Inspired by the following theme : Rokatancby Vox Vulgaris (Medieval Style Jousting Music)
Disclaimer: I am by no means expert in History, just a humble man with passion for learning history. Also, English is not my first language so if you do find any errors or would like to make a correction/feedback, please feel free let me know
The Woman depicted here in the drawing is Baroness Aubrey of Manche, the daughter of One of Normandy's Count, dressed in stylized Norman chain mail, the kettle helmet with nose guard as well as (poorly drawn) Kite shield. Please excuse the sword as it may not be the most accurate Norman sword depicted. Nevertheless, It was rather rare to find Norman women who took part in battle, as compared to the Anglo Saxons or their Viking ancestors. But given the nature of their battle attires, it would probably cover the gender very well if the women did took part in the war led by Normans.
As for historical figures, There's a record of a Norman lady who fought in battle by the name of Isabel of Conches. Her chronicler described her as having "Amazon"quality, and it was said that she rode to battle dressed in knight.
Credit goes to , , and for the inspirations
The Normans of South Italy , the Anglo Saxons the Scandinavian , the Celts
A Part of the Historically Wrong Sketch Series: Medieval Revisited - You can find more on the various faction on the map here:
Europe in the Middle Ages were the land of warriors and constant war. With war, came along great warriors and Normans were one of the most well known in the history of Europe. The Normans, or "North Men" as they were referred to by the Franks, were originally Vikings that raided the northern part of West Francia. When the treaty made by the king Charles III gave the Viking their own piece of land to rule in the northern coast, they soon began intermingling with the Franks and the romanized Gauls, giving birth to people what we refer to today as Normans. But that's just a surface of who they were, but what does history says about who the Normans really were?
We all have heard of their conquest on England and Southern Italy, and quite possibly, this gave them somewhat antagonistic image, at least to the English speaking world. Indeed, the wherever the Normans went and to the extend, the ruling dynasties and realm they founded, remained in lesser light as compared to the contemporary history of France, England and pretty much, the rest of western world. For example, the Norman Conquest of England in 1066 didn't sit well with sympathizer of local dynasties of Germanic and Celtic origin who viewed this, foreign French-speaking invaders, begrudgingly. Another example would be how small history has portrayed Normans contribution to French, Italy and to the lesser extend, the Crusades.
But let's take a look at a different perspective here. The Normans who invaded England, under the invading force of William the Bastard, later known as William the Conqueror, was seen as one of the marking points where mounted warfare and combined tactics would dominate the battlefield of the medieval world for centuries to come. Once they had established their rule in England, the Normans took the previous Anglo-Saxon political and legal institutions and reformed them under strong leadership, that fused strong government, democracy, law, and individual freedom/rights that would be the hallmark of England to the rest of Medieval world. This applies to the Celtic realm as well, such as parts of Ireland, Wales and to lesser degrees, the Kingdom of Isles and Scotland. In short, while the Anglo-Saxon created the Kingdom of England; the credit for the creation of a United Kingdom of England Wales, Channel Islands, Isle of Man, Scotland and parts of Ireland goes to the Normans. Unfortunately, with the rise of Irish, Welsh, English and Scottish nationalism, the Norman Legacy in England became somewhat diminished.
But how did the Norman manage to do so? We know that the Normans were the descendant of Vikings, whose ferocity and thirst for conquest must have passed down from their Norse forefathers. But the Normans were different, and why they are different can be attributed to the fact that, while the Vikings were pretty much a disunited force, held only by strong leadership, the Normans developed a sense of unity, something that they identified themselves with, regardless one's backgrounds. A good example of these was on how Norman Mercenaries who served 2 different sides in southern Italy often fought each other; they seemed to mind very little since there's always opportunities to ransoms their comrades and be joined together in spirit. Apart from that, their reputation for bravery, ferocity as well careful planning and timed execution of tactics, earned them reputation which made them famous (this was especially true in Southern Italy). Eventually, through their capacity for leadership as well as cunning business skills, coupled with their adaptability and tolerance (in most cases), allowed them to absorb the best of what southern Italy has to offer, highly advance Byzantine and/or Islamic bureaucratic and financial structures, forming one of the most powerful, and certainly one of the richest feudal state in western Europe.
In the perspective of Western Christian world, especially during the high Middle Ages, the Normans were reputably some of the fiercest and most pious. When they settled in Normandy, they adopted the Carolingian Feudalism and Christianity, only later to grow into something much more influential as compared to their French overlords. This can be traced back to the Duke William of Normandy, later, King of England. Though he was just a duke who "owed" allegiance to the French King, he was by no mean a simple servant of the French Monarch. For the start, he was able to superbly govern his domain, as well as crushing any opponents that came in his way. Duke William of Normandy astonishing ability as military general and army commander earned him the loyalty of his men and the militaristic aristocracy. He even managed to build relation with the Papacy and earned him the rights to claim the English Throne, sanction by the Pope himself, as well as building relationships with other European rulers of his rights to the throne. By then William the Bastard was no longer just another bastard pretender and vassal of France, but rather, Independent, powerful and ambitious Duke with a Kingdom to conquer across the English Channel, which he did in 1066. His warlike aristocracy would later dominate much of the medieval world, a contrast to old feudalism practice which was common in Capetian France. Normandy, for the next century, bred the new Norman warrior class, which saw their service in many corners of Europe. The good relationship between the Normans and Popes could also be seen by the numbers of Christian abbeys the Norman founded, as well as their large contribution of armed men and finance during the first crusade. Though the Principality of Antioch which the Norman founded remained to be largely studied, it nevertheless remains an important part to the History of Kingdom of Jerusalem.
long chainmail, helmet with nose guard and the shield so caratéristic
great work as usual.
For the history Willian is know as Guillaume le Conquérant in french
as I write them the Normans eventually win. Good to know who helped lead that effort.
The 1060s could get very bloody indeed, as long as it happens from 1066 to before 1100 or so there's also no conflict with "Heroes in the Hills"
Got my answer- There's a Gunhildr Freysdottir who fought in that 3 way battle, she is an ancestor of the Gunhildr Freysdottitr who helped Deirderu nicDomnhail in the 1130s(that family just keeps recycling names) totally works
The Normans are probably my most favourite culture. They have that very Roman way of writing things down and methodical building of fortifications.
Norman history is actually quite interesting to study, they pretty much left their legacy from England, France, Italy and up to oriental east like Aleppo
And thanks for the link!
For the background, i think you're already good in that!