Rome VS. Vikings

[Tom Crooze]

Who would win in a Naval and Land engagement.

Stats:

Naval:
A fleet of 30 Triemes VS. 30 Longboats
Middle of the Ocean

Land:
Romans: Post Marian, Early Imperial
Vikings: High Viking age

Let it begin!

[Akrotatos]

First of all no naval battles occured in the middle of the oceanin the age of the oar. But then again all these kind of threads suck.

So I would say Romans. No comparison whatsoever

[rrgg]

Naval: 30 longboats against 30 triremes each carrying at least 200 men as well as artillery? I think you perhaps should think that one over a little more. Triremes were the 'light' ships of the Roman Navy as well.



Land: Going to have to go with vikings on this one, better armor and better weapons.

[Silverheart]

Easy, Vikings would win.
In the Naval battle, the speed and maneuverability of the Dragon ships would make them superior to the triremes (although they were fast too, the Longboat design was the fastest sailing ship up until modern times, and their agility is still matchless), and the Vikings are greater warriors who fear no odds.
They would just spam two or three boats on every Trireme, then move on to the next one once the first was cleared.
That´s how they did in the battle of Svolder, year 999.
The Romans also have the disadvantage of being notoriously poor seafarers, while the Vikings were legendary boatsmen.
Also, the Norselands were a harsh and deadly place back then, and I believe that a life-time of training beats a few years of military school.

On land, however, I´m not as sure.
The Vikings were superior fighters, but the Romans were excellent tacticians, and fielded very disciplined soldiers.
The Romans also equipped their troops with armament of finest quality, while the Vikings were more grab-and-swing, and were skilled at the use of arms thanks to an upbringing of hard work and well-rounded "education".
But still, if both armies have exactly the same numbers, the Vikings would be victorious - with heavy casualties.
The short swords and lumbering formations of the Roman Legionaries would count against them in combat against the nimble and fearless vikings. And if the Romans have archers and cavalry, while the Vikings are all typical raiders, they could even win...

So, I´d say
Naval battle: Vikings, clearly.
Land battle: Vikings, probably.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Easy, Vikings would win.
In the Naval battle, the speed and maneuverability of the Dragon ships would make them superior to the triremes (although they were fast too, the Longboat design was the fastest sailing ship up until modern times, and their agility is still matchless), and the Vikings are greater warriors who fear no odds.
They would just spam two or three boats on every Trireme, then move on to the next one once the first was cleared.
That´s how they did in the battle of Svolder, year 999.
The Romans also have the disadvantage of being notoriously poor seafarers, while the Vikings were legendary boatsmen.
Also, the Norselands were a harsh and deadly place back then, and I believe that a life-time of training beats a few years of military school.

On land, however, I´m not as sure.
The Vikings were superior fighters, but the Romans were excellent tacticians, and fielded very disciplined soldiers.
The Romans also equipped their troops with armament of finest quality, while the Vikings were more grab-and-swing, and were skilled at the use of arms thanks to an upbringing of hard work and well-rounded "education".
But still, if both armies have exactly the same numbers, the Vikings would be victorious - with heavy casualties.
The short swords and lumbering formations of the Roman Legionaries would count against them in combat against the nimble and fearless vikings. And if the Romans have archers and cavalry, while the Vikings are all typical raiders, they could even win...

So, I´d say
Naval battle: Vikings, clearly.
Land battle: Vikings, probably.

What battles have vikings won?

[Silverheart]

What battles have vikings won?

Do I need to make a list?
´cause I don´t exactly have the numbers, dates and details...

The majority of the raids and invasions against the British Isles, especially before the year 1000.
The majority of the battles were the Byzantine Varangian Guard were deployed.
Yes, they partook in several battles which ended in defeat, but not more than those which ended in victory.
The battle of Svolder. It was Danes and Swedes against Norwegians, but since the Norwegians were officially christian, it counts.
The Siege of Paris.

Come on, CW, you know of all these events already, don´t you?
And it´s not exactly a thread for discussing details, now is it? It´s about discussing a fictional scenario.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Do I need to make a list?
´cause I don´t exactly have the numbers, dates and details...

The majority of the raids and invasions against the British Isles, especially before the year 1000.
The majority of the battles were the Byzantine Varangian Guard were deployed.
Yes, they partook in several battles which ended in defeat, but not more than those which ended in victory.
The battle of Svolder. It was Danes and Swedes against Norwegians, but since the Norwegians were officially christian, it counts.
The Siege of Paris.

Come on, CW, you know of all these events already, don´t you?
And it´s not exactly a thread for discussing details, now is it? It´s about discussing a fictional scenario.

The majority of the raids were against defenseless monasteries and villages. And they got kicked out of England.

Are there any records of Viking naval battles? Can you even use a long boat in a naval battle? I got the impression that they were transports, not warships like the Romans.

And on the ground, what exactly makes Vikings better warriors? Just because they fall into the spectrum of "pirate, viking, ninja"? Do they even have a history of fighting pitched battles? Did they train in organization and discipline? Those are the things that win battles.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

On land the Romans wouldn't stand much chance. Viking field tactics was somewhat remiscent of Roman tactics, but with superior technology compared to archaic Roman weapons, also Vikings were of course in themselves superior warriors whilst the Romans were mere mortals.

[Silverheart]

The majority of the raids were against defenseless monasteries and villages. And they got kicked out of England.

Are there any records of Viking naval battles? Can you even use a long boat in a naval battle? I got the impression that they were transports, not warships like the Romans.

And on the ground, what exactly makes Vikings better warriors? Just because they fall into the spectrum of "pirate, viking, ninja"? Do they even have a history of fighting pitched battles? Did they train in organization and discipline? Those are the things that win battles.

Yes, but the townspeople and monks still defended themselves, rather than running for the hills - that makes it into battles Kicked out, or just left? Nah, I hear ya, that one was correct

Vikings used Longboats mainly as transports, that is exactly correct, but they were always a people of "do what you can with what you have".
In the mentioned Battle of Svolder (I´m sorry, that´s what I have on a straight arm) there were only Dragon ships engaged. And we all know that Dragon ships and Longboats are basically the same. Longboats can certainly be used in battle - they are fast and maneuverable enough. The Triremes wouldn´t be able to ram a single one of them, unless they get lucky.

I have already explained why the Vikings were superior warriors.
Growing up in a harsh and unforgiving environment (predators, raiders, harsh weather, little luxuries, competitions, cold winters) forced anyone born in the Norselands to hone their skills into becoming as good as possible.
If you didn´t, you would die before long.
Actual training was strictly individual. When Vikings fought, it was the performance of every Individual that mattered, not the group.
Better to be a Wolverine than an ant, right?
Constant competition (friendly or not) only ever reinforced and improved their skills.
That, and their "I can´t die, because I´m better" attitude beats most other things,
EVEN an upbringing in a warm, secure (we are talking about early imperial times) mediterranean area and a few years in a military school...

"viking, ninja"? what the heck do they have to do with each other? Are you suggesting that I´m confusing east-asian assasins with Native Norsemen?

[Påsan]

Do I need to make a list?
´cause I don´t exactly have the numbers, dates and details...

The majority of the raids and invasions against the British Isles, especially before the year 1000.
The majority of the battles were the Byzantine Varangian Guard were deployed.
Yes, they partook in several battles which ended in defeat, but not more than those which ended in victory.
The battle of Svolder. It was Danes and Swedes against Norwegians, but since the Norwegians were officially christian, it counts.
The Siege of Paris.

Come on, CW, you know of all these events already, don´t you?
And it´s not exactly a thread for discussing details, now is it? It´s about discussing a fictional scenario.

Battle of Svolder? really? The Danish-Swedish alliance had 70+ ships while the Norwegians (where only the king was christian) had 11. Still they stuggled hard to win the battle. And every account of the battle attributes their victory to norwegian jarls fighting for the danish. Norwegians have always been the best sailors of scandinavia.

What battles have vikings won

To list "battles" is a bit much, however, unlike popular culture most of the Vikings greatest achivements was done using conventional armed forces. Such as taking England (danes) Ireland and much of scotland (Norwegians) and establishing kingdoms in what is today Russia (Swedes) The most examples of battles in popular scandinavian culture is between scandinavians, hardly an fair comparrison. But take their achivements into thought, they were a result of superior armed might.

doubt the Vikings would have had the level of organisation needed to take on a full scale Roman army, they were really just small bands of riders and pirates who went after the soft targets. A Roman legion would send them packing.

The battle of Lyrskogshede and 15,000 dead Germans strongly disagree with you.
The vikings in major armed conflicts had the usual tactics of gruping up into a shieldwall (Fylking) around the leader Viking leaders usually (From sagas at least) display a love for unconventional tactics and personal leadership, for example when trying to take a muslim city in sicily, they gatherd birds in the area who had their nests in the city, soked them in tar and lit them up. The burning birds flew back to their nests and set the whole city in flames, resulting in the surrender of the city.

Naval:
A fleet of 30 Triemes VS. 30 Longboats
Middle of the Ocean

30 Triemes would have enough keeping themselves flothing in the middle of the ocean, never mind fighting vikings in propper sea worthy ships.

And is they do not sink, i dubt the 10 marines, 5 archers and 170 rowers/slaves could put up much of a fight against 70 or more Vikings. the main weapon for Triemes were its ramming capabilities, but here it have met ships far more sophisticated and agile. No ramming possible.

(By the way, Vikings did fight the Eastern Roman Empire in naval battles, Greek fire won the day tho, but the romans did not field that)

[Menumorut]

"The Vikings were superior fighters".....in MOVIES yeah maybe!!!
VIKINGS was RAIDERS...they never stand in a huge BATTLEFIELD!!!! and if they stand there, they will die like all others barbarians strong nations in an open field vs Romans Legionares.

For those who posted for Vikings, Do you have any ideea, how well trained in taking up a fight 1 vs 1 Romans was? I bet not!
Some of them even willingly entered in competition for money and glory as Gladiators.
Do you think only gladiators have good training in entire Roman Empire and .....Praetorians DONT!!?
If you see a savage fierceness and aggression that makes him automatically a winner in your eyes ? (your opponent in a fight of course!)
Then I think in front of a Samurai would die before a first step

Romans beat Spartans - Achaean League(I really think this was the best fighters in the world in a way), Macedonians, Dacians/Getae(some of them mix with some germans and scythians tribes and become so caled GHOTS who they move in entire europe special in north!!..ups vikings)...and yeah goths they raid Rome and beat them...same as vikings ..and they beat to many other nations...so I cant bet on others.

P.S: Dont just come and post here after those seen in movies, read some books and then do it.
sorry for nasty english, not my language at all
cheers

PS. to P.S: UPS, my avatar my signature and my name shows my favorites...lol
I also did this signature for a friend so dont judge me hard, in a way i like Spartans, vikings, Samurais,...then Romans!!!..Fok Romans anyway

[Erich Hartmann]

"The Vikings were superior fighters".....in MOVIES yeah maybe!!!
VIKINGS was RAIDERS...they never stand in a huge BATTLEFIELD!!!! and if they stand there, they will die like all others barbarians strong nations in an open field vs Romans Legionares.

For those who posted for Vikings, Do you have any ideea, how well trained in taking up a fight 1 vs 1 Romans was? I bet not!
Some of them even willingly entered in competition for money and glory as Gladiators.
Do you think only gladiators have good training in entire Roman Empire and .....Praetorians DONT!!?
If you see a savage fierceness and aggression that makes him automatically a winner in your eyes ? (your opponent in a fight of course!)
Then I think in front of a Samurai would die before a first step

Romans beat Spartans - Achaean League(I really think this was the best fighters in the world in a way), Macedonians, Dacians/Getae(some of them mix with some germans and scythians tribes and become so caled GHOTS who they move in entire europe special in north!!..ups vikings)...and yeah goths they raid Rome and beat them...same as vikings ..and they beat to many other nations...so I cant bet on others.

P.S: Dont just come and post here after those seen in movies, read some books and then do it.
sorry for nasty english, not my language at all
cheers

PS. to P.S: UPS, my avatar my signature and my name shows my favorites...lol
I also did this signature for a friend so dont judge me hard, in a way i like Spartans, vikings, Samurais,...then Romans!!!..Fok Romans anyway

Let me guess, you're a fan of the Dacians

[Menumorut]

Ahahaha
YAP, BIG DACIANS FAN...see my avatar a Dacian soldier with a GLADIUS
My signature... only Dacians sodliers!!!
And my nickname SPQR means senatus populusque dacians!!!

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

@Silverheart I disagree with the romans being "master tacticians". 99% the time they employed the same, "complicated" tactic: march forward, meet the enemy, press forward as hard as you can, and pray to Jupiter.

[Silverheart]

@Silverheart I disagree with the romans being "master tacticians". 99% the time they employed the same, "complicated" tactic: march forward, meet the enemy, press forward as hard as you can, and pray to Jupiter.

With disciplined soldiers in a tight formation, that tactic works against anything but a well dug-in line of heavy infantry. All master tactics are simple.
The Vikings didn´t form up lines, but prefered to just charge, with each man fending for himself.
Such a random drizzle of a couple of superior fighters here and some there, would not logically be enough to break the Roman formation.
I hate to admit it (), since I am a viking myself, but a Viking victory (in the land battle) would depend completely on the performance of every individual. If those, who reach the fray first, can fight on for long enough, the pressure would be overwhelming. But if the Romans manage to (miraculously) kill off the Vikings quickly enough as they come, they would actually win, though with heavy casualties.

[Helm]

I doubt the Vikings would have had the level of organisation needed to take on a full scale Roman army, they were really just small bands of riders and pirates who went after the soft targets. A Roman legion would send them packing.

[Silverheart]

I doubt the Vikings would have had the level of organisation needed to take on a full scale Roman army, they were really just small bands of riders and pirates who went after the soft targets. A Roman legion would send them packing.

But we´re talking a fair match here:
Roman legionaires against an equal amount of Viking warriors.
And in such a battle, they Vikings would have a good chance of winning.

[Helm]

But we´re talking a fair match here:
Roman legionaires against an equal amount of Viking warriors.
And in such a battle, they Vikings would have a good chance of winning.

More likely the Vikings/Scandinavians would have used guerilla tactics against the Romans in much the same way their cousins the Germans did further south. And the Germans did give the Roman legions a seriously tough time. But a straight pitched battle on open terrain with the full armoured infantry formations, archers, cavalry units and artillery pieces and the Vikings woldn't know what hit them, they also wouldn't be used to organising armies on that kind of scale.

[Silverheart]

But I just explained:
Roman LEGIONARIES vs Viking Warriors.
The Cavalry, Archers, Artillery are left out. With all that, of course the romans would win!
But with only their infantry, the Vikings would have a good chance of winning, on account of being better fighters, as has been explained. + the Vikings didn´t really organize their lines or so. That too has been mentioned and explained already.

[Helm]

The word Viking just means the bands of pirates, raiders and brigands, it didn't mean the Scandinavian people as a whole they weren't all Vikings. But a well organised early middle ages Germanic or Scandinavian army with fully trained solidiers, locked shield formations, cavarly and so on would give the Romans a fair fight. Though they still wouldn't have the artillery pieces and heavy armour, their shields were generally wooden and only the nobility were able to afford a sword, high grade armour or a horse. It's possible that Scandinavians with their belief in Valhalla would be less affraid to die to the battle so more readily stand their ground than flee, but that's just speculation there.