings. They literally came from scandinavia. They continued to have very close relations with the other vikings/scandinavians over a few centuries because the kievan rus royalty continued to ally and marry the scandinavians.
>>582642 Actually maille armor couldn't be defeated by just normal thrusts. Accounts from oddly the Moors fighting Norman mercenaries (or working with them lol) describe varying effectiveness against maille armor with lances. One Norman was struck by a Moor couched lance and did not give a single fuck. Another was run completely through (but remarkably survived).
Also Maille wasn't a unanimous, single type of armor. Maille links could be made in a multitude of ways (riveted and welded being the two largest ones to my knowledge, typical hauberks IIRC alternated between welded and riveted links) and of thickness/weave. There is also the mysterious "double maille" used in tournaments or by individuals who significantly prided life over agility. We don't know if it had double the weave thickeness or it was actually one hauberk on top of another- but either way it would have been extremely heavy compared to the normal hauberk.
Also if you wore padded clothing like a gamebson over or under your armor, you could easily survive direct hits from arrows. Typically it was worn under the maille. The energy of the arrow would be completely robbed by piercing the metal links, and then it would have to punch through some significantly thick fabric. Either it would stop in the middle of the gambeson like kevlar, or it would penetrate but only inflict a minor fleshwound.
It's important to note as well that bows and crossbows were terribly inefficient at killing people. Even in maille armor you would survive a shot, even numerous shots- the real killing power was in the infection that may set in a week later (which was what killed Richard the Lionheart). Armor throughout the middle ages was extremely good at keeping you alive, and missile weapons were much more about suppression and routing troops than killing them outright.
>>582713 As a Sicilian with probably a fair share of Norman blood from my English side, I fuckin love Italo Normans as I feel almost like a modern one (father is heavily anglo-norman in ancestry, my mother is a second generation american sicilian). Their gear was awesome too, although it should be noted that helmet is in accurate- the eye slots were bigger like pictured.
Also Italo-Normans were based for completely BTFO'ing the Saracens in Sicily when a couple hundred Norman Knights literally fought thousands of muslim levies and kicked the shit out of them. But then they actually took the chivalrous route in their conquests, and the Normans didn't put the local muslims to the sword.
In any force in military history, context is important. How would you characterize the Vikings? They were a Germanic tribe in an era defined by the rise, fall and settlement of Germanic tribes.
But they had something unique for the period: Amphibious warfare and access to rivers that were only navigable to their extremely shallow draft boats.
Now there are some retards in this thread who talk about this as a negative. These people are as retarded as the norseaboos who think that they could do know wrong and were like Germanic Sparta. What they were, were people who had their moment in time. They could pick where they wanted to fight and so they chose to fight where their enemy was weak. That's not cowardice, that's using your advantage.
So, they could move freely. However, due to their status as marines, they couldn't take cavalry with them. When Europe was marked by its infantry based armies, this wasn't an issue. When chivalric, mounted warfare developed, they were completely outclassed and their prominence faded everywhere but Britain and Ireland and even that wasn't to last. So, they were potent for a time but that was based on their ability to outmaneuver their opponents. In the case of their war for control of England. They were able to fight the armies of the petty kingdoms of England to a standstill and hold large swaths of land for centuries and a Dane sat upon the English throne.
>>585325 >Anno Domine 44^2 + 80 >Not knowing that the term "Germanic" is a blanket term that covers Scandinavia as well. >implying that they did not themselves speak a Germanic language. >Implying the people you refer to as Germanic didn't immigrate to mainland Europe via the Scandinavian peninsula.
>>585207 As my father's side is about all Anglo-Saxon and my mother's continental Saxon, I feel this urge to be buttblasted at all frogs, Frankish, Norman, and Romano-Gaullic, but they keep being so fucking cool. It almost makes me feel better about the rape of our language.
So I'm curious as to what the ethnic identity of the Normans was. I know that their culture was a mixture of Frankish and Norse. But I can't help but feel that ethnically they were mostly just Franks who were being led by a mixed Norse and Frankish nobility. I mean there had to have been plenty of people in Normandy before Rollo and I don't think his band would have been big enough to subdue the entire population. Can someone more knowledgeable fill me in here?
>>589117 They knew themselves as Normans, which means Northman. They were well aware of their Norse roots, but embraced their Carolingian culture. By the time the Normans were established in the Mediterranean, it was likely an origin story they told their sons that didn't have much impact, but I'm not an expert.
>>590548 >Norman's (partial) French culture/ethnicity is brought up? Because a dog born in a stable doesn't make it a horse, also they were culturally different to the French, hence why we call them Normans and not French from Normandy.
>>590707 But by the time they did anything significant (ie. Invade england, Sicily, Antioch) they had been settled in Normandy for more than a century. They weren't fresh off the boat from Scandinavia by any means. Within a generation they assimilated remarkably fast. I remember reading that even rollo took a french wife and his sons spoke french
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.