>muh varangian guard so stronk >betrayed two emperors

>>2587516
You only need to look cool to be considered tough shit on this board

>using foreign mercenaries as bodyguards

Has this ever not turned out disastrously in the end?

>>2587516
And how many Roman Emperors were betrayed by Roman bodyguards?

>>2587608
Generally, monarchs loved foreign bodyguards since supposedly it disconnected them from domestic factions that may want to see the monarch harmed.

Also usually its the domestic bodyguards you should worry about. The most famous backstabbing guards in history were the Praetorians, and those weren't foreign.

>>2587618
Which is why no one shills roman bodyguards.

Yet for some reason memengian guard is hailed as the most loyal and fierce warriors in history.

When did the Varangians betray their emperors?
Certainly it wasnt in the way that say, the Praetorian did.

>>2587663
Romanos IV Diogenes, they sided with the Sultan no less because nordics even back then were kebab lovers and betrayers of Europe.

Also revolted against Nikephoros III Botaneiates

>>2587608
It pretty much always works.
Native troops support their local officer.
Mercs don't care as long as you pay them.

>>2587679
>Romanos IV Diogenes
Most of his guards fell in battle around him

>Nikephoros III Botaneiates
The guy who had just couped against the Doukas? It was more that he couldn't get any external support so he stepped down

>>2587692
>Most of his guards fell in battle around him

you just made this up

By the 11th century, they were Anglo-Saxons not Rus.

Which was amusing when the Guard, made up of Anglo-Saxon exiles from Norman England, fell for the exact same trick (played by the South Italian Normans) that had been played at Hastins

>>2587698
http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.geocities.com/egfrothos/BattleHonours.html&date=2009-10-25+21:41:06

'19 (or perhaps 26) August 1071 � At the disastrous battle of Manzikert virtually all the Emperor�s Guards fell around him. Judging by the make-up of the armies which had accompanied the Emperor on campaign in Asia Minor in previous years, it is likely that the Varangians were present here, as well, though they are not specifically mentioned by the chroniclers.'

>>2587704
>likely
>not specifically mentioned

very fucking convincing

>>2587710
Primary sources tend not to tell you everything, because they assume some things are gonna be common knowledge for their audience.

e.g. you don't explain 100% how people fought, because you assume the audience is gonna know what you mean.

>>2587710
>History can only be a matter of certainty

What is conjecture.

>I don't like your source

Let's nitpick a part of it

>>2587724
>>2587726
>the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence meme George Bush logic

kill yourselves I might as well there was a ton of dead samurai in battle of Hastings but they just weren't mentioned

>>2587735
...
You really don't know how medieval history works, do you?

>>2587739
>dude there wuz dragons in fucking Thermopyles but the chronicle just didn't mention them!

let me guess you're 1/66 Norwegian, 1/24 Apache, 1/15 Irish burgerclap?
>hurr muh heritage norse warriors so great especially against unarmed people! Reminds me of how I bomb villagers for my jewish masters ;)

>>2587760
...mate, no, I'm a Brit.
Norse are overhyped as 'elite warriors', but that doesn't change the fact that primary sources rarely explain every last detail.

Put it this way
>THERE WERE DRAGONS = Random, wouldn't make any sense
>The Emperor bringing his armed bodyguard on campaign with him = Makes sense

>>2587902
>I'm Brit

oh yeah nothing makes me take your X-Files tier historical theories more seriously like starting your post with ''I'm inbred''

>>2587924
...it's not X-files tier. It's literally how history works. Primary sources aren't just a 'what do they directly say', it's also 'what can we infer from this and similar accounts' + what are the baises and what not.

Is the imperial bodyguard following the Emperor on campaign really that hard for you to believe?

File: 2zf1q2u.jpg (21KB, 640x512px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 640x512px

>>2587935
>OI M8 THERE WUZ VARANGIANS BECAUSE I SAID SO GOD SAVE DA QUEEN I BRUSH MY TEETH ONCE A MONTH AND LOVE HOOLIGAN BRAWLS AND PRETENDING TO BE SMARTER THAN I REALLY AM I WISH MY DAD LOVED ME

>>2587760
Ha, thanks for being a retard. You give the world something to laugh at. I know for me at least you've certainly improved my lunch by being so interestingly brain damaged.

>>2587760
>this is your brain on pol

>>2587967
lol

>>2587967
wot

>>2587516
why are Turks so good at killing western badasses?

>>2588493
Horse archers

>>2587608
Russian tsars had special muslim bodyguards from Chechnya. The idea is to have a group which won't be related to internal dynastic struggles

>>2587516
Central Asian nomads always get rekt by gunpowder, copy cat militaries and cultural enrichment.

See: China, Egypt, Russia, etc

Everything has a weakness.

>>2589160
>Everything has a weakness.

such as your mom's weakness to BBC

>>2589169
Looks like you're self projecting your own personal experiences. I bet you're white ;)

>>2589181
I'm not white I'm Irish.

>>2587710
lmao'ing at all this damage control

>>2587967
>implying the UK's genepool is small.

wew lad

>>2587967
>I'M SILLY

>>2587699
/pol/ here to CTR. You're full of shit. The battle of Durazo found the Saxon abandoned by Turks, and Greeks (they were bribed), the Saxon fought to the death, the last of them burned alive in a church they sought refuge in. They had victory in sight but Queen Matlida rallied the Normans as they flagged, and they won the day. I came here cuz /pol/ is being flooded with shit posts. I thought you guys were supposed to be intelligent, but I guess you're all full of shit too. Oh by the way, I didn't have to google my history, I carry it in my mind, the memories of many books, read long ago.

>>2588493
coward turks were bribed at Durazo, and refused to enter battle. Stick to bomb back packs, that's about all you can handle. It takes courage to live free, any roach can live a life hiding in the shadows.

>>2591058
>>2591086
Actually no, that's not what happened.
The Greeks weren't bribed.
The Normans baited the Saxon guard, which charged after them and ended up getting cut off from the rest of the army (thus leading to the hide in the church part).

Also the fuck is Queen Matilda in this?
Anna and William of Apulia don't mention that.
Guiscard's wifes were 1)Alberada of Buonalbergo 2)Sikelgaita

According to William, Sikelgatia was almost captured and fled to transport ships (William being a Norman).

According to Anna (Byzantine Princess), she grabbed a lance and insulted the fleeing Normans back into line. This is unlikely. It's more fitting of the whole 'barbarian women' trope. It's similar to the way in which Byzantine accounts go on and out about Latins wanting the Imperial throne or being greedy/deviant. It's just tropes they are using.

>>2591086
Er, no. The Byzantines started to flee when the right flank collapsed, the Serbians bolted, and the Turks followed the example of the Serbians and Byzantines.

>>2589193
I kek'd

>>2591381
And if anyone wants to fault this, take it up with G.A. Loud.

Or, you know, stick to your wanking over how everything is the fault of the turks.

>>2591058
>tfw to inteligent for /his/

>>2587618
Most of them

>>2587516
Who says they were strong?
The important part was that they didn't give a shit about local politics

File: 1487438219293.jpg (15KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 306x306px

>>2587516
Yeah like if Jannissarys never betrayed the Ottoman Emperor

>>2587967
http://www.caitlingreen.org/2015/05/medieval-new-england-black-sea.html

>>2587621
This

>>2587608
Compared to what, exactly?

>>2587516
any good byzantine books

>>2596065
Primary sources (for the 10th to 13th centuries):
1)Michael Attaleiates, The history, trans. by Anthony Kaldellis and Dimitris Krallis.(Cambridge, Mass. ; London : Harvard University Press, 2012.)
2)John Skylitzes : a synopsis of Byzantine history, 811-1057, trans. by John Wortley ( Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2010)
3)Anna Komnene, The Alexiad, rev edn., trans. by E.R.A. Sewter (London : Penguin, 2009)
4)John Kinnamos, Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus, trans. by Charles M. Brand. (New York : Columbia University Press, 1976)
5)Niketas Choniatēs, O city of Byzantium : Annals of Niketas Choniatēs, trans. by Harry J. Magoulias (Detroit : Wayne State University Press, 1984.)

>>2596065
Secondary:
1) Paul Magdalino, The empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143-1180 (Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1993)
2)Trade and markets in Byzantium, ed. by Cecile Morrisson. (Washington, D.C. : Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, c2012.)
3)Palgrave advances in Byzantine history, ed. Jonathan Harris. (Basingstoke : Palgrave Macmillan, 2005)
4)Strangers to themselves : the Byzantine outsider / papers from the Thirty-Second Spring Symposium of Byzantine studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, March 1998, ed. by Dion C. Smythe. (Aldershot ; Burlington, USA : Ashgate/Variorum, c2000.)
5) Michael Angold, The Byzantine Empire 1025-1204 : a political history (London : Longman, 1984.)

>>2596065
Stick away from anything old. While Ostrogorsky and co were great for their time, they are...dated. 'specially on the 'LATINS REEE GET OUT OF MUH EMPIRE' shit.

>>2596065
I think that floating /his/ online library has the Alexiad.

>>2587516
>>betrayed two emperors
That's a good ratio, compared to the Praetorian Guard.

>>2597019
Or search for it in PDF form online

>>2587516
Byzantines used a lot of mercs

>>2587516
>two handed axes
>fighting Turks
?????

>>2587608
Has it ever?

>>2587516
What's that? Varangians for ants?

>>2587608
>Rome
>Using auxiliaries
>This is somehow new

>>2602649
Well, they were fighting Roaches...

>>2587608
The Julio-Claudian's Germanic Body Guards did a far better job than the Praetorian Guard.

>>2587608
>Swiss Guard

>>2602723
>Ceremonial troops

>>2587710
>Damage control

>>2587710
>I don't like it so it didn't happen

File: clovellhastingsstitched.jpg (155KB, 1526x854px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1526x854px

>>2587699
>>2591058
>>2591381
>The battle began with the Byzantine right wing routing the Norman left wing, which broke and fled. Varangian mercenaries joined in the pursuit of the fleeing Normans, but became separated from the main force and were massacred.
THEY CAN'T KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH IT

>>2603037
>1527

>>2603551
HASTINGS PART TWO, ELECTRICBIGGALOO

>>2603551
kek

>>2603718
>dying counts

>>2587621
Eunchs are better, imo

>>2587541
this

Janissary corps, vietnamese, mongols etc all infinitely more accomplished in war than memes like the varangians but that doesn't translate because they were manlets/wore silly clothes/weren't white

it's painfully obvious how many people on this board only got interested in history through video games, /pol/ memes and cheesy metal music

>>2587516
They were Danes then slavs then anglo-Saxons then normans then dead
400 years of history m8

>>2604908
?
The Varangians weren't warrior corps like the Janissary. They were just the palace bodyguard that occasionally followed the Emperor into battle.

Unlike the Janissaries, they weren't made up of kidnapped, brainwashed christians. Just some norse dudes who get paid as long as their Charge isn't killed off.

They're basically the same as Cladius's German bodyguard.

>>2604965
>normans

u wot?

Normans weren't ever part of the guard

>>2587621
>being cucked by ethnic private arm companies.

w e w

>>2604976
???
Norsemen where there all da time

>>2605754
Norman = Normandy

Norseman = Scandanavian

>>2605810
>>2604976
Normans, in the period they exist as a thing aren't in Byzantine service. They're the ones invading the empire

>>2605827
neat

File: IMG_6765.jpg (42KB, 412x232px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 412x232px

>>2604976
Do you think this man would lie to me, and yes he is homosexual

>>2587516
the Varagian guard didn't exist when the Turks invaded constantinopel, besides they where bodyguards, and there weren't enough of them to be a proper army

>>2587516
They couldn't have been good since they used axes which as we all know aren't even a real weapon.

>>2587516
nice thumbnail op

>>2606962
t.lindy

>>2606678
If he's claiming Normans were there?
Then yes

>>2587541
>people like the French
this refutes your statement

>>2587608
It usually works out well. It is always best to have a foreign bodyguard that have no political connections to, or better yet, are absolutely hated by everyone around them, except for their patron.

Compare the Varangians with the Praetorians or the Russian Imperial Guard Regiments.

>>2597017
All eras have their own biases and facts that they ignore.

Sometimes older historians and translations will cover things that are not politically convenient to mention in modern contexts.

>>2609022
The issue is that it's less 'not gonna say it because it's not pc', more 'We've found more archelogical evidence and translated documents on this.'

E.g. the old view was the economy in the 10th-12th centuries was in decline.
Recent archelogical finds over the last 20/30 years, however, have shown that it's the reverse.

That's not to say that historians don't have biases. All do, depending on their school of history and their approach/method used.

The 'they ignore things because politics' is /pol/ tier, however. For the discussion of medieval and classical history, at any rate.

>>2609090
But historians really do ignore shit that isn't politically convenient. Often, they aren't even aware of it. Procopius had to write a secret history of Justinian's reign. One of Solzhenitsyn's book hasn't even been translated into english due to political correctness.

Saying that historians have biases and agendas, and that academic establishments and political powers that rule over them don't enforce particular narratives is deranged conspiracy-mongering is ridiculous. Ideology is a constant in human society, and it's in fucking overdrive over in /hist/ where people think nuance is some sort of commie trick.

>>2587516
>It's a "Medshit is mad that his country couldn't defend itself" episode

>>2609258
...
>Procopius had to write a secret history of Justinian's reign

You're aware that's all bullshit, correct?
He says the Emperor was a demon who removed his head and wandered the palace after killing 3 million Lybians. The entire thing was because he got angry at the Imperial family, so he wrote his secret history as a 'hue hue hue look how EVIL they are'

Ideology exists and taints things, yes, but orthodoxies aren't disproven by ideology alone. There needs to be evidence to show /why/ the old views are incorrect/support the new narrative.

Medievalists and classicists didn't challange the traditional narratives due to 'pc culture'. It was due to new evidence coming about and new documents and evidence.

Is it perfect? No.
But it's a damn sight better than the old 'So and so did this because of his Racial lust for glory' (see the old narratives on Robert Guiscard. Eurgh)

>>2587516
They're big guys

>>2609544
For you

>>2609397
>at one point, he relates a rumor that the Emperor was possessed by the devil, therefore Justinian was a blameless philosopher-king defined by his integrity and selflessness.

>>2610736
>things that weren't said for 100 please Alex.

Justinian wasn't selfess or blameless. His reconquest was a mistake that overstretched the Empire and destroyed the Roman commonwealth (e.g. barbarian kings still recognising the Eastern Emperor as above them) and gutted it's infrastructure.

That doesn't change the fact that the Secret History is a pile of tripe. Facts can be gleamed from it, in collaberation with other documents, but using it alone and acting like it was secret for any reason other than 'It's direct slander and insults against the Emperor' is retarded.

>>2589160
This is true

>>2612900
no

>>2587621
Any cases of it backfiring?

>>2603037
at the moment, they are one of best armed bodyguards in the world... their halberds are for shits and giggles only

>>2614254
>Pope has been assassinated (or shot) before
>best
uhuh

File: smug machiavelli.png (175KB, 250x321px)

175KB, 250x321px

>using mercenaries

>>2614743
This fucking guy. His shit and the fucking italian wars made all the fucking western perceptions move to 'hurr hurr mercs are stupid'.

In the medieval period? No, they're fucking /great/.

Who else would you have the Byzantines use?
Native troops?
The thematic system was falling apart + native militas are poor quality and loyal to their local officers. They're good for defence, but that's it.

Mercenaries however? They are professional troops, (don't need as many of them), they compliment and reinforce your normal forces and they are loyal to the state (as the State treasury is their paymaster).

File: mach statue.jpg (5KB, 181x236px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 181x236px

>>2614768
*deceives you*

>>2587710
Kek just admit that you rekt you fickin idiot

>>2614775
While Mercs in the Italian wars were shit (and thus little M's 'ffs stop using them'), that's because they had a monopoly on local warfare and were from the local area. It ended up being a 'yeah we're just gonna pretend to fight for a bit for the most part, what are you gonna do about it?. If you don't hire us, we'll just all go work for the other day.'

Medieval ones, 'specially those that went off for Service in the east, were different. More like paid auxiliaries than anything else.

>>2587710
>I'M SPECIAL

>>2596065
>>2596988
>>2597012
thnx man

>>2614743
*dies in exile*

>>2609258
>/pol/

>>2606678
Literally who

>>2587541
lol no

>>2587618
Not that many

>>2587710
>i don't like your source, so it is fake
K.

File: bog.jpg (77KB, 932x528px)

77KB, 932x528px

>varangian guards bow to the bodganoffs
>rule the byzantine empire with a fair but iron fist

>>2620015
The latter part is a Doctor Who qoute