Which European kingdom had the best medieval army?

Which European kingdom had the best medieval army?

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Switzerland

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Switzerland
      >kingdom

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Switzerland
      Switzerland or the Swiss Confederation wasn't a Kingdom, but they did have the best army of medieval Europe.

      No kingdom in Europe had an "army" in the sense you imagine.

      Armies were raised on a campaign-to-campaign basis, and what you got each time around was extremely varied in terms of composition, equipment, organization and performance.

      No, France for example had a core professional standing army in the 15th century, Switzerland had a refined militia system that could raise 40k guys on the call of a horn.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >a core professional standing army in the 15th century
        No, they took a bunch of their mercenary companies and started paying them in the off season so they don't go loot the countryside while also forcing towns and cities to let them billet. It was still a far cry from a real army because it had to be mustered season to season, there was a lot of variation in its size and structure and it was hardly enough on its own to constitute a proper fighting force since it had to be augmented by highly situational militias and mercenaries in the field.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The compagnie d'ordonnance really was a standing army though. It didn't need to be mustered and any variation in its size and structure were no different from a modern army fiddling about with ToE. You're talking out of your ass and you clearly have no idea what was being referred to.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Well technically they didn't by virtue of them having the first "early-modern" army.
        Their victory in the Burgundian War basically ENDED the Middle Age style of warfare virtually overnight. Everyone took notice and from then on it was pikes, muskets and cannons using massive mountains of men instead of small but highly trained knight based armies.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    When i finish the time machine, mine.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      You finish your chicken tendies, Sweety

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Sweden

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Sweden wasn't its own kingdom until the 16th century.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        While there has been a kingdom of the Swedes since time immemorial, Sweden is generally considered to have been founded when the Swedes and the Geats were united under Eric the Victorious in the 10th century.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Swede here. The medieval army was nothing special, unless you think that beating up disorganized Finnish tribesmen is an indication of a strong military. Medieval Sweden was characterized by a weak royal authority which generally had to compromise with the local nobility, and in the few cities, German burghers ran the day-to-day administration while the free peasantry minded their own business. There's a reason Gustav Vasa (16th century) is called the founder of the Swedish nation-state. Before, it was a decentralized collection of kin-groups sort of working together just to survive (and squabbling a lot, seeing how the throne was constantly fought over by Geats and Svear), but it was no France or England, our Charlemagne and William the Conqueror only showed up in the 16th century.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    America

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Middle ages is a really long time. Gonna have to narrow it down a bit. But for the 1300s-1400s France was the dominant military force. It was their heyday so to speak.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      they did get shit on pretty hard for a lot of the 100 years war though.
      Battle Of Agincourt still one of the most based British Victories in history of warfare

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    medieval is very long and who's 'best' was rather situational - eastern european light horse deal with different situations than a german knight.

    france was pretty solid though.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    France on paper, Spain on the field.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Spain didn’t exist during the middle ages.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        If I start talking about Castille and Aragon people aren't going to immediately know what I mean.

        https://i.imgur.com/ood88rL.jpg

        You may not like it, but this is what peak performance looks like. Picrel is the true answer.
        >whole thing started basically because of "get out of my lawn, I want to do religion my way"
        >pretty much first ones to adopt purely pragmatic combat methods, ie.: fuck your knightly melee, you are going to get shot bro
        >full package guerilla fighting, tactical use of terrain, etc.
        >successful defense against 4 crusades, the whole might of the Holy Roman Empire
        >200 won against 7000, 400 defeated 2000, 40k defeated 130k, etc.
        >used firearms so much that words like "pistol" or "howitzer" come from them and established Czech firearm tradition that lasts to this day

        >sippy bird flag
        I dig it but why.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The chalice was the Hussite symbol.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >sippy bird flag
          Goose = "Husa" in Czech. They called themselves "Husite" in Czech (Hussites). Chalice was a symbol of a movement as a whole, since it is a symbol of communion under both kinds. Hence sippy boi getting a drink. It is kinda meme, but it worked.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            this
            Their founder/martyr was named "Hus" and Husa means Goose
            from what I understand, goose drinking out of chalice was used to mock them in chronicles written by catholic clergy
            Hussites wouldn't use it themselves, like the artist suggests
            kinda like how cops in america don't use pig imagery and how SS didn't actually call themselves "the nazies"

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous
            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              That is a very nice duck.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Nice duck, would pet

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              What a cool duck.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            A proud martial tradition that continues to this day.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          We play CK 2, we'll get it.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Aragon was better than France
          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Muret
          Top kek

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Spain on the field.
      This before or after they got bent over and fucked by Muslims?

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Milan

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You may not like it, but this is what peak performance looks like. Picrel is the true answer.
    >whole thing started basically because of "get out of my lawn, I want to do religion my way"
    >pretty much first ones to adopt purely pragmatic combat methods, ie.: fuck your knightly melee, you are going to get shot bro
    >full package guerilla fighting, tactical use of terrain, etc.
    >successful defense against 4 crusades, the whole might of the Holy Roman Empire
    >200 won against 7000, 400 defeated 2000, 40k defeated 130k, etc.
    >used firearms so much that words like "pistol" or "howitzer" come from them and established Czech firearm tradition that lasts to this day

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      But were they technicals?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Like others have said, it's a long and ill defined time period, and while the concept of national armies may be anachronistic, at times I suppose you could talk about cultural/national ways of doing war differently. By that measure you could say that at times, the Scots, the French, the Normans, the Iberians or the Swiss (not a kingdom obv) had the best armies at times. Though I reckon the Byzantines would have absolutely raped any Western army prior to ~1000AD.

      At the start of the 15th century this is objectively correct. It's hard to overstate how tactically innovative they were, kind of like

      Sweden

      was in the first half of the 17th century.

      >Spain on the field.
      This before or after they got bent over and fucked by Muslims?

      After obviously, read a damn book anon. Who in their right mind defines medieval as <8th century

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >After obviously
        Obviously, of course. Must be that hybrid vigor.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Byzantium had a an advantage in that it had a larger, more centralized state that could mobilize much larger armies than the fractured Western European entities of the era. They also were much wealthier and could afford mercenaries.

        But Western Europe has a ton of key military innovations and proved to have way better morale than the Byzantines and Muslims when they fought later in thr 1000s.

        Certainly they were less developed, a barbarian horde descending on richer lands, but they reconquered areas Constantinople had no chance of taking, and destroyed several extremely large Muslim hosts, to the extent that they held the areas they took despite atrocious losses (66-85%) of combatants, because their rivals had been denuded of soldiers in the fighting.

        For example, they fought this battle after they got trapped in a city they had already been besieging. They had no food and were starving, began to eat their mounts and were also dropping to disease. And yet you have a massive route and one of the single day highest death tolls of the era by contemporary accounts.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          And this is far from the only battle where they were far under strength and yet not only prevailed but inflicted an insane ratio of fatalities for any period of war. Although this is partly due to the treatment of surrendered soldiers during the war.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/1Zfarjv.png

          And this is far from the only battle where they were far under strength and yet not only prevailed but inflicted an insane ratio of fatalities for any period of war. Although this is partly due to the treatment of surrendered soldiers during the war.

          Crusaders only took the Holy Land because they were dumb and bad at war and kept doing reckless attacks when their situation was hopeless.

          It's not a reflection on the Turk or Greek, for not being retarded. The Seljuk's were illustrious in wars against actual empires. They didn't expect a bunch of sheep fuckers to descend and attack like rabid dogs because their death god, who demanded they consume human flesh and drink human blood, told them to, and then for them to keep doing dumb shit after losing.

          Unfortunately, sometime the ascended man suffers from seeing with too much logic and wisdom, he can no longer understand the feral dog.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >bad at war
            >God gives you the Holy Land anyways

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Having God on your side is apparently worth a few thousand heavy horse and elephants.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >literal French barbarian horde just rekt the biggest power of the region

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Calm down turkroach.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah, this wins.

          https://i.imgur.com/LIB1AkN.jpg

          >Hussars
          >Medieval
          No my friend.
          But i'd still vote for the Poles. The battle of Grunwald was one of the greatest medieval battles where almost 50k knights stood against each other. Battle was preceeded by the largest pontooning in europe untill normandy.

          and others are good, but Antioch is a rare moment were Christendom is united, just emerging from the Dark Ages/early Medieval period into one we see as distinctly Medieval.

          It also is a victory against odds that are far out of proportion to even the over 2:1 numerical disadvantage.

          The First Crusade was a massive host, certainly by the standards of Western Europe at the time, but even by any standard to that point in history. But it had taken 66% losses by the time it crept from the safety of Antioch's great Roman walls to fight that day.

          The first great horde of Westerners, including many peasants and women, but some knights, led by Peter the Hermit, was routed and destroyed by the Turk. Almost all were slaughtered or sold as slaves. Then the main Crusading army marched. It lost men in close battles with the Seljuk hosts. But it lost far more men, in droves, crossing Anatolia after the initial battles and sieges, as the harvest was burnt ahead of them, the land denuded of food.

          So the host began to starve. Then there was travel in the Syrian desert, subject to harassing raids, without maps of where wells were. To top things off, the wells were poisoned ahead of them. So they died in the heat.

          Then there was 8 months of siege, held back by Antioch's great Roman walls. Starvation and pestilence culled yet more. Then Men of the Cross were culled to a harried group of survivors as 2/3rds to 4/5ths fell.

          After finally taking Antioch, they found themselves trapped in the city by a massive 40-45,0000 host, with plenty of horse and horse archers come to relieve the city.

          The men inside starved, trapped in a city cut off from food for most of a year, some of the remaining stores torched as they breeched the walls. They say awaiting doom. But then a priest dug into an old church floor and found the Holy Lance, the Spear of Destiny, that had pierced Christ's side.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Whipped into a religious fervor, those of the 20,000 remaining Crusaders who could still walk and hold a weapon chose to attack rather than wait for their deaths.

            Most of the horses had been eaten, leaving about 700 to face thousands.

            The much larger, fresh Muslim force let the Crusaders line up in orderly fashion, fearing an attack would make them move back beyond the great walls.

            But the starving knights didn't ride out to die in a sort of military suicide, they had just witnessed a miracle. They fought ferociously, routing the combined Muslim host and destroying much of it, inflicting such a significant manpower loss that, though the army was a fraction of it's size after moving then to Jerusalem, and then fighting its final battle, the new states would be safe.

            One of the largest battles of the era, 60,000+ engaged, one of the highest fatality battles, and a classic upset.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Classically bad situation. Your guys think the enemy is beaten and ready to give up. No one person expects to die because you have a massive equipment, provisions, and numerical advantage. The battle is already won, the other side will rout.

            So no one is prepared for their underequipped, weak enemy to not only resist, but resist with absolute confidence in their victory and the value of any sacrifice.

            I have to imagine this sort of cognitive dissonance, which makes men question everything and become paralyzed, also hit the attempted blitzkrieg on Kiev this year.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This. Everyone should read this:
      https://www.badassoftheweek.com/zizka

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Jan Zizka was a badass 15th century Czech knight who led the first real Protestant uprising in Europe by building gigantic fucking war tanks and using these homemade custom iron-plated juggernauts to crush the balls of anyone who opposed him with extreme prejudice all the way up their asses.
        Why do americans write like that.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Lack of culture.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Lack of culture.

          >not knowing what dramatic satire is
          Culture less swine.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The Normans

        >protcucks
        >badass
        pick one

        Because at the time the Catholic Church didn’t allow the laity to drink from the cup during communion and the Hussites thought that was wrong.

        >czechs are such drunks that denying them even a single sip of wine on Sunday is enough to rile them up to the point of insurrection
        top kek

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Because at the time the Catholic Church didn’t allow the laity to drink from the cup during communion and the Hussites thought that was wrong.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        It was wrong. You have to draw a line somewhere.
        t. Czech

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Meant for

        If I start talking about Castille and Aragon people aren't going to immediately know what I mean.
        [...]
        >sippy bird flag
        I dig it but why.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's a shame advances in field artillery obsoleted the war wagon, it was kino.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      You who are warriors of God
      and of his law
      Seek help from him
      and put in heavens your trust
      that with him you'll certainly be victorious

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >France had the best medieval army
    The battle of Agincourt wants a word with you

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      and who won the 100 years war, anon?

      you can cherrypick battles for almost every nation that's ever existed.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        England, England wins all and every war and if you disagree you’re a puffter

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >and who won the 100 years war, anon?
        An illiterate schizo peasant girl who singlehandedly memed France's balls back into existence despite its best efforts to ruin itself with absolutely humiliating losses to numerically inferior forces on their home turf, going so far as to have the King himself captured. Please, anon, let us not pretend like the 100 Years War was a glamorous and heroic time for France, because the fact it went on so long *in France* is nothing to celebrate.

        Now if you wanna piss on the failures of the British Isles, far better to look to their history in regards to the Danes I say.

        >cherry picking a battle in a lost war
        Castillon, Patay and Formigny among others had a few words to say about it.

        You wouldn't be so sassy in the midst of English chevauchée.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Add to this the English King Henry VI being literally retarded because his mother was the inbred princess of France.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >conveniently forgets about Charles VI being a literal schizophrenic, the only reason why the English could retake the advantage on the French after Charles V kicked their asses
            Really makes you think about monarchism…

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I never said that the hundred years war was good for france. Or even like france. I just hate agincourt posting. That simple.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I prefer Crecy and Sluys personally. I love upsets.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The best timeline would literally be an single Dynasty holding both the French and English Crowns and forming a massive single country. Doubt it would stay together for long, but such a powerful state existing would alter the past completely.

          Cant really put Danish invasions down as a failure of the British Isles, Vikings invaded all over the place with great success, and Britain was a bunch of fractured small kingdoms.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Didn't they try to do that during WW2? I remember reading that somewhere, vaguely.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The English revolted against the Jean I precisely because they had enough to pay their English insular money to defend the king's continental territory.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >An illiterate schizo peasant girl
          And you lost to that.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            To be fair, they did set her on fire. But the damage was already done. Hats off to the woman for being the rally that France needed. It's a marvel how human history can hinge on a singular strong personality with charisma and drive rising above the crowd like that.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >It's a marvel how human history can hinge on a singular strong personality with charisma and drive rising above the crowd like that.
              Napoléon agrees with you

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Absolutely.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >That pic
                Feels good to be French, merci Dieu de nous avoir donné le destin le plus héroïque

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >You wouldn't be so sassy in the midst of English chevauchée.
          Literally the same argument as vatniks bragging about killing civilians.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Russian mindset hasn't moved forward much in the past seven+ centuries yes, but we're discussing a time period where that was pretty standard stuff. Terrorizing hapless subjects during a war of conquest to prove their leadership was too powerless and incompetent to protect them was just how you got the point across.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              not exactly. The English king did this because his army wasn't prepared for siege warfare, and most of his armies were mercenary/to hire knights who wanted the gold more than the glory. he couldn't directly invade with heavy siege weapons, in a costly war, with no gains.
              The English chevauché were very much a novelty at the times, and yes, quite a horrible one.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/m7iGSFL.jpg

        How the fuck did England go toe to toe with France for so long considering they had like 1/10th the population? It seems like they were usually outnumbered, but not as badly as they should of been.

        England was very rich thanks to wool. They also had a more organized state that could raise money more efficiently.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >cherry picking a battle in a lost war
      Castillon, Patay and Formigny among others had a few words to say about it.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        NTA, but French have the best ratio of historical victory/defeat of all European countries. They are unironically the best military, historically speaking.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          History has generally proven that money is everything in military matters, and France was always the richest kingdom in Europe.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Anon the French won the war though

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >One battle out of a series of conflicts that France eventually won means France is bad
      retard

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    hungary. had to survived the turks, byzantines, germans, italians, etc etc

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The survived by giving us their women

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Didn't Hungary get buttfucked so hard by the Ottoman Empire that they permanently lost their claim to major power status (and magyars are still seething about it to this day)?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The Black Army of King Matthias was absolutely based and kino

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      and usually lost lol

      probably lithuanians since they beat mongols in open battle

      they were just tribal morons and no, they didn't beat mongols in the open

      Hungary/Poland total had ~80K knights/soldiers/peasant conscripts/etc when they fought against the first Mongol scouts. Poland had ~20K while the Hungarian forces along with their allies had total of ~60K+

      Against the Mongols ~25K army. Mongols absolutely ravaged the entire eastern Europe.

      moron you're so stupid it fucking hurts
      >poland and hungary never joined forces, so it's hardly a one huge 80k army
      >hungary absolutely didn't have 60k soldiers (peasant conscripts lmao, you have no idea what you're talking about), more like 30k
      >poland with 20k is questionable as well considered only part of the country send any forces to fight
      >mongols send 100k + easily, 25k is your fanfic lol, the auxilliary force send to poland alone had 20k, the main army send on hungary was much bigger

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The survived by giving us their women

        Didn't Hungary get buttfucked so hard by the Ottoman Empire that they permanently lost their claim to major power status (and magyars are still seething about it to this day)?

        Hungary managed to hold back the Ottoman for the entire XVth century with just it's own ressource.

        the situation became hopeless when : the Ottoman Empire reinforce itself though eastern conquest, bringing even more gold and troops in the wars.
        -the Hungarian nobility fucked over Mathias's legacy for their own interest, making the country defenseless.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      t.Orban

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Early middle ages? Carolingian empire
    High middle ages? France and Germany
    Late middle ages? France
    Early renaissance? German and Italian mercenaries
    But the idea of national militaries is kinda anachronistic for that period

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Polish hussars or the Swiss mercenaries.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Hussars
      >Medieval
      No my friend.
      But i'd still vote for the Poles. The battle of Grunwald was one of the greatest medieval battles where almost 50k knights stood against each other. Battle was preceeded by the largest pontooning in europe untill normandy.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Poles, Lithuanians and their Czech and Tatar mercenaries unironically used ISIS tactics against le based trad Teutonic spergs.
        Light cavalry feigned retreat, while Polish king was chilling on the hill overlooking the battlefield and directing his reinforcements instead of charging to his glorious death like western retards would do at Crecy.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/LIB1AkN.jpg

          >Hussars
          >Medieval
          No my friend.
          But i'd still vote for the Poles. The battle of Grunwald was one of the greatest medieval battles where almost 50k knights stood against each other. Battle was preceeded by the largest pontooning in europe untill normandy.

          Literally Lithuanian lead forces that won the war you polish cucks claim everything as yours i swear to fucking god

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >if only you knew how bad things really are

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    impossible to say because the medieval period was a massive era and kingdoms didn't really have standing armies but in terms of pound-for-pound effectiveness, France.

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    France, Switzerland.

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    probably lithuanians since they beat mongols in open battle

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Did any European Kingdom even have an army? Most military forces are just the private armies of Feudal Lords and whatever mercenaries they can buy.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Hungary

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Although that might be stretching the word medieval somewhat.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Hungary/Poland total had ~80K knights/soldiers/peasant conscripts/etc when they fought against the first Mongol scouts. Poland had ~20K while the Hungarian forces along with their allies had total of ~60K+

          Against the Mongols ~25K army. Mongols absolutely ravaged the entire eastern Europe.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Disbanded in 1494

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Agincourt slaughtered enough French nobility to actually help the French state coalesce and centralize.
      The byzantines were always at some kind of war.
      Technically feudal vassals count I think.

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    How the fuck did England go toe to toe with France for so long considering they had like 1/10th the population? It seems like they were usually outnumbered, but not as badly as they should of been.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Because they were and always will be the quiet achieving chads

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Half of France was on its side.
      The HYW significantly saw infighting between different French noble factions, that would periodically choose to side with the King of France or the King of England in the power struggle.
      The Burgundians vs the Armagnacs is a huge example of this, and their rivalry almost ripped France in half and created an entirely new great power in Europe.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Depends on the time period. France was the apex in the mid-15th century. They had a standing army, an emphasis on cannons and firearms, and a large number of traditional armored knights - pretty much all you could ask for a peak medieval powerhouse. Their downfall was continuing to rely on direct cavalry instead of fully adapting to gunpowder.

        Burgundy being on its side helped

        Burgundy really fucked over the rest of the kingdom but they just saw the perfect opportunity and took it.
        >Charles VI is batshit insane.
        >His brother, the regent, is a philanderer and wastrel.
        >The queen doesn't give a shit about anything but herself.
        >You own the richest duchy in France. Eventually get control of Dutch textile industry too.
        >You kill the king's brother in broad daylight. Openly admit it.
        >The king actually forgives you for killing his brother and you get official carte blanche.
        >You ally with England to become the new vassal administrators of France.
        >yfw some peasant girl with a bob haircut rallies the rest of the kingdom against you and ends up fucking up everything you had planned.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >yfw some peasant girl with a bob haircut rallies the rest of the kingdom against you and ends up fucking up everything you had planned.
          Dumb take. Joan barely managed to turn the tides in the Armagnac-Burgundy conflict, only in the French-Plantagenet conflict. The alliance with England was dead in the water ever since the Battle of Brouwershaven. The English regent of France, John of Bedford tried to salvage the alliance by promising Britanny to Burgundy but he couldn't manage to get the English council of lords to work along. When he died without result Philips the Good did what he planned to do in 1426.
          The treaty of Arras saw France cede much of northern France to Burgundy, recognise Burgundian independence, declare the Armagnac faction outlaws (realise that the king has spent much of his youth in their custody) and admit to complicity to the murder of John the Fearless. Philips was also the one who captured Joan and didn't give any shit about her. He just ransomed her to whoever was willing to pay (whether it were the French or the English)

          By 1450 Philips the Good, a duke, was the most powerful man in Europe. I don't know how you can consider that a fuck up of plans.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Because calling it a war between england and france is super misleading. Its better explained when you look at it as a "french civil war" for the crown between many FRENCH noble factions, one of them happened to own england, so it got dragged in.
      Ofcourse this makes angloboos seethe as hard as when you mention the prussians at waterloo, and anglos control the international historical narrative ATM, so we are stuck with "a war between england and france carried by le hecking OP longbows."

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        True, France's worst enemy is always itself, this will never change. Again though, not really as flattering a fact for France as you appear to think it is.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Before the HYW France was incredibly decentralised. Far more so than England. England had a far more centralized state and a much more effective bureaucracy governing the country. France was more a kingdom of highly autonomous nobles who, in theory at least, answered to the king of France. Philip the Fair had managed some centralization in his time, but the kings after him fucked that up. Also, the HYW was arguably a french civil war between nobles in all its phases but the last.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        the successor of Philip didn't fucked up. they kept the same situation as him. the French already had more troops than the English king by then. but most of his army weren't professionnal.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      [...]

      We anglos are the most successful people this planet has ever seen. Remember you speak English and I don't speak French.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        English is bastardized French.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >English is bastardized French.
          French is literally the youngest language in Europe. (barring Esperanto).
          You can say there are English words that come from old french, or even French words that come English/old french, but to say 'English comes from French' shows a distinct lack of knowledge of language.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >French is literally the youngest language in Europe. (barring Esperanto).
            I can decypher XIIIth century french with no problem. Try to do the same with XIIIth century english.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >The "Old" form of the language is interchangeable with the modern form of it showing that mutations, shift, and drift were minimal at best
              Anon, you just proved his point.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Cope

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          It’s more of a French and Germanic combo

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          bahahahahaha

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        You speak a french creole

        The best timeline would literally be an single Dynasty holding both the French and English Crowns and forming a massive single country. Doubt it would stay together for long, but such a powerful state existing would alter the past completely.

        Cant really put Danish invasions down as a failure of the British Isles, Vikings invaded all over the place with great success, and Britain was a bunch of fractured small kingdoms.

        Nah it would be the survival and centralisation of the Carolingian empire instead of it splitting
        Literally 95% of OTL european continental wars avoided because no german/french rivalry

        >Hackapelites.
        End of discussion.

        not medieval

        this
        Their founder/martyr was named "Hus" and Husa means Goose
        from what I understand, goose drinking out of chalice was used to mock them in chronicles written by catholic clergy
        Hussites wouldn't use it themselves, like the artist suggests
        kinda like how cops in america don't use pig imagery and how SS didn't actually call themselves "the nazies"

        Counterargument: plenty of resistance movements adopted the derogatory terms used for them (e.g. the Geuzen in the 80yw)

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >plenty of resistance movements adopted the derogatory terms used for them
          Yeah, that's the thing, "Hussites" was actually derogatory name for the movement
          they called themselves Calixtinists ("Chalice men"), Utraquists (from "sub utraque specie") or just "Faithful Brothers"

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        So are we going to ignore that Anglo-Norman was a language? Or it's influences upon English?
        I'm not going to deny that French is also a bastard tongue combination of Latin, Occitan, Frankish, and god knows what else like Gallic or Breton.
        The truth is that the reason the English and French hate each other is because they see themselves in the other in one way or another. France is probably closer to England now than it has ever been with any other nation, and they both set aside their differences alarmingly fast to deal with Germany twice.
        Britain and France don't want to admit that they actually like each other, and always have.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Whole Anglo-Frog relationship is just tsundere posturing.
          The moment Germans start sperging out they go hand in hand against them, since both are too arrogant to ever have their power and influence be lessened or even taken away. French consistently shit on German EU activities for no good reason, Anglos did the same before Brexit. Same with their old colonial holdings in Subsaharan, they simply pretend something but in reality do otherwise.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        37% of your words are directly taken from french.
        "English" vocabulary is fucking easy for a french guy.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      France had the better army and economy, but the lords who led the army tended to be utter retards. Not that English generals were much better, but they had a "doctrine" that consistently worked, being that of taking a defensive position and using terrain to their advantage. As opposed to the French approach of frontal assaults against what they thought was an inferior enemy, and inevitably accusing anybody who attempted anything else a coward. Which by the rules of society meant the commander would be obliged to drop any plan and place himself at the head of the assault. Longbowmen might not had been much different from military archers, but the English innovation was in the sheer numbers (or more accurately, ratio) employed, and at least some modicum of respect for their skills and status. This meant archers were properly used, in numbers that could make an effect on the battlefield, at a low cost. They allowed the English to punch well above their weight, able to beat more expensive and "superior" French armies with cheap archers.

      However, on the strategic side, France did a lot better despite having trouble defeating England in the field. They pursued a Fabian strategy after Crecy of avoiding big battles (punctuated by the other Poiters and Agincourt when a new generation thought they could do better and needed to relearn old lessons). This worked well because the English were poor as shit and had trouble organizing supply lines that could actually consistently maintain a siege of a city. With every gain of territory, England actually grew weaker because of mismanagement. Most of the income from new territories went to whoever was hired to manage it, with only a pittance as rent going into the treasury. Meanwhile, France actually grew stronger with every loss of territory, with new taxes and stronger Kingly rights that would not be rescinded with the passing of time.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Burgundy being on its side helped

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Burgundy
        mixed feelings, nice country, but got Swissed really hard.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Why did Charles the Bold have to be such an utter nog mong bros, if Philips the Good had just cloned himself the Burgundians would be ruling the stars by now.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >How the fuck did England go toe to toe with France
      French knights had autism. Read about the crusade to nicopolis if you want to see the peak of French knights charging from a disadvantageous position.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Most of Englands nobles were Frenchies. The peasants and commoners were English, the nobility was mostly French. France often just tried to curb their power so they wouldn't invade the mainland. Then over time took their properties in France.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      excellent administration and centralized power.
      the English king had 1000 knights when the French king had 100 at best

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The king of England was also Duke of Aquitaine and of Anjou, that’s like half of France
      Also England was really rich and really well marschalled while the french were busy infighting and dieing in retarded charges because muh honour
      Until they got their shit together and curbstomped the anglos

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I just really like English longbow armies

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        They were mostly Welsh

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Not really, depends on a time and battle

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          theres 10 english men to 1 welsh boy any time you hear anything about a british minority like the scottish or welsh being before the english in any matter
          situation
          place
          its bullshit
          theres not a place in the world they can go that an english man already hasnt cum all over
          wiped his nob on
          then sailed home

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    ottoman

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      You will never be European, Mehmet.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        ottoman empire was european though

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          no it wasn't

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          It never was, it never will be, roach-kun.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Ιn your dream, Onur.

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Castile

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Hackapelites.
    End of discussion.

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Burgundy.

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Moors and Ottomans

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    England

  26. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ironically Burgundy (it being a duchy in name) for most of the 15th century, despite Charles the Bold ruining their legacy against the Swiss.
    The pope believed they were the only power capable of stopping the Ottomans.

  27. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    No kingdom in Europe had an "army" in the sense you imagine.

    Armies were raised on a campaign-to-campaign basis, and what you got each time around was extremely varied in terms of composition, equipment, organization and performance.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      What about Corvinus' Black Army? 15th century should still count as middle ages.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        It was a patchwork force of mercenary troops that coalesced over an extended period of non-stop warfare. Not the first nor last such creation, and they rarely survived very long (just like the black army did not). Again, subject to a lot of variability season to season and more of a bottom-up structure than any kind of real army in the modern sense.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      an army is the gathering of a fighting force, usually for a political entity (king, state, religious). so yes, levy were a type of army, usually tied with the current circumstances. it doesn't change the fact that some state like the English crown, thanks to their institution managed to have large and well organized army in the 11th century.
      The compagnie d'ordonnance were indeed the first standing army in Western Europe.

      just because you recruit mercenary to serve in your army doesn't mean it's not an army. the English crown used mercenary constantly for it's army during the hundred years war, it was still an army, and was also fairly consistent. if we follow your logic then no country, even in modern days as a consistant military : the us army in Vietnam was vastly different from the WWII one.

  28. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Make war against the world in the East, West, North and South.
    >Go down like a lion wounded a million times.

  29. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Mass repliers WILL get the rope and their families WILL be sterilized. No worse subhuman than a mass replier.

  30. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >what is the theme system

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >soldiers were given land
      >called up in times of war
      so another irregular levy system even if it was somewhat more organized than most.

  31. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compagnie_d%27ordonnance

    [...]

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      it's literally a half assed attempt to deal with the exact phenomenon described in

      No kingdom in Europe had an "army" in the sense you imagine.

      Armies were raised on a campaign-to-campaign basis, and what you got each time around was extremely varied in terms of composition, equipment, organization and performance.

      by simply hiring the last batch of semi-regular mercenaries on as standing troops.

      If you read the article and sources it links to you will realize that it was never anything close to a complete army, and was still subject to massive variation year to year and season to season even if the core few thousand personnel who made up the heavy cavalry elite were fairly consistently on the crown's payroll. Every army France brought to the field was still a random mixed bag of shit even long after the introduction and demise of this system.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The only armies in Europe were the best armies in Europe, ez.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Well, you could certainly say that the Byzantines and later - Ottomans - had some of the closest things we'd consider to a modern army (even though they really weren't and you still had the crapshoot aspect of getting a good force one year and a shitty one the next depending on a million random factors), but they're not really what anybody thinks of as medieval europe.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The only armies in Europe were the best armies in Europe, ez.

            Mixed up which post you replied to. No, the companies of ordinance were not a real army, there's a reason they got replaced by the later yearly mix of random regiments in the 16th century which was the actual basis for later proper standing armies.

  32. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    The only clinically retarded individual is you, and you're a gay too

  33. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I mean.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Enter:

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        You have activated my trap card, Yugi.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I'm not saying it was Poland, but...

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/m9iUx5h.png

      I'm not saying it was Poland, but...

      https://i.imgur.com/GGDSQy9.png

      You have activated my trap card, Yugi.

      https://i.imgur.com/HG4JTu9.png

      But wait, there's more!

      Says medieval in the OP you dumb fuck.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Cope, seethe, mald.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/hDya1iU.png

          Did they?

          This lead me down a rabbit hole

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Commission_for_the_Preservation_of_America%27s_Heritage_Abroad

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Can't tell if false flagger or retarded monkey making my country look bad.

          https://i.imgur.com/QktgzO3.jpg

          Which European kingdom had the best medieval army?

          I don't know if it counts but I think the Crusader kingdoms in the Levant are a strong contender. Constant war against a very difficult opponent made them tough and clever enough to resist for almost 200 years on an enemy's home turf. The two big military orders, the Hospitallers and Templars, were of great help since they were a professional military that could always be relied on. They also regularly complained about European crusaders being too impetuous and not listening to their advice and getting themselves killed. Plus I think they were some of the first Europeans to recognise the value of infantry and were capable of not only combined arms but maintaining discipline in severely adverse conditions like at Arsuf. Oh and naval logistics. They had entire fleets of contractors just delivering water and food.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/jmEgIB6.png

          I mean.

          https://i.imgur.com/m9iUx5h.png

          I'm not saying it was Poland, but...

          >Poland
          It says Poland and Lithuania you dumbfucking retard why are you always claiming this union as your own when my ancestors saved your asses dumb polish kurwas

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            [...]
            Literally Lithuanian lead forces that won the war you polish cucks claim everything as yours i swear to fucking god

            Tylėk, lenkas

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Every country had experienced something like this in their existence but I only see this one get consistently posted. Almost as if it said something about those who post it

  34. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    France IMHO

  35. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    But wait, there's more!

  36. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  37. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >having to ask when you know damn well swadia is OP as fuck

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >No visible butter
      Fake news.

  38. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    bavaria

  39. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >tfw people are only posting modern countries they know that were present during the Medieval ages.

    >tfw people only know of 'Kingdoms' when it comes to the Medieval age.

    >tfw not posting Burgundy which had the best knights and men-at-arms of any realm.

    >tfw when people don't realize that the French were the less cool frogs.

    >tfw people don't realize frogs and anglos were best of pals (and always have been) throughout the Medieval ages.

    >tfw modern frogs descended from the less cool frogs.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      People would post Burgundy if Charles the Bold hadn't failed and been btfo'd by the swiss.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/7rNmjnb.jpg

        >tfw people are only posting modern countries they know that were present during the Medieval ages.

        >tfw people only know of 'Kingdoms' when it comes to the Medieval age.

        >tfw not posting Burgundy which had the best knights and men-at-arms of any realm.

        >tfw when people don't realize that the French were the less cool frogs.

        >tfw people don't realize frogs and anglos were best of pals (and always have been) throughout the Medieval ages.

        >tfw modern frogs descended from the less cool frogs.

        Ironically Burgundy (it being a duchy in name) for most of the 15th century, despite Charles the Bold ruining their legacy against the Swiss.
        The pope believed they were the only power capable of stopping the Ottomans.

        Please redpill me on Burgundian chevalerie.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The Burgundians had two major advantages over any other part of the French Kingdom:
          1) Dutch money
          2) Was less burned down by English chevauchee
          The end result was a well-balanced feudal realm that consisted of the strengths of French knights with Dutch, Flemish, and Picard infantry that were actually somewhat skilled in close combat and weren't a peasant levy that would disintegrate upon contact. The realm was incredibly wealthy, which allowed them to attract skilled knights as well as purchase large numbers of mercenaries. The reorganization of his companies also allowed them to place greater focus on ranged infantry, pikes, and then later, artillery.
          The problem that the Burgundians faced was primarily that they had too many enemies. The French were obviously pissed at them for helping the English, the Austrians viewed them as a threat and rival for the Imperial Throne, and the English alliance had been broken with the end of the 100 years war. So when Charles the Bold attempted to force the Austrians to recognize him as a king, the negotiations failed (with the Emperor allegedly fleeing the negotiations at night) and so he ended up attempting to invade Lorraine by force, which allowed a coalition of Lorrainian, Imperial, Swiss, and French forces to overwhelm him. Ironically, the remaining Burgundian lands would end up being the power base for the Austrians and later the Spanish Empire until the 80 years war.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >So when Charles the Bold attempted to force the Austrians to recognize him as a king, the negotiations failed (with the Emperor allegedly fleeing the negotiations at night)
            Just a brief remark but this was mainly because how much of an insufferable cunt Charles the Bold was. All the Emperor asked from Charles was to reinstate an old friend of his in a very small fiefdom but Charles apparently refused to budge on even the most trivial of matters. He managed to piss almost everyone off on a personal matter and even people who would benefit from an alliance with Burgundy did not like dealing with him.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >tfw people don't realize frogs and anglos were best of pals (and always have been)
      Anon I didn't come here to feel things for frogbros

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >invade a bunch of mountain farmers
      >get BTFO so hard your kingdom crumbles over night and it stops existing forever
      Yes such a fierce and powerful army LMAO

  40. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    France

  41. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Terribly vague question
    Hungarian black army most likely, if that can still be classed as medieval it was the most professional army at the most advanced 'medieval' period that covers 100s of years

  42. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >The French and the Germans
    Byzantines don't count since they didn't experience the middle ages but are more a part of the late antiquity continuum that coalesced in the middle east around the arab expansion and only ended w/ the invasion of the mongols.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Byzantine got pounded into extinction. Means they are weak as fuck and the only ones stupid enough to bring them up is the butthurt slavs.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Fair but the Byzantines managed to stay around for quite awhile after the fall of Constantinople

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        They lasted a shockingly long time given what they had to put up with. They were old when Muhammad was in diapers and lived long enough to bury every Arab state that arose.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >They lasted a shockingly long
          If that helps you to cope, go for it.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        And has your civilization lived 2000 years under a single cultural identity?

        yeah I thought not.

  43. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Unironically the Ottoman Turks. They had the strongest and most organized standing army in all of Europe during the medieval age.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Did they?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >medieval
        >1672
        try to pay attention you dumb fuck.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous
      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >source for casualty and number count is some polish politician who already got shat on by actual historians for using shoddy numbers

        Pretty much any battle involving the Ottoman Empire in Europe needs to have numbers for the Turks adjusted downwards for several thousand and the ones for their opposition upwards by several thousand because the sources used for pretty much all of those on Wikipedia are heavily questionable on their impartiality.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The the casualties the balkan countries claim they inflicted on the Ottomans were correct, Turks would literally be extinct.
          It gets even funnier when one considers that the Ottoman armies that conquered Hungary and besieged Vienna contained substantial Serbian and Hungarian forces dutifully serving their sultan.

  44. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Early period. France
    Middle period. France
    Late period. Germany/France

  45. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Why? Because there was and is a significant ethnic difference between the classes. And this ties in why the english elites dont really care about immigration: they do not identify with the lower classes. Who cares if those slackjawed servants are pale milk or caramel coffee?
    Right up to this part. English gentry is effectively dead, they started to kill it after ww1, and achieved the goal soon after ww2. House of lords has no power anymore, house of lords act 1999 was it's final nail, but they still won't stop until it's no longer present with the help of infiltrated agents like Christopher Guest. Traditional schools are infested with trust kids, arabs, asians, and minority spots, this will breed upper class that won't have anything to do with old one. Bank always wins in the long run.

  46. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Bohemia. The Hussites managed to turn back four crusades from all of Catholic Europe. In the end, the Catholic Church bent the knee to the Hussites.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      In the end the Roman Catholic Church was imposed upon them in 1620.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        In the end the Catholic Church agreed to reform for them.

  47. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    France.

  48. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    France

  49. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Burgundy, sexiest armor of all the frogs

  50. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    it changed every five years so it’s basically impossible to actually judge

  51. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Normans

  52. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    P O L S K A

  53. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    France by a long shot,Spain had a good season but otherwise they dominated most of it.

  54. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Carolingians and Capets (ie France)

    After the Renaissance the Hapsburgs (ie HRE) surpasses them

  55. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Bzyantium at their height would probably be in the running.

  56. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Medieval army
    Bro that period was like 1,000 years. Be more specific

  57. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Whatever the fuck my ancestor were doing

  58. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >European kingdom had the best medieval army?
    The Mong-
    >European
    Dang

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Mongols
      >conquer bunch of steppemorons and mudslimes similar to themselves
      >enter Christian Europe
      >get btfoed
      >the end

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >get btfoed
        Closest subutai came to getting blown out was at mohi, even then it was because batu jumped the gun on crossing the bridge before subutai could set up the flank

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The hordes got fucked in Croatia and Austria

  59. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    You forget people like Joan of Arc exist and how hard the French fought to get rid of the English

    People don’t throw their lives away for 100 years in such an extreme way for the pettiness you seek to describe

    There’s infinite layers to wars.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      That was pretty much a result of the war dragging on so long and several awful awful PR moves by the English and smart propaganda from the French kings who realized more than the English how sick people were getting of having their crops and villiages burned over petty noble disputes. They successfully sold their cause as just and cast the blame on the English in the late stages of the war. Early on it was much like anon described

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >You forget people like Joan of Arc exist and how hard the French fought to get rid of the English
      That's in no way incompatible with it being largely a French civil war, the peasants will object to people coming to burn their houses down regardless of whether the perpetrators are from the same country or not.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Joan seethed as much at the Burgundians as she did against the English. Even if her zeal struck more fevour against the English, which was mainly because a lot of French nobles were very upset about the assasination of John the Fearless.

  60. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Macedon era Byzantium in the early middle ages
    Normans in the high middle ages
    Spain and the Ottomans in the late middle ages

  61. 2 months ago
    The British soul

    [...]

    I think you’re gnomish and unity and populism and collective soul is something you need a good lesson in not abusing.

    I’d rather you fear it than seek to deny it. It’s beautiful for both the French and British.
    I admire the French populists. Joan of Ark. the French nobles and the cultural hegemony. I love it all. I’m British and I LOVE the French. I love the French soul and I respect them and it. Even as a British supremacist and radical populist
    I ADORE the french spirit
    I LOVE them as rivals
    Their soul makes me feel so good
    It makes me feel so good knowing there’s people with SOULS. Driven by their love all the way. It’s all so adorable
    Succulent

    I wouldn’t enjoy fighting them if they didn’t.

    Mmm and you want to know something funny? The true British elites grow ever more unified and populist. England is not the next Palestine. Your moronic and evil use of immigration to harm the goodness of the world… is only backfiring on you.

    Just as much as is turned me on when Joan of Arc fought as it did when Napoleon did. It turned me on when our little island nation took all that land and made you die in your past life in the battle of Battle of Agincourt. I see you. Presumptuous as ever. Riding your horse and your expensive armour. What do you think about. Your classism. Your false “elite” born entirely through evil and mistreatment of others. You get bogged down in the mud fall off your horse. The French footmen laugh and smile. Your own countrymen giggle when they see you shot full of arrows.

    You remember

    I remember

  62. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Italians had good mercenaries in the late period

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      You're mother had good mercenaries late in her period

  63. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >over half the posts aren't even medieval
    this board is so historically illiterate lmao

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Most are though. Medieval period goes front the 5th to 15th centuries

  64. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Actually one of the dumbest takes I've read on K so far. Good job anon.

  65. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    What nation/mercenary company/army would you want to risk your life in during this time period?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Pour le Roi de France, Lieutenant du Christ sur Terre

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        MONTJOIE SAINT DENIS

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The meme choice please

  66. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    These cucks feared the mighty Mongolian horde. Genghis "God's punishment" Khan shits in your general direction.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Another historylet retard
      Temujin never set a foot in europe and the mongols got BTFO by euro stone castles and knights
      Not to mention europeans will reconquer them back

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I never said he went to EU, did I? Fucking uppity autist.

  67. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >The normans/plantagenets thought of themselves as french nobles
    This is so retarded. The Normans were originally vikings, you think they saw themselves as vikings still 200 years after settlement?
    >english elites dont really care about immigration
    They care far far more than the french. France is the blackest country in europe, even german WW2 propoganda pointed out the amount of morons in France at the time.

    Frogs are in terminal cope that other than the brief napoleonic stint, they have forever played second fiddle on the world stage to either the spanish, anglos or germans.

  68. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    France dominated mainland Europe until the rise of Prussia and the German unification. There's a reason why it always had to fight against multiple alliances. Their biggest "single" foe was Charles V's Habsburg Empire.

  69. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Just like today, Russia had the best army in Europe. The HRE was the ancient equivalent of NATO trannies.

  70. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Anything else is cope.

  71. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    England, Portugal, Venice.

    French knights are t72 of today

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Only decent replay. Check the fucking pooortuguese back then, killing retarded spanieards by the dozens, going forward into new worlds slaying indians, chinks and Blacks like nothing lol too bad they lost their insanity long ago...

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Portugal
      Victories against the Spanish relied on English allies sharing their tactics and victories on the sea relied on naval tech that was outright stolen from Italians and then improved upon. I usually don't pass up a chance to circlejerk my country but our military has always been a bit neglected by the state and its victories come from improvising and other factors rather than from having a strong military culture.

  72. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Medieval
    >+/- 1000 years

    Be more specific please

  73. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  74. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Varies wildly depending on time period.
    Matthias Corvinus' Black Army in Hungary was one of the first medieval attempts to build a modernised, professional military doctrine.

    The Czech Hussites successfully fought off the crusading armies of Germany and the rest of the HRE, but I doubt they'd fare the same offensively.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *