Early Middle Ages Rankings

>England God-Tier
>Norse on par with Cordova and Abbasids
>no Umayyads, Visigoths, Asturias, Ostrogoths, or Ottonians

ERE was complete trash around 800 though. Or any time between 634 and 867.

Why? The Anglo-Saxon kingdom in the 10th century was probably the most developed state in Western Europe.

>When you are so bad even Pooland beats you

What about the Ottonians and Cordoba?

The Franks and Romans were beat too

That's just how it goes sometimes

Ottonians are Franks, they're God-tier
Cordova maybe should be higher

>Magyars
>Bad

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_invasions_of_Europe

Literally the most efficient raider culture in europe, puts your overrated vikings to shame.

Cordova came from Umayyads, they're basically included
Ottonians are Franks
Goths are cool, but short-lived, and quickly die as a nation. Northmen were very influential in northern Europe.

>Magyars
>come from Russia to the Basin, honestly do fuck some folks up, but establish their own nation and that's it

>Norse
>raid fucking anything with a coast, create Normans and by succession Norman England, The Pale, Sicily and southern Italy (yes, I know they were French by then but they got that ball rolling), Kingdom of the Isles, Danelaw, Iceland, Faroe Islands, and discovered North America.
Magyars are underrated, but not better than the Northmen.

Nah, I mean the EMA as a whole, the map is just a good indicator of what the world was like.

~245-1066?

Roughly. As long as you're in the ballpark you're good

I also forgot the North Sea Empire, a Northmen-Anglo-Saxon entity us pretty fucking intense

>Cordova came from Umayyads, they're basically included
They were the same dynasty but very different states. A small Iberian kingdom flourishing in the 10th century shouldn't really be combined with an intercontinental empire of the late 7th-early 8th centuries.

>Ottonians are Franks
They were Saxons, though I suppose their state was technically just an offshoot of the Franks so I guess that's fair enough.

>Goths are cool, but short-lived, and quickly die as a nation.
I'm not saying they should be God tier or anything, but they should still be included. At least the Visigoths anyway.

>Northmen were very influential in northern Europe.
Hardly makes them a civilization on par with the Abbasids. Their accomplishments were basically just crossing the Atlantic (not much of a feat considering they just island hopped), raiding defenseless monasteries and Slavic tribes, and setting up a slave-trading state in Russia. They were influential and interesting, but hardly impressive as a civilization.

And I don't see why the Abbasids are so low. Sure their empire was shit but even their Iraqi heartland was bigger than England and possessed an urban civilization only matched by China.

You mean

>Norse
>Raid a shitload of farmer and fishing peasant villages without ever facing a professional army (whenever they do so, they are completely curbstomped), have some french people who happen to have some norse ancestry take over england and for a short time take control over the backwoods of the brittish isles.

>Magyars
> Come from literally the middle of butt-fucking nowhere and wreck the armies and lands of nearly the entirety of continental europe, establish a kingdom that has endured to this day, while most norse states were short lived at the least, goes toe to toe with most of the militaries of the time.

Yeah, sure kid, your lame ass vikings were better...

>Norse
>regularly combat Anglo-Saxons and Irishmen, the Franks, and win plenty often, winning vassalage over Normandy, kingdoms in Ireland, and Danelaw
This is the time where the norsehatebonerlings post some Anglo/Frank/Gael victory over Vikings, ignoring the whole premise that Norsemen won just as much, enough to make Norse-Gaels, Danelaw, and the Normans a thing.

Magyars had much of continental Europe on edge, please don't get me wrong they're cool as shit, but just as Magyars were successful up until they weren't, so were the Northmen, but the Northmen did it more.

What about Asturias/Visigoths?

I do not hate the norse, but the way they are overhyped by the media is just ridiculous, also

I believe you mean

>Regularly combat and win against town militias and poorly armored farmers and get wrecked when actual professional armies meet them in the field

The Danelaw and The Norse-Irish Kingdoms were short lived and really not that influential. Hungary exists to this day and has been a major player in european history for a long time.

Mate face it, the Magyars accomplished far more in the long run.

Norway and Iceland exist, that's two Northmen countries.
Dublin is the capital of Ireland.
Normans are the fucking Normans.

>>Regularly combat and win against town militias and poorly armored farmers
They fought Frankish armies, Anglo-Saxon armies, and Gael armies all the time.
Sure, they spent most of their time content with just raiding for wealth to take back to Iceland/Norway.
But whatever they want to set up shop, they HAVE to fight the regulars, and as made evident by those kingdoms existing, they won.

1- Ok, true to that, but were they an inch more influential than Hungary in continental europe? No i don't think so. If you want a true Norse player, you should've said Sweden, if you do i give this to you.

2- A capital from which the vikings were brutally expelled from the moment the irish decided to assemble a propper army

3- Normans are by all means french, they just happened to have a norse great great grandfather from one side of their family.

>They fought Frankish armies, Anglo-Saxon armies, and Gael armies all the time.

And 9 our of 10 times they lost.

>But whatever they want to set up shop, they HAVE to fight the regulars, and as made evident by those kingdoms existing, they won.

You mean those kingdoms existed for a short period of time when england was a patchwork of squabbling states and got wrecked away when the saxons mustered a propper force?

>Gaelicised Scandinavians dominated the region of the Irish Sea until the Norman era of the twelfth century. They founded long-lasting kingdoms, such as the Kingdoms of Man, Dublin, and Galloway,[2] as well as taking control of the Norse colony at York.
>dominated
>long-lasting

>The Danelaw (also known as the Danelagh; Old English: Dena lagunema;[1] Danish: Danelagen), as recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, is a historical name given to the part of England in which the laws of the Danes held sway[2] and dominated those of the Anglo-Saxons. Danelaw contrasts West Saxon law and Mercian law.
>dominated
>lasted about 200 years from the 9th to 11th centuries

>Norse-Gaels
Essentially just low tier irish immigrants that occasionally shagged some norse folk. Only to get BTFO by proper celts in later years with daddy Norway unable to do shit.

Why are swedes represented different to danes?

They are of the same ethnicity.

>The Normans (Norman: Nourmands; French: Normands; Latin: Normanni) were the people who in the 10th and 11th centuries gave their name to Normandy, a region in France. They were descended from Norse ("Norman" comes from "Norseman"[1]) raiders and pirates from Denmark, Iceland and Norway who, under their leader Rollo, agreed to swear fealty to King Charles III of West Francia.[2] Through generations of assimilation and mixing with the native Frankish and Gallo-Roman populations, their descendants would gradually adopt the Carolingian-based cultures of West Francia, ultimately resulting in their own assimilation into the Romance society.[3] The distinct cultural and ethnic identity of the Normans emerged initially in the first half of the 10th century, and it continued to evolve over the succeeding centuries.[4]

The Norman dynasty had a major political, cultural and military impact on medieval Europe and even the Near East.[5][6]
>descended from Norse
>lasted hundreds of years
>major political, cultural and military impact on medieval Europe and even the Near East

I repeat
>>dominated
>>long-lasting

>God tier
>Anglo-Saxon England
t.totally not biased anglo.
Obviously the undiputable best kingdom was Asturias.And I am totally not biased

>pretty bad teir: Berbers
>Berbers conquered half of spain

>Decent tier: Ireland
>where?

God tier I think anglo-saxon England can be pushed down one tier, but the rest I feel ya.

Assuming you mean early middle ages 450-950 or something of that area.

REVISED
>God Tier:
>Anglo-Saxon England
>Kingdom of the Franks
>Eastern Roman Empire
>Cordova/Umayyad

>Decent Tier:
>Ireland
>Bulgaria
>Abbasids
>Danes and Northmen
>Magyars
>Astorias/Goths-that-left-Gotland-to-become-Visi-and-Ostrogoths
>Swedes and Goths (barely)

>Pretty bad tier:
>Picts
>Slavic tribes
>Finnish Tribes
>Berbers
>Chazars

>Irrelevant Tier: all others

related ethnicities =/= same ethnicities

When I say Berbers, I don't mean Arab-Berbers that made Cordova, I mean Berbers proper who fucked around in North Africa

Ireland was really underrated

Asturias got bumped up, but Anglos are still God Tier

>who fucked arounf in North Africa
Fair enough.

Do explain why Anglo-saxon is God Tier??? Couldn't have been that good? Ex Romans and Germanic Tribe nation mixed in with others. Gor conquered 200 years later? What made them so great???

American spotted

Objectively speaking, rating on general influence they had:

God-tier:
Franks
Vikings
Muslims (Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid...)
Byzantines

Significant-tier:
Lombards
Bulgarians
Anglo-Saxons
Ruthenians/Russians
Goths
Vandals
Huns

Regional significance-tier:
Burgundians
Avars
Wends
most of the independent nations can be classified here

Insignificant blimp in history-tier:
Everybody else

>Vikings
>God-tier
>literally snowniggers
No.

Anglo-Saxon England was outstandingly stable for it's time period despite contending with Britons and Norsemen, alongside Gaelic monks, Anglo-Saxon monks were the leaders in the conversion of northern and central europe to Christianity whilst still syncretising old traditions, created beautiful art from taking the best of Celtic, Germanic and Latin influences, and had a government structure so good nobody bothered replacing it.

They went from bumfuck tribe from north Germany to light-in-the-darkness incredibly fast

Yes, I am American, but your post is far more Ameribear than mine could hope to be
>calling 'Vikings' a kingdom, and even a single kingdom
>making them God Tier
>grouping all Muslims together like a single entity
Holy shit, neck yourself

Can we stop this fucking meme. There are other ways how to feel like a special snowflake than to discard any popular opinion just because plebians took it over.

Vikings raided half of Europe, they were universally feared and seen as great warriors. Before you pull that "muh raiding parties, not real armies" bullshit out of your ass: I am talking about general influence they had and that was fucking big. They raided and raped half of England and Ireland, setting up settlements there, took control of the whole North and Baltic sea, gained territory in Normandy and later even in southern Italy, they became the ruling class in Novgorod and conquered whole of fucking eastern Europe. From Finnistére to Perm, there wasn't a nation that wouldn't get raided by them. They were seen as such a great warriors, that Byzantine emperor, arguably the most powerful person in Europe, chose them as his personal guard. And i didn't even mention their exploration skills, in which they discovered and settled most of islands in North sea, Iceland, Greenland and even got to a new continent.
So shut the fuck up with your meme bullshit, whether you want it or not, Vikings were one of the important people in early medieval.

I am not talking about kingdoms, i am talking about groups of people. Anybody who knows slightest bit about history acknowledges that Vikings and Muslims in that period could be classified as one culture group, with continuous traits.

But who am i trying to explain this to, you think fucking Ireland was important in early middle ages.

This thread deals with the early middle ages, from approximately 476-1066. In those years the Swedes that had left to form the Rus were not power players until Vladimir the Great's reign in the early 11th century and the conversion to Orthodox, consolidating their previous treaties with the Byzantines. Gotland and Oland were incredibly wealthy sites, but were not formally absorbed into Sweden until the end of the 9th century being governed separately. It's also important to note that Varangians were of all different Viking nationalities, as can be seen with Harald Hardrada, the Norwegian king who invaded England in 1066. My focus in history is on the Vikings so by no means am I bashing the Swedes. It's just important to remember that we're talking about the early middle ages in this context, just a bit early yet to be placing Swedes on the same level as the Danes or even the Norwegians.

I already went through this dance with them, see above got the posts about Norse-Gaels, Danelaw, and Normandy. You're right about Rus though, I forgot to mention that.
Otherwise, the issue arrives regarding "Vikings" as an entity.
Vikings was a profession, Danes, Northmen, and Swedes were different from one another. Northmen can be credited with Iceland, Norway, the Kingdom of the Isles, and Norse-Gaels.
Danes have Danelaw and Normandy.
Swedes have Rus and Varangians.

Please don't group then together like that, they're much more nuanced than just 'Vikings'.

>there wasn't a nation that wouldn't get raided by them
Well, Polish lands weren't raided by them, so here goes your theory.

>they were universally feared and seen as great warriors
And yet you place other barbarians like the Vandals and the Huns as "significant-tier" instead of "god-tier".
>They raided and raped half of England and Ireland, setting up settlements there
Magyars raided and raped central Europe. Together with Huns and Avars and whatnot.
>took control of the whole North and Baltic sea
Great, they took control of a sea no one had cared about until then. How significant!
>gained territory in Normandy and later even in southern Italy
*the Frankish king gave them territory in Normandy and later by becoming culturally distinctive from other retarded snowniggers, Normans gained control of southern Italy
ftfy
>they became the ruling class in Novgorod and conquered whole of fucking eastern Europe
*created one irrelevant village in the middle of nowhere and proceeded to become the most significant power there thanks to lack of serious competition, until the Mongols came along
ftfy

Good job, such "God-tier".
I can't deny their significance, but from being influential to being "god tier" is delusional behaviour of a mantoddler.

Sure they had their similarities, but by that logic we just toss all of western Europe into the Franks because that's how almost everyone else viewed the place.
But we're not talking in vague generalities here, we're talking about entities. Varangian Rus weren't associated with the Norse-Gaels.
The Abbasid Caliphate were a separate entity than Emirate of Cordova.

I was wondering if i shouldn't call them "Norsemen", don't know what would be better.

imo this is just semantics, by pure logic you could group them together, as they shared the same traits: Raiding lifestyle, naval focus, norse religion, area they lived in, language (at least very similar). Even though they had regional differences, they were still people of very similar origin, that could, at that time, be classified as one. Only later, in midst of European Catholic diplomatic network, their differences from rest of the Europe got lost and they lost the feeling of unanimity.

Problem with the Norse is that they're a solid 7 or 8/10 that enough retards started masturbating to screaming that they were 11/10.
Contrarians came along and then started wrongly calling them 3/10.

And that's the crux of it; that we are ranking based on statehood, not on cultural groups.

Norse is more like a 6 for a long time until it becomes a 7.5. And mostly from outside influence of the places they met.
Their real autonomous and interesting feats come from exploration, not "muh being feared".

Vandals raided only southern Europe and had no lasting impact, not even their culture survived due to Muslim conquest. While Vikings/Norsemen/whatever had a hell of lasting impact, which i already mentioned.
Same thing with Huns, except raping and pillaging, they had no lasting impact, except clearing the way for Magyars.

>Magyars raided and raped central Europe. Together with Huns and Avars and whatnot.
If i could group all those together, i would consider making them "God" tier, but unlike with Vikings, i don't really dare to do that here.

>Great, they took control of a sea no one had cared about until then. How significant!
North sea gave access to England and whole north coast of western Europe, Baltic was pretty important trading sea even back then.

>*the Frankish king gave them territory in Normandy and later by becoming culturally distinctive from other retarded snowniggers, Normans gained control of southern Italy
Normans also because culturally distinctive from other Frenchmen due to their Norse heritage. You can't expect everything to stay the same in history, but its the impact that counts, the first impulse, which came from Norsemen here.

>*created one irrelevant village in the middle of nowhere and proceeded to become the most significant power there thanks to lack of serious competition, until the Mongols came along
Okay, now you're just being dumb. Read up on Russian history.

I don't understand why half the lists here have "Goths" as a statehood then. They barely even formed one culture group.

Anyway my list is basically a clusterfuck of important groups of people, whether it was state like with Byzantines, religion like with Muslims or ethnicity like with Vikings.

↑↑
You people are just being annoying and getting into semantics. We all know what i meant in that list and by general historical knowledge you understand what i meant by importance of that group. Whether it was under Abbasids, Umyyads or Pumbaajids, Muslims at that time conquered and converted almost half of the known world. Whether they were Varangian Rus or Norse-Gael, people worshipping Norse religion from Scandinavia had the impact that i wrote down before.
If i wanted to draw some conclusion from this list, then i would have to get exact. But i am not, i'm just saying which groups of people had the most influence at that time, so idgaf i call them by language, religion, region they live in, or a flag they fight under.

>Baltic was pretty important trading sea even back then.
Baltic became important because of Germans. If you can't even include HRE in your rankings, there's no point on claiming an empty sea was relevant.
>the first impulse
The first impulse was the king giving them land and teaching them French. Literally everything they did they did in the name of either the king or of themselves as dukes of France.
>Russian history
Russia didn't exist. Only a lose bunch of tribes sitting in the middle of nowhere. They did found a thing that eventually became an important city, though.
>

I admit i forgot about HRE. I was thinking like 400-900, HRE, Poland or Hungary as kingdoms aren't early medieval for me anymore.

So you are seriously saying that Normans had no difference from other French vassals?

I meant Rus', just didn't know how to decline it (if thats the right word for changing words). Russan history?
Novgorod was important city even at that time, relatively to what was around it. Also it was a Norseman who united all those tribes and made them one of most important states of early medieval.

Anglo's are so fucking delusional.

>Danes and northmen
>better than Picts, Strathclyde, Asturias, and Magyars
Nope

The Goths in the map are specifically Gotland. Then there's the Visigoths and Ostrogoths. These were kingdoms and entities.
We also don't just make Christendom a entity.
There were Islamic entities with more Turkic/Berber/Persian influences than others, and these groups fought one another.

You overgeneralize.

Magyars I concede, but Brythonic entities are a joke.

>So you are seriously saying that Normans had no difference from other French vassals?
They did. What I'm saying is that they were more French than Viking.

Ireland down two tiers and maygars up a tier.

Vikings down 3 tiers

different user, but in my mind i gave them half-credit for birthing Normans, but i can't credit Danes for Norman achievments.
Norman existance is a Danish achievement, Norman conquest isn't.

>Vikings down three tiers
read the thread and then see if you still say so

>Norman existance is a Danish achievement
Norman existence is a French achievement. You take dumb people, show them your ways, they end up doing decent things.
We don't give credit to Turks for having an empire. We give that credit to the Arabs.

>Iceland decent
>Magyars bad

Did you rank them based on your personal sympathies or are you just retarded?

>Norman existence is a French achievement. You take dumb people, show them your ways, they end up doing decent things.
Danes were proven capable enough that the French have them vassalage. They adopted French everything remarkably fast which is why everything afterwards is a Norman-French achievement, but the Normans began as Danes who at the very beginning spoke Danish, worshipped Germanic gods and were by all accounts Danish.
>We don't give credit to Turks for having an empire. We give that credit to the Arabs.
We absolutely do. The Turks might have taken elements of Arab culture, but they were absolutely Turks.
I think you generalize too much, you want to bring the world together under a few hegemonies and leave it like that.

I revised Magyars.
Iceland is listed under Northmen, which is more than just Iceland

They lived steadier lives than the Nords and actually had a self sufficient civilization with rules and structure that were far more complex.

Tell me more about Brythonic society.
I know that Danish law and society was sufficient enough for Norse entities in the British Isles to embrace it for a while.

I've been on enough of these threads to know they are shit

>I engaged in an ill-informed circlejerk enough
Git learned fgt

I have they are over hyped shit

See
You're a contrarian retard, not knowledgeable

>muh snowniggers had boats
Big deal
Vikings are a 5/10

I mean Ireland wasn't really all that united either. The Scotti where also a movement that created kingdoms separate from the Irish as well, hence why when they amalgamated with the Picts it wasn't some giant Celtic alliance. Instead Alba, Dal Riata, and all the independent Irish remained different.

what was so bad about the picts?

>>muh snowniggers had boats
>Big deal
Scroll up and read faggot

Picts make Scots, Norsemen, and Slavs look civilised.
I'm talking full-blown naked, full-body tattooing and supposed cannibalism.

NOT ROME tier:

franks

byzantium

pea farmer tier:

anglo-saxon england

celts

slavs

baltics

crypto turko-kike tier:

khazaria

pedophile goatfucker tier:

abbasid

cordoba

>white tier:

magyars

bulgars

barely even human tier:

pechenegs

finns

vascones

poles

wends

...

butthurt pole spotted

Wrong
I repeat,

>cannibalism

sauce on that info?

I read it somewhere, I think Romans said so, but that's more than a little biased.

>Full blown naked

Naked warriors were widespread on ancient celtic societies, IIRC Julius caesar met some on Gaul, it was a cultural tradition and sort of a "test of manhood", and in no reason makes them any less civilized than the peoples you mentioned

>Full body tatooing
Tatoos are a common motiff in many European societies of the time including those you mentioned, Ibn Fadlan wrote about full body tatooing on the Rus/Varangians as well as some slavic tribe they incorporated, again a cultural practice and nowhere related to their level of civility. Mayans are pretty civilized by all definitions and they too praticed body tatooing.

>Supposed Cannibalism
Now you're literally making things up.

Overall, the picts weren't any more "savage" than any other "barbarian" people of the time.

yea the cannibalism is probs not true. they seem to be pretty standard compared to the the celts and Norse in terms of advanced their civilization was.

I thought that Picts were so bad the Britons continued to man Hadrian's Wall after the Romans left.

Probably.

> I thought that Picts were so bad the Britons continued to man Hadrian's Wall after the Romans left.

You know, "relentless raider" doesn't mean "absolute savage", Macedonians and Romans raided quite heavily as did Assyrians and Babylonians, are they savages?

If we use that meter again, the Norse were just as bad or even worse, as they didn't just raid border settlements.

Fair enough.

Honestly I ought to learn more about Brythonic societies.

They were pretty interesting, if a bit irrelevant, but curious nonetheless

I recommend the book Lords of Battle, it's not specifically just about the brythonic peoples but about celts as a whole, there's a lot of cool information there.

God Tier:
Anywhere ruled by the Normans

>anglo-saxons
>god tier