Best Knights

Yeah because they could've lived for over 100 years. By all accounts, England was dominating France for most of the HYW until baronial feuds at home distracted England, allowing France to better unify

>Best Knights
>Got invaded by Normans

>"England" was dominating France
>in a war where french speaking men living in England fought french speaking men living in France and stuck in a local civil war until an english-speaking parliament prevented the King of England (French) of raising new taxes to try and conquer french lands

>Best Knights
>Invaded by Louis VIII of France

>Best Knights
>Got invaded by a woman named Matilda

>Best Knights
>Invaded by Henry II

In 1066 you historical illiterate
For one thing, English isn't some fucking homogenous identity (look up daniel Dafoe) and for another, that's just wrong. Following the collapse of the Angevin empire, English nobles saw themselves as more English than French. Edward I claimed that the King of France planned to invade England and extinguish Old English, "a truly detestable plan which may God avert". Edward II wanted his son to have a proper English name. King John could actually speak English which he ridiculed his brother Richard about. Heck William Marshall was fully nationalised at the battle of Lincoln when he lead the English charge against the French. Even as early as 1160, Norman settlers in England grew distant from their cousins on the continent as they bred with all levels of English society and adopted parts of language and culture. Why do the French pathetically try to wewuzz all parts of English history, are they this insecure about their lack of historical greatness
Except he failed

>Invaded by Henry II
Why Don't you actually read about this before talking out your anus. Henry II inherited the crown, William the conqueror invaded

>Best Knights
>Invaded by a sheepshagging Welshman

Literally when? And how the fuck do you invade a knight?

>French
>a mongrel mix of Gallic Celts, Romans, Germanic Franks and Nordic Normans.

>English
>A mix of British celts, Romans, Germanic Saxons and Nordic Danish
Not so ethnically different

>Invaded by Louis VIII of France

And what happened after he invaded?

>A civil war is an invasion

>collecting a crown your mother won for you is an invasion

this is some stupid shit, while the english were busy sheepshagging and beating up tiny kingdoms actual wars happened in europe

>well at the time so were the English
Dieu et mon droit
>Dieu et mon droit
Dieu et mon droit
>Dieu et mon droit
Dieu et mon droit

>French is the language of chivalry
>knights put their mottos into French to be more chivalric

Truly this is proof of how French they were!

>For one thing, English isn't some fucking homogenous identity

No it isn't. Which is why claiming people living in England were "english" is wrong.

>Following the collapse of the Angevin empire, English nobles saw themselves as more English than French.

Not really.

>Edward I claimed that the King of France planned to invade England and extinguish Old English, "a truly detestable plan which may God avert".

Yes, the HYW was the begining of the construction of an english national sentiment. This sentence was used toward the population of england, who were englishmen speaking english, to convince them to levy taxes and to have soldiers marching in his chevauchées in France.

The fucking frogs wewuzing as "we wuzzz knights and sheeiiiit" is really annoying, but so are the people who try to use the terms "french" or "english" in anachronistic ways. Before the HYW, it is really complicated to say that the english knights were, well, "english", not when they spent their lives in tourneys in nothern France, not when they spoke french, something that made them grow distant from the local population of England who were closer to english ancestors.

This is also why the English have a sort of a cult of the longbowmen ; Because in an historical sense, the longbowmen were closer to "true britons" than the knights who spoke froggish.

I'm not saying there was rampant English or Frebch nationalism back then, however today there is and nationalists need to jump to claim historical figures and assign them as French or English. This can be seen in the context of the American revolution, it wasn't an English civil war, because the colonists saw themselves as separate from England and they had only been there for just over 100 years.
Also the word knight is derived from old English Cnicht which you can see is quife similar to modern spelling. It's not like frogs can just claim all knights because they wuz chivalry n shiet

>French nobles and their retinue conquer England, treating local Anglos like subhumans and isolating themselves from them
>Two hundred years later Anglo-French kings still speak French as their native language, often disregarding language of the commoners
>Angloid language becomes even more bastardized over time, gets heavily influenced by the French
>Conflict between French and Anglo-French nobility over French crown slowly makes way for the actual English indentity, with Anglo-French upper class becoming slowly more and more receptive for their subjects
>To this day, disproportionate number of English nobility and people who actually mattered still have French surnames
>While tiny little angloid reads his """historical""" comic about le ebin WASP brown eyed, black haired yeomen longbowmen killing millions of the French and raping local princesses, feels proud because of his ancestors :) and returns to shitposting on /int/ and Veeky Forums

>Why are all the best Medieval Knights English?
They're not. English "knights" were toddlers compared to Eastern and Central European ones.

Zawisza the BLACK from Poland
>Undefeated in his most duels
>Participated in countless expeditions against Turks
>Was the best buddy with Holy Roman Emperor Sigismung
>Fought against Teutonics in battle of Grunwald in 1410, where he saved the royal banner
>Represented Poland during the 1414-18 Council of Constance
>Was one of the few who defended Jan Hus during it
>In a 1415 tournament he defeated the fighting champion of western Europe, John II of Aragon
>Fought against Hussites for the emperor in 1420-1422
>Participated in emperor's failed expedition against Turks
>After defeat at Golubac, emperor sent a boat to the shore of the river overrun by Turks, to save Zawisza
>He refused, and put two common soldiers on his place on the boat, and proceeded to take on Turks single-handedly
>He was captured, and after two janissaries got into an argument whose prisioner he was, one of them took out his sword and beheaded him

>Why are all the best Medieval Knights English?
Wrong

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Terrail,_seigneur_de_Bayard

>defend bridge against hundreds of enemies
>survive

>lead cavalry charge against fortified pikemen
>on top of a hill
>and win

>all great warriors have BLACK hair
really made me think, bl*ndes are subhumans

WE
On a serious note though this is utter crap. The reason the Norman influence is so strong is because the Normans bred in English society until Normans and English were indistinguishable by 1160. Even the commoners could speak parts of French and English. Now stop claiming someone else's glorious history because you've got nothing, but being cucked by kings of England who eventually invaded France

Americans still speak English, guess that makes us an English colony still.

>this thread
>begins with an autistic idiot claiming "english have the best knights", which already calls for a completly subjective and ahistorical treatment
>frenchfags get the bait like triggered sissies, spamming that "le normands were le french"
>idiotic englishmen also get triggered, and then start bringing up facts from completly different centuries, mixing up the normans, the angevins, and the Hundred Years War, at times where the concepts of chivalry, courage, or national identity varied altogether
>for whatever reason some sperg out about vague ethnical differences, going as far as this shitpost
>this is the absolute and utter state of Veeky Forums

>>Fought against Hussites for the emperor in 1420-1422
Into damnation it goes

Because you are exposed of English culture.
Each country has their own great knights, but as they are knights and not kings or generals, they are not remembered in other countries, unless they did something of importance there.

>being this new

bl*ndes are subhumans though. they fear BLACK knights

>Undefeated in his most duels
Learn grammar English posting before here retard you.

>Learn grammar English posting before here retard you.
right back at ya, subhuman

>Sir Galahad

That's the son of Lancelot who was a Gaul

Fuckdumb

>"they wuz Normans" well at the time so were the English

not really
also sir galahad is a fictional character unique to the french version of the story soooo

shut the fuck up you wh*Te subhuman

Go get fucked you wannabe shitstain

>unique to the french version of the story soooo
>appears in Le Morte d'Arthur

What did he mean by this?

English mother, raised in England. Fuck the French

Guarantee some retard will see it has a French title and will claim it French. SighingThomasMalory.jpg

>Zawisza the BLACK
we wuz knights an shiet mayne

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Terrail,_seigneur_de_Bayard

historical sources of 300 years later, also most historians agree that arthur probably didn't exist or wasn't of big significance

Lindy is that you?

Funny how you Brits are so completely falling for what is fed to you. Britain truly is the greatest nation on earth. According to what you are taught.

Can the HYW-user help us out here? i feel that there is no cure for this retardation. Why can't anglos keep there bias out of history?

laughed so hard at your post

yeah it's pretty terrible, i think there are just too many young kids with limited knowledge of history that act like they are on a middle school playground like:

What is british history education like?
From the british posts i read on here it seems like a nationalistic circlejerk.

How critical is the view on historical topics in britain? Are the HYW and WW1 really thaught the way lindy tells it?

No they are taught as it is. It's just the sort of Veeky Forumstorians that come here are nationalists

They may be biased, but they're not wrong

Bertrand du Guesclin the Mastiff of Brittany.
An ugly knight worth a king's ransom.
At one siege, under the eyes of the dauphin, he fell fifty feet into the moat when his scaling ladder was overthrown. Dragged from the water by his heels and revived, he demanded,"Have we taken the fort?"
His last words to his knights were this,"Remember that your business is only with those who bear arms. The churchmen, the poor, the women and children are not your enemies."
His body was interred at St. Denis where the French kings lay.

>edward the black prince
>lead chevauchées across France mindlessly raping and burning everything
>shits himself to death

yeah a real hero an a real human bean

You mean the ones you know because you are anglo

Damn what a swell guy :')
Yes. Although William Marshal is widely agreed upon as the greatest knight who ever lived. Wikipedia confirms it and every top 10 list unanimously has Marshal as number 1. He effectively was the first knight who practised Chivalry as he was incredibly skillful in tournaments and battle, was a good earl to his yeomen and was consistently loyal

>mindlessly raping and burning everything
To be fair, they were only French.

John Hawkwood was a mercenary who "claimed" to be knighted by the black prince

>William Marshall
You mean Guillaume le Maréchal?
>Edward the back prince
You mean Édouard Plantagenêt?

You sir take that back! If I were to engage you in real life I would immediatly challenge you to a proper fight for insulting the honour of most glorious Sir Gallahad.

>Edward the black prince
I thought that movie was ahistorical

No

There's a statue of him in Canada

Well he was a damn good mercenary then

>Guillaume le Maréchal
>this is how his name appears in a French language book so that is his name

"From his earliest appearances in the History, William son of John Marshal is invariably 'William li Mareschal', or often just 'li Mareschal'."

You're both retards.

>I'm retarded for saying his name wasn't Guillaume when it was Wiliam

Ok?

>William li Mareschal
That's Old French

This is his true name

The Plantagenets didn't refer to themselves as such until the mid 15th century and even then it was one branch of the family doing so.

What did they mean by this?

The second son of a minor Essex landowner, Sir John Hawkwood earned his spurs fighting for Edward III during the Hundred Years War.He may have achieved little as one of the king's knights, but as a freelance he was ruthless and brilliant.

Obviously languages change, thus Old French names must change too and follow French naming conventions.

I don't see why it should follow English considering that Guillaume le Maréchal, a French lord, has nothing with them.

>A French Lord

user...

>a French lord, has nothing with them.

user...

I know the writings of Gildas backwards. There is certainly no mention of knights or a Sir Galahad.

8/8 b8, I replied.

>who's Roland
>who's Godfrey of Bouillon
>who're Charlemagne's paladins
>who's Barbarossa
>who's Emperor Maximilian, literally called The Last Knight
>who's Charles Martel
Educate yourself, plebeian

>be du Guesclin
>btfo every english knight

>he believes he was english

From 1066 onwards, the only thing English about England, is the lower class.

>Ðær wearð ofslægen Harold cyng, and Leofwine eorl his broðor, and Gyrð eorl his broðor, and fela godra manna, and þa Frencyscan ahton wælstowe geweald, eallswa heom God uðe for folces synnon.

>There was slain King Harold, and Earl Leofwine, his brother, and Earl Gyrth, his brother, with many good men, and the Frenchmen gained the field of battle, as God bestowed them for the sins of the people.

>born in England
>to parents born in England
>given an English name
>served multiple kings of England
>acted as protector for the child king of England
>was made regent of England
>led the fight against the French invaders and defeated them at the battle of Lincoln
>The History of William the Marshal specifically distinguishes between the English rebels and the French fighting against him
>his pre battle speeches refer to freeing England from the invaders

Yeah, totally French.

>born in England
French born in England*

>to parents born in England
to French parents born in England*

>served multiple kings of England
served multiple French kings of England*

>acted as protector for the child king of England
acted as protector for the French child king of England

>was made regent of England
was made French regent of England*

>led the fight against the French invaders
Led the fight against his fellow Frenchmen*

>specifically distinguishes between the English rebels and the French
specifically distinguishes between the French born in England(geographical concept) rebels and the French born in France*

>his pre battle speeches refer to freeing England from the invaders
Freeing England from a new waves of French invaders allowing himself to keep England's golds*

WE

ULRICH VON LIECHTENSTEIN

no bullying pls

>From 1066 onwards, the only thing English about England, is the lower class.
>we wuzzing this hard

Look up Daniel Dafoe you brainlet

The knight without fear and reproach.
Did nothing wrong.

Daniel Defoe agrees with me actually :

>And here begins our ancient pedigree,
>That so exalts our poor nobility:
>'Tis that from some French trooper they derive,
>Who with the Norman bastard did arrive;

>The trophies of the families appear,
>Some show the sword, the bow, and some the spear,
>Which their great ancestor, forsooth, did wear.
>These in the herald's register remain,
>Their noble mean extraction to explain,
>Yet who the hero was, no man can tell,
>Whether a drummer or a colonel:
>The silent record blushes to reveal
>Their undescended dark original.
>But grant the best, how came the change to pass,


>A true-born Englishman of Norman race?
>A Turkish horse can show more history,

>To prove his well-descended family.
> Conquest, as by the moderns it is expressed,
>May give a title to the lands possessed:
>But that the longest sword should be so civil

>To make a Frenchman English, that's the devil.
>These are the heroes that despise the Dutch,

>Missing the point
The point is to denounce the whole idea of 'pure English' or as he puts it 'true-born english'. English is a national identity derived from a wide group of inhabitants from different backgrounds who identify as English. Celts, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Danes, Normands. They all contributed to the English melting pot. It's like saying all US Presidents up to 1920s are English because the American 'Aristocracy' all have English ancestry.
I may have written all that for nothing as you may have merely misinterpreted English as meaning they are an Angle.

Yeah I was bullshitting. Although i swear Gildas wrote about the battle of Badon hill and how an unnamed Romano-British general defeated saxon invaders which has thus been identified as Arthur. Also on Galahad, as far as I'm aware he's based on some fella that appears in the mabinogion.
Also I'm impressed that you know all the works of Gildas. Might i inquire as to how you are so familiar with them?

>they're French even though they were born in England and have been born in England for generations

By this standard we should call all of them Georgian seeing as that's where their distant ancestors originated.

>French born in England

We don't actually know where any of William's ancestors are from other than his father and mother who were born in England. Beyond that it's a mystery.

>
We don't actually know where any of William's ancestors are from other than his father and mother who were born in England. Beyond that it's a mystery.
I think it's likely they were of Norman descent due to their position in the aristocracy.
Apart from that though I agree. Once you've mingled with the population long enough you become more like them. Even then intermarriage was common in all levels of society so all classes today are of norman descent