French-speaking Vikings vs Greek-speaking Romans

France in Haiti

>Samurai vs Aztecs
The Japanese embassy to the west in the 16th century stopped in recently conquered Mexico before they went to Spain, leaving some Ronin behind. There was also large amounts of Asian migration to Tenochtitlan, which included many Japanese in the Phillipines after Tokugawa closed his borders. Many Ronin were allowed to keep their swords and serve in the colonial militias.

...

The reason normans were famous for going on adventures while the rest of France wasn't is because the Normans tended to favour inheritance only for the oldest son. This made aa system where the other sons had to go off and do shit. Its got nothing to do with them secretly being Norsemen.

ERE had a bunch of those didn't it

>Romans
LMAO

...

>Turk
LMAO

Get back on topic, faggots.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospitaller_colonization_of_the_Americas

Scots had a huuuuuuuuuge presence in 17th century Sweden. They seem to have made up 1/3rd of officers in the Swedish Army at one point.

Interesting.
Russians had a similar situation where the bulk of their officers were ethnic Germans imported by Catherine up until a bit before WWI.

that wasn't DLC, it was the main campaign of AoE3

Guess that explains why so many Caribbean islands are named St. Whatever.

The embarrassing Swedish dependence on foreigners has historical precedent I see

Only I guess they used to be better dressed

>Samurai hired by the Dutch to beat the shit out of Indonesians

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Couronian_colonization_of_the_Americas

they were culturally French

>spoke French
>dressed as French
>fought like the French
>referred to themselves as French

No, you're right user, they were literally 100% Vikings.

french vikings!

Face it, if it wernt for French funding you'd have had no army at all.

t. puny angloid

After the battles of Agincourt and Verneuil where the french aristocracy bled and paid a heavy price, there were also a great number of scottish soldiers and cavalry in the french army, including a elite cadre of scottish longbowmen who would become the Scots Guard.

Byzantines were NOT Roman

When did they stop being Roman? Was Valentinian Roman or Byzantine? What about Leo Thrax Magnus or Justinian? If Muslim hoards overrun the south and the Queen and Parliament relocate to York, is that rump state no longer England?

Can you even imagine the world if that had really fully happened? (Or would Western Europe just have been dominated like the Rus'?)

>dude says group x is y (and z and b)
>therfore x was of y ethnic
Yeah, its almost like haploid-retards don't know shit and ethnicity is a construct

if you dont call the Byzantines Roman, it makes it easier for some unrelated, illiterate german kings to steal their legacy later on with the help of catholic schismatics and lie about Constantine donating half the Roman Empire to the Papacy

...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Wars

pic unrelated

>muslims
>vikings
>italian city-state republics
>papal state
>HRE
>ERE
Fuck, there should be a historical TV show about Sicily at the brink of millenia, shit was going down there

>fought like the French

IDK with you really believe in this, but, Jesus Fucking Christ, lets be rational, is evident that they assimilite the French culture because is not the best idea be different from your neighbor in the middle ages, but they kept the bases of viking society: like law and administration, and other things that the vikings were famous for like: trade, fighting style and strategies, cloth manufacturer, music, architecture...

Fuck off lindy

>fighting style
yeah because vikings are so well known for their heavy cavalry
>viking society
they literally intermarried with the French for over a century and a half before they ruined the flower of Anglo nobility on the field at Hastings.

>Normans tended to favour inheritance only for the oldest son.
Meanwhile, Native Franks divided inheritance to all sons up until Capetian France started.

>Native

Heavy cavalry in early middle ages.

Intermarring changed the administration and law of the Normans.

do you think the natives disliked the European DLCs?

>many comparisons can be made with the elite of the Papal infantry being defeated by Norman cavalry, just as the axe-wielding Huscarls of Saxon fame saw defeat at Hastings.
>It is a bit of a stretch to claim that the Normans were the originators of the use of heavy cavalry in the European context. However, they undoubtedly perfected the concept and made the most of it. While the Norman pedites, or infantry, surely played their part it is the milites, or knightly cavalry, that are spoken of in the contemporary chronicles.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_(warfare)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_the_Middle_Ages

>Battle of Hastings (October 14, 1066): 2000 Norman heavy cavalry repeatedly charged uphill at several times their number in Anglo-Saxon infantry, who had formed a shield wall.
>Battle of Dyrrhachium (October 18, 1081): 1,300 Norman cavalry under Robert Guiscard, Duke of Apulia, were initially repulsed by the Varangian Guard. The Varangian Guard were in turn routed by a counterattack to their flanks by Norman infantry, fled to the sanctuary of a nearby church which the Norman forces burnt down. The Norman knights then charged the Byzantine line again, and caused a widespread rout. First recorded instance of a successful and decisive 'shock' cavalry charge.

>the medieval era saw the rise of heavy cavalry, particularly the European knight. Historians are uncertain when the use of heavy cavalry in the form of mounted shock troops first occurred, but the technique had become widespread by the mid-12th century.[25]

whatever kid, continue to believe you're educated

>muh law

>Guiscard sent his heavy cavalry against the Byzantine centre. They first routed the Byzantine skirmishers before breaking into small detachments and smashing into various points of the Byzantine line. This charge broke the Byzantine lines and caused them to rout. The imperial camp, which had been left unguarded, fell to the Normans.[25]

>"Alexios was undoubtedly a good tactician, but he was badly let down by the undisciplined rush to pursue the beaten enemy wings, a cardinal sin in the Byzantine tactical manuals. He failed to take adequate account of the effectiveness of the Norman heavy cavalry charge, which punched through his lines with little resistance."

hmm, 1081 against the Byzantines. True viking fighting style to be sure.

Agreed.

>pic:babbys intro to the KoS

>Who is charlemagne?

has more to do with normandy being a border area and next to the ocean

Repugnant post

>cites examples from the high middle ages

Normans used heavy cav

deal
with
it

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_(warfare)
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_the_Middle_Ages

Nice source.

But ignoring this nosense - Heavy cavarly was expensive as fuck, so having this is mind: equites/knights (nobles with a lot of money) would only appear progressively between 1000-1300, cavarly was used before 1000-1300 of course, but was light cavarly.

The estimation of 2000 heavy cavarly in this period of time is pure madness.

Charlemagne used light cavarly fucking retarded.

Just look the Battle of Cerami, the best estimation of heavy cavarly was 100.

are you shitting me?

>Equites
>Heavy/Light Cavalry classifications in Carolingian Europe
HURDURRDURR

First of all the Medieval Latin for Knight wasn't Equites. It was Miles.

This is so because the Medieval Knight originated from the Frankish "Miles" of the Frankish Kingdom. A Miles was literally a "Soldier." A professional one. Who stood in stark contrast to the part timers that formed the mass of the Frankish army.

Now for the cunts to remain professional, Frankish lords alloted Miles plots of land in order to liberate the Soldier from anything other than professional military service. During this time there was no social difference between the Miles who were stuck in infantry roles and the Miles who served as cavalry. They were equals. Hell initially, tactically there wasnt even any difference: the mounted Miles were less cavalry and more mounted infantry.

However when the combined threat of Magyar, Muslim, and Norse raids threatened Frankish Hegemony, the ones with horses rose in prominence as they were able to ride out quickly and interdict multiple threats. In addition they quickly developed as being dedicated cavalry as merely mounted infantry to be able to stand toe to toe vs. Magyars and Muslims who had good cavalry.

And so the Knightly class was born and their importance rose socially, eclipsing their infantry fellows entirely until they swallowed them completely, with the infantry miles being pretty much tenants/employees of a cavalry miles who became Knights.

neat

lol wtf was he thinking

>Up to 50000 infantry (likely highly exaggerated)

When did I disagree with this?

What a fucking legend