Post historical memes that trigger you

He would singlehandedly destroy their organization by going through their mail to steal their dues and donations.

Anything about Feudal Japan, ninja, and samurai.

>firearms immediately made armor obsolete
>firearms and the Middle Ages are mutually exclusive
>they needed to lift the armored knights on their horses using cranes

>USA/Britbongistan or even, dare I say it, F R A N C E contributed to the victory more than USSR
Daily reminder that there are people who unironically believe this.

>they needed to lift the armored knights on their horses using cranes

There cant be people that seriously believe that.

Most people will tell you that katanas are indestructible huge scalpels that will cut through other swords and armor whereas european swords are long metal batons.

>european swords were meant for crushing
>now this is pure idiocy

Generally what (I assume, giving the Americans the benefit of the doubt) I believe people mean by this is not that they were intended to be used as blunt weapons, but rather in chop cuts as opposed to slashing or drawing cuts.

If you attempt a chop cut with a heavy sword, such as a zweihander or a montante, you'll find it's (especially for a less experienced user) far easier than attempting a draw cut, as it's a simpler motion that is easier to control with a long weapon in hand.

On top of this, many European weapon designs favour relatively extended centres of gravity, while still maintaining a straight, double-edged profile. You find leaf-bladed swords common throughout the classical era, many longswords of varying different blade types, and single-edged swords, specifically cavalry swords such as backswords, all are relatively point heavy in their balance, while lacking the curvature needed to provide reliable draw cuts without significant experience in the user.

This is opposed, in pop culture depictions of swords (all that most people know of them), to famous non-European swords such as the scimitar, the katana, the dao, the tulwar, etc, all of which prioritise draw cuts almost exclusively.

When people say 'European swords were meant for crushing', what you can assume is that someone with little knowledge is assuming that weapons that were in fact meant for chop cutting (such as backswords and zweihanders) draw a lot of their their wounding potential from the same source as axes and maces and whatnot (namely weight in the tip, swinging down for contact at 90 degrees, as opposed to edge contacts being drawn across the target), which they actually did, and produced very effective results.

In fact, certain European swords developed entirely around this motion, such as the kopis, falcata, and falchion, all of which were almost exclusively chop-cutting weapons, and savagely effective.

>everything piece of equipment the germans used in ww2 was far superior to anything any allied nation used
really makes your dingle jingle

entirety of WWII is seen through german propaganda I always laugh when someone says they ''lost'' the war

The real issue here is more
>vikings were warriors
Most vikings were occasional raiders: bandits and pirates of scandinavian extraction. You don't take a raiding band being bitchslapped into submission to mean that the king of Denmark's army was worthless, and you don't take the successes of the danish army to mean that vikings were awesome warriors in general.

>Genghis Khan was an alpha chad

He was literally a cuck raising his wife's son. The founding of the Mongol Empire was a beta uprising.

danes took majority of england by force

>Daily reminder that this isn't the history channel nobody gives a shit about WW2 anymore

>first of all absolutely fucking nothing indicates that was the case
There's plenty of evidence that even suggests then opposite. Particularly in the Late Empire a big emphasis was put on the idea that a Roman soldier should be a "bellator", being able to be headstrong and courageous as well as disciplined. Soldiers were even given rewards like torques and cloaks for performing individual feats of derring-do.

His troops hated him and were constantly on the verge of mutiny.

>what is the danelaw
>what is the kievan rus
>what is the north sea empire
>what is the siege of paris
I swear to God you "vikings were shit lmao" retards are getting as annoying as the "lmao vikings were the best warriors evar" fucks.

>Muslims did nothing wrong
>rants extensively on how they btfo everyone

uhmm...okay boo

>>they needed to lift the armored knights on their horses using cranes
I think the myth, which I've only ever heard people saying is wrong, comes from Henry the 8th who was super fat and also have the heavier late medieval plate armour designed to stop bullets, so he needed help getting mounted, doubt he used a crane though.

But they didn't do anything "wrong". There is no wrong in history except in living history.

>marx and lenin were jews
seriously does anyone still believe this?

I wonder (((who))) could be behind this post...

Have a (you) my friend

>Religion of peace

This.

OP misunderstands completely

Marx was certainly a Jew, as well as Trotsky. I know some Georgian Jews and they vehemently claim Stalin, but I still have no actual proof of Jewish ancestry in him. I don't know about Lenin.

>Danelaw
Was not a viking raid. It was an organised invasion.
>Kievan Rus
Was built by a Slavic majority and norse minority who weren't viking but were settled people who by its height were completely Russianized and Christianized.
>North Sea Empire
Again not vikings but a war between Christian England and Denmark.
>Siege of Paris
Your only real example. Except in the end the Danes returned their captives and stolen treasure and payed reparations to the Franks. The vikings involved were even executed lmao.

I swear to God you "vikings were everyone from Scandinavia lmao" retards are getting as annoying as the "lmao vikings were the best warriors evar" fucks.

>The Islamic Golden Age was due to Islam, and not squatting atop (often forcibly captured) Greek, Roman, Persian, Assyrian and Indian knowledge, while acting as tollmen on the silk and spice road
>Everyone before 1066 lived in mud hovels and wore animal skins
>If not for Christ-insanity, we'd be colonizing Mars by now (pic-related)
>people who idealize Vikings as warriors, and not ingenuitive explorers, seamen and colonizers.

>The Austro-Hungarian army was incompetent

How did Fabius help at Zama when Hannibal had a full and fresh force.

was armor common in armies in 16-17th century?
I would assume it cost more than what the armies were worth.

getting him at Zama, and not still in Rome in the first place

maybe because some people dont want to slice up everyone they fight
maybe they made it nice and thicc for clubbing someone on the head
just adding a function instead of completely removing the function of a sword
but thats just speculation

The war was already over by Zama. Scipio's true genius was his campaign in Spain.

yeah but i believe the muslims still had a lot of work from the ancient period which was the spark for the Renaissance

>Romans weren't good at 1v1 fighting
>first of all absolutely fucking nothing indicates that was the case second why would that even matter? War isn't a boxing match it doesn't fucking matter who is better 1v1 if your logistics are shit and have hooligan tier discipline you can have Guts on your side and that won't help you.
We have a lot of historical claims from contemporary Romans that Germanics and Celts valued individual combat and valor much more than Romans themselves, often disregarding muh formations. It's simply obvious that they would be better at it than Romans, that's how specialisation in something/training works.

Kill yourself contarian

>Hurr durr it's not science if it's done by X because it bases on knowledge of other people
wtf I hate every single civilisation now

>France isn't the greatest nation in the world
Objectively false

>We have a lot of historical claims from contemporary Romans that Germanics and Celts valued individual combat and valor much more than Romans themselves, often disregarding muh formations
But it's not true. We know from accounts of common soldiers that Romans placed a great deal of importance on individual combat and personal valour. In fact in the third century, the "highest and greatest honour" that a soldier could receive was recognition that he was a great "bellator", someone skilled on individual combat. Roman soldiers were given high honors for challenging enemy champions and displaying individual skill.

It was considered to be Emperor Galreius' greatest virtue that he was a "skilled and fortunate bellator", and one Bonitus was marked out by Ammianus Marcellinus as being renowned for his "fortia facta", that is, great feats of combat. Constantine was said to have amassed the following he did in part due to his skill as a warrior.

Congrats. This might be the stupidest post I've ever seen on Veeky Forums. You're a credit to the board and all your clinically retarded friends.

>Nazis exterminated the Jews
Whereas right after the war millions of Jews perfectly alive created a fucking state while the Nazis had totally disappeared...
Who was exterminated here?

No user. You're the fool for believing that every war involving people from Scandinavia that happened during the "Viking Age" was a VIKING raid. Vikings were pirates and traders. If you called King Canute the Great a fucking pirate he'd murder you. If you called Vladimir the Great a trader he would laugh at you, hell he'd laugh at you if you said he was norse too because his family had been living in 'Russia' for six generations by this point. For reference William the conquer was the seventh generation and his family had not been anything but French for generations. But please insult me some more. The Great Heathen Army was not a fucking raid, it was a pre-planned invasion with a goal to conquer this might be difficult for a brainlet to understand but the men invading England were not acting as pirates but as an army, this means they were not vikings by definition.