Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 98

Thread: Rome VS. Vikings

  1. #21
    Erich Hartmann's Avatar Sukauto
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Inside your head and in your mamas bed
    Posts
    68
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Rome VS. Vikings

    Quote Originally Posted by Carpathian Wolf
    The average Scandanavian is in better shape than anyone in this time says who? And people haven't changed much in the last 5,000 years let alone 1,000.
    Ibn Fadlan an Arab traveler was one.He's talking about Rus from Sweden"§ 80. I have seen the Rus as they came on their merchant journeys and encamped by the Volga. I have never seen more perfect physical specimens, tall as date palms, blonde and ruddy"http://www.iun.edu/~histjbp/Risala.html


    Show me a Scandanavian battle against an organized foe in a pitched battle.
    I thought this thread was about Vikings? If not,Cnut the Great fought quite a few and don't forget about the Normans who are decendants of the the Vikings.Viking didn't really have a standing army and were great at capturing the enemy unawares with hit and run attacks.I don't know how they would fare against the Romans in a headlong battle.


    Some were Triremes some were not. And I don't care what Scandanavians did against Muslims. That doesn't mean they would do it against Romans.
    True,I don't think the Vikings would stand a chance against the Romans in naval warfare,at least with the Byzantines and their Greek fire.


    Best of their time? Are you serious? How about somewhat relevant, in any time and that's that. South east asia islanders made it to the Americas too. So what? Do they match up to the Romans now too?
    I thought the Polynesians I think your referring to did that by island hopping over hundreds or thousands of years?If that's the case that's not really all that impressive.
    Last edited by Erich Hartmann; January 31, 2011 at 12:40 AM.

  2. #22
    Carpathian Wolf's Avatar Tribunus
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    11,122
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Rome VS. Vikings

    Quote Originally Posted by Erich Hartmann View Post
    Ibn Fadlan an Arab traveler was one.He's talking about Rus from Sweden"§ 80. I have seen the Rus as they came on their merchant journeys and encamped by the Volga. I have never seen more perfect physical specimens, tall as date palms, blonde and ruddy"http://www.iun.edu/~histjbp/Risala.html
    Poetics unless you actually believe this sort of racial idea, I have a forum for you if you do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Erich Hartmann View Post
    I thought this thread was about Vikings? If not,Cnut the Great fought quite a few and don't forget about the Normans who are decendants of the the Vikings.Viking didn't really have a standing army and were great at capturing the enemy unawares with hit and run attacks.I don't know how they would fare against the Romans in a headlong battle.
    Well once again people here are confusing the term viking and Scandinavian to be one in the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by Erich Hartmann View Post
    I thought the Polynesians I think your referring to did that by island hopping over hundreds or thousands of years?If that's the case that's not really all that impressive.
    Over hundreds of thousands of years? Hundreds of thousands?
    "Mors Certa, Hora Incerta."

    "We are a brave people of a warrior race, descendants of the illustrious Romans, who made the world tremor. And in this way we will make it known to the whole world that we are true Romans and their descendants, and our name will never die and we will make proud the memories of our parents." ~ Despot Voda 1561

    "The emperor Trajan, after conquering this country, divided it among his soldiers and made it into a Roman colony, so that these Romanians are descendants, as it is said, of these ancient colonists, and they preserve the name of the Romans." ~ 1532, Francesco della Valle Secretary of Aloisio Gritti, a natural son to Doge

  3. #23
    Silverheart's Avatar Pili Prior
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,268
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Rome VS. Vikings

    Quote Originally Posted by Carpathian Wolf View Post
    Poetics unless you actually believe this sort of racial idea, I have a forum for you if you do.

    Well once again people here are confusing the term viking and Scandinavian to be one in the same.

    Over hundreds of thousands of years? Hundreds of thousands?
    He said Hundreds OR Thousands of years, which is accurate...
    By the way, last thing I heard about that, was that it´s an unproven theory - not exactly comparable to the proven journey of Leif the Lucky.

    The Ibn Fadlan argument is sufficient. You wanted a name, and he gave you one.
    If you have something to prove it wrong, why don´t you present YOUR sources...
    Thanks to Archeology, it has been confirmed that the people of viking Scandinavia was the tallest and physically strongest people in the world at that time (better health is credited for it, but I have my doubts about that)

    Also, about your little "Chi" rant earlier: please stop talking down to everyone who disagrees with you!
    First you assumed I was confusing Vikings with Ninjas, now you´re saying that I´m confusing them with Buddhist Warrior Monks from the Himalayas? You´re just being insulting for no reason, and are not exactly helping your arguments either...

    EDIT:
    Agreeing with Eirmar.
    Last edited by Silverheart; January 31, 2011 at 06:46 AM.
    Heart of silver, Mind of gold
    Fist of iron and Tongue to scold

    Proud to be a Viking!

  4. #24
    wowbanger's Avatar Jimmy's winning matches
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wreocensæte
    Posts
    572
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Rome VS. Vikings

    OK so the problem I see here is regarding the defination of the word Viking, so here are some dictionary definitions.

    From Dictionary.com
    Vi·king

       /ˈvaɪkɪŋ/ Show Spelled[vahy-king] Show IPA
    –noun ( sometimes lowercase )
    1. any of the Scandinavian pirates who plundered the coasts of europe from the 8th to 10th centuries.

    2. a sea-roving bandit; pirate.

    3. a Scandinavian.

    4. U.S. Aerospace . one of a series of space probes that obtained scientific information about mars.

    Origin:
    1800–10; < Scand; cf. ON vīkingr; cf. OE wīcing pirate; etym. disputed
    From Collins English Dictionary

    Viking (ˈvaɪkɪŋ) n
    1. Norseman , Also called: Northman any of the Danes, Norwegians, and Swedes who raided by sea most of N and W Europe from the 8th to the 11th centuries, later often settling, as in parts of Britain
    2. any sea rover, plunderer, or pirate
    3. either of two unmanned American spacecraft that reached Mars in 1976
    4. ( modifier ) of, relating to, or characteristic of a Viking or Vikings: a Viking ship [C19: from Old Norse vīkingr, probably from vīk creek, sea inlet + -ingr (see -ing ³); perhaps related to Old English wīc camp]
    and from Online etymology Dictionary
    Word Origin & History

    Viking

    Scandinavian pirate, 1807, vikingr ; modern spelling attested from 1840. The word is a historical revival; it was not used in M.E., but it was revived from O.N. vikingr , which usually is explained as prop. "one who came from the fjords," from vik "creek, inlet" (cf. O.E. wic , M.H.G. wich "bay," and second element in Reykjavik ). But O.E. wicing and O.Fris. wizing are almost 300 years older, and probably derive from wic "village, camp" (temporary camps were a feature of the Viking raids), related to L. vicus "village, habitation" (see villa). The connection between the O.N. and O.E. words is still much debated. The period of Viking activity was roughly 8c. to 11c. In the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the raiding armies generally were referred to as þa Deniscan "the Danes," while those who settled in England were identified by their place of settlement

    I personnally agree with the idea that Viking refers to the scandinavian warriors that first raided and later settled in various parts of Northern Europe, which is the generally accepted view of most people. Therefore I would include in the definition of Viking the Danes that formed the Great Heathen Army and subsequently founded the Danelaw and they definately fought in plenty of battles.



    "Some writers never know what's to be written until they see it on the page...." Some words of wisdom from my good friend, Mega Tortas de Bodemloze

  5. #25
    Akrotatos's Avatar Pili Prior
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,224
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Rome VS. Vikings






    So yeah.....longboats were good for sailing around the Atlantic and rivers but that's it....
    A voice of reason in TWC:

    Quote Originally Posted by krisslanza View Post
    That's just the way the factions work. I'd argue, fundamentally, the only faction required in Rome 2 is the obvious one - Rome. They could've sold you a game where you can only play Rome 2, and while it might kind of suck, it would in no way be inappropriate - the game is, after all Rome 2

  6. #26
    Erich Hartmann's Avatar Sukauto
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Inside your head and in your mamas bed
    Posts
    68
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Rome VS. Vikings

    Lmao @ Carpathian Wolf for insinuating that I'm a racist for simply taking the time to answer his question.Thats almost as bad as inferring that I'm some insecure,stubborn,and childish nationalist


    @Akrokatos.I don't know what your message is. Vikings were the preeminent naval force in Europe from 800-1100(viking age) and without these longboats and the vikings skill in shipbuilding they probably would have had a next to nothing impact and faded out of history very quickly.THey were after all the first Europeans to discover America weren't they.I think that speaks for itself.

    "Fleets of these long, narrow ships attacked coasts from Northumberland to North Africa, carried pioneers to the British Isles and Normandy, and made the Vikings the dominant sea power in Europe from about A.D. 800 to 1100, the Viking Age."
    http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Ch.../LongShips.htm


    Nova has some extra info on the Viking design and craftmanhip of their vessels . Its pretty interesting.Heresthe linkhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/vikings/ships.html

  7. #27
    Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    771
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Rome VS. Vikings

    It depends on the terrain. Roman tactics are built for open country, great field battles like those of Greeks and other civilizations. However they had rather poor performance fighting in the forest, where "barbarians" had the edge.

  8. #28
    molonthegreat's Avatar Kamikaze
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    6,538
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Rome VS. Vikings

    Well the longboats were mostly used because they were quick and great for raiding whereas the Roman triremes were built to fight sea battles, so I think the Romans would win at sea. However the Viking warriors weren't disorganised rabble that just charged the enemy, they usually fought as a cohesive unit in a shield wall. But I think the Romans would win at land as well seeing how they usually had some sort of cavalry support while Scandinavian armies usually consisted of infantry, what time period for the Vikings and Romans are you talking about though? Furthermore I feel that i mist mention that not all Vikings were raiders and pirates, a large number of them were just merchants that sold goods.
    These fine gentlemen's have thanks to their consistent idiotic posts have earned their place on my ignore list: mrmouth, The Illusionist, motiv-8, mongrel, azoth, thorn777 and elfdude. If you want to join their honourable rank you just have to post idiotic posts and you will get there in no time.

  9. #29
    Akrotatos's Avatar Pili Prior
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,224
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Rome VS. Vikings

    Quote Originally Posted by Erich Hartmann View Post
    @Akrokatos.I don't know what your message is. Vikings were the preeminent naval force in Europe from 800-1100(viking age) and without these longboats and the vikings skill in shipbuilding they probably would have had a next to nothing impact and faded out of history very quickly.THey were after all the first Europeans to discover America weren't they.I think that speaks for itself.
    Nobody doubts Scandinavian shipbuilding. They built ships capable of traveling anywhere, oceans and rivers. BUT. They did not build ships for huge naval battles. They built for raids. If the thread was "who would win in a naval race" I would pick the Vikings. But it's not.

    Roman ships carried catapults and had towers for archers. And rams. Freaking rams. There is just no way a longship can answer to this much firepower.

    As for the shieldwall......Romans defeated many a shieldwall in their day.
    A voice of reason in TWC:

    Quote Originally Posted by krisslanza View Post
    That's just the way the factions work. I'd argue, fundamentally, the only faction required in Rome 2 is the obvious one - Rome. They could've sold you a game where you can only play Rome 2, and while it might kind of suck, it would in no way be inappropriate - the game is, after all Rome 2

  10. #30
    Carpathian Wolf's Avatar Tribunus
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    11,122
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Rome VS. Vikings

    Quote Originally Posted by Silverheart View Post
    He said Hundreds OR Thousands of years, which is accurate...
    By the way, last thing I heard about that, was that it´s an unproven theory - not exactly comparable to the proven journey of Leif the Lucky.
    It's pretty much been proven by genetics and linguistics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Silverheart View Post
    The Ibn Fadlan argument is sufficient. You wanted a name, and he gave you one.
    If you have something to prove it wrong, why don´t you present YOUR sources...
    Thanks to Archeology, it has been confirmed that the people of viking Scandinavia was the tallest and physically strongest people in the world at that time (better health is credited for it, but I have my doubts about that)
    That's retarded and your whole nationalistic Scandinavian raw raw raw is laughable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Silverheart View Post
    Also, about your little "Chi" rant earlier: please stop talking down to everyone who disagrees with you!
    First you assumed I was confusing Vikings with Ninjas, now you´re saying that I´m confusing them with Buddhist Warrior Monks from the Himalayas? You´re just being insulting for no reason, and are not exactly helping your arguments either...
    I'll stop talking down to retarded ideas when they stop being retarded. If the VV forum had an ass crack this section would be it, and this thread is the morsel of stuck between the ass crack that didn't get wiped away. When I asked about tactics, no answer was given. When i asked about technology no answer was given. When I asked about actual pitched battles, no real answer was given. So now you are trying to tell me that Vikings (Scandinavian warriors in general) were just awesome because they were Vikings. And then try to give me some poetic chronicle as "fact" that Scandinavians were the "strongest tallest" most this and that people in the world.

    And no I didn't think you were confusing Vikings with Ninjas. You missed the point.


    Quote Originally Posted by Erich Hartmann View Post
    Lmao @ Carpathian Wolf for insinuating that I'm a racist for simply taking the time to answer his question.Thats almost as bad as inferring that I'm some insecure,stubborn,and childish nationalist


    @Akrokatos.I don't know what your message is. Vikings were the preeminent naval force in Europe from 800-1100(viking age) and without these longboats and the vikings skill in shipbuilding they probably would have had a next to nothing impact and faded out of history very quickly.THey were after all the first Europeans to discover America weren't they.I think that speaks for itself.

    "Fleets of these long, narrow ships attacked coasts from Northumberland to North Africa, carried pioneers to the British Isles and Normandy, and made the Vikings the dominant sea power in Europe from about A.D. 800 to 1100, the Viking Age."
    http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Ch.../LongShips.htm


    Nova has some extra info on the Viking design and craftmanhip of their vessels . Its pretty interesting.Heresthe linkhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/vikings/ships.html
    Well when you get into talking about a race being the "tallest strongest" this and that, excuse me if I suggest that sort of talk would work better on storm front. Especially considering that sort of talk seems to be typical of that region.

    Nice the Vikings were the dominant sea power during a time when nobody else in that region of the world was sailing. Awesome proof. And what? An internet link to back it up! WOWzerz!



    ===================


    As I was saying again no ample argument has been given aside from circular logic: "Vikings would win cause they are Vikings."
    "Mors Certa, Hora Incerta."

    "We are a brave people of a warrior race, descendants of the illustrious Romans, who made the world tremor. And in this way we will make it known to the whole world that we are true Romans and their descendants, and our name will never die and we will make proud the memories of our parents." ~ Despot Voda 1561

    "The emperor Trajan, after conquering this country, divided it among his soldiers and made it into a Roman colony, so that these Romanians are descendants, as it is said, of these ancient colonists, and they preserve the name of the Romans." ~ 1532, Francesco della Valle Secretary of Aloisio Gritti, a natural son to Doge

  11. #31
    |Sith|Galvanized Iron's Avatar Equites Cohortales
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    I live in Kansas
    Posts
    4,474
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Rome VS. Vikings

    Why did you quote me on things I didn't post? That's retarded. I solely posted this:
    Quote Originally Posted by Carpathian Wolf View Post
    Viking field tactics similar to Roman tactics? In what way? I've never heard this. Do Vikings even HAVE field tactics? And what superior technology did the vikings have? Vikings were superior warriors based on what?
    The viking had several field tactics such as the shield wall and the wedge formation, both employed by the late roman army. Viking also made extensive use of their shields as a weapon, were focused on heavy infantry tactics and made extensive use of javelins.

    Vikings had chainmail made from steel and more advanced swords, the Romans solely used steel for their swords, the rest was made from frail iron.
    Also responsible for the Roma Surrectum II Multiplayer mode
    Rest In Peace Colonel Muammar Gaddafi
    Forward to Victory Great Leader Assad!


  12. #32
    Carpathian Wolf's Avatar Tribunus
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    11,122
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Rome VS. Vikings

    Quote Originally Posted by |Sith|Galvanized Iron View Post
    Why did you quote me on things I didn't post? That's retarded. I solely posted this:
    Fixed. Was a mistake.

    Quote Originally Posted by |Sith|Galvanized Iron View Post
    The viking had several field tactics such as the shield wall and the wedge formation, both employed by the late roman army. Viking also made extensive use of their shields as a weapon, were focused on heavy infantry tactics and made extensive use of javelins.
    Did they drill in these formations extensively? I mean I really don't see what exactly made them better at it than the Romans.

    Quote Originally Posted by |Sith|Galvanized Iron View Post
    Vikings had chainmail made from steel and more advanced swords, the Romans solely used steel for their swords, the rest was made from frail iron.
    Main weapon of the average viking warrior was a spear, not a sword so that's irrelevant. "Frail" iron?
    "Mors Certa, Hora Incerta."

    "We are a brave people of a warrior race, descendants of the illustrious Romans, who made the world tremor. And in this way we will make it known to the whole world that we are true Romans and their descendants, and our name will never die and we will make proud the memories of our parents." ~ Despot Voda 1561

    "The emperor Trajan, after conquering this country, divided it among his soldiers and made it into a Roman colony, so that these Romanians are descendants, as it is said, of these ancient colonists, and they preserve the name of the Romans." ~ 1532, Francesco della Valle Secretary of Aloisio Gritti, a natural son to Doge

  13. #33
    molonthegreat's Avatar Kamikaze
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    6,538
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Rome VS. Vikings

    I must say it's pot calling kettle black when you're are telling other people that they're nationalists Carpathian but you're right in most of the things you're saying. However I have read that Vikings usually were taller thanks to a better diet than many other societies, furthermore they had quite good hygiene.
    These fine gentlemen's have thanks to their consistent idiotic posts have earned their place on my ignore list: mrmouth, The Illusionist, motiv-8, mongrel, azoth, thorn777 and elfdude. If you want to join their honourable rank you just have to post idiotic posts and you will get there in no time.

  14. #34
    Hastatas Prior
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    672
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Rome VS. Vikings

    Quote Originally Posted by Carpathian Wolf View Post
    Did they drill in these formations extensively? I mean I really don't see what exactly made them better at it than the Romans.


    Main weapon of the average viking warrior was a spear, not a sword so that's irrelevant. "Frail" iron?
    Spears aren't inherently inferior weapons, keep in mind that the shield wall tactics used by the vikings and other late-dark age forces are for the most part identical to those originally adopted by the late roman army.






  15. #35
    Silverheart's Avatar Pili Prior
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,268
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Rome VS. Vikings

    Quote Originally Posted by Carpathian Wolf View Post
    That's retarded and your whole nationalistic Scandinavian raw raw raw is laughable.

    I'll stop talking down to retarded ideas when they stop being retarded. When I asked about tactics, no answer was given. When i asked about technology no answer was given. When I asked about actual pitched battles, no real answer was given. So now you are trying to tell me that Vikings (Scandinavian warriors in general) were just awesome because they were Vikings. And then try to give me some poetic chronicle as "fact" that Scandinavians were the "strongest tallest" most this and that people in the world.
    Once again, you´re insulting for no reason
    Now, I´m a patient man, very patient, and that´s the only reason to why I don´t allow myself to sink down to your level. I don´t appreciate having disrespectful words like "retarded" thrown in my face, especially when they´re not justified.
    But even so: If anyone´s retarded, it would be you, because you´re the only one here who is NOT posting any motivation or sources to back up your claims whatsoever.
    I have alreday given arguments and facts, and you just discard them by saying "no, you´re wrong and that´s retarded"? Then what the --- do you call "real" answers?
    No wait, why am I even asking that, when it´s already clear that you´re one of those people who puts yourself on a piedestal, and doesn´t change your opinion unless someone comes along and waves a university diploma in your face.
    I HAVE given arguments to back up my claims (while I haven´t seen you do the same), I HAVE given answers to any question you asked and motivation to boot. Why do I need to repeat the same things in different words, just because you can´t tell the difference between a motivated guess and a nationalist rant?

    Tactics: here you have the legendary Shield wall, the Pig sticker tactic (basically a wedge of spearmen) and the Schiltrom. Larger raiding parties and invasions forces did train on either of these, but it´s not like they had schools or academies, or made any extensive use of it in battles. Spears were used mainly as throwing weapons or when setting up a defensive line. Those who had axes or even swords often carried a spear or small axe for throwing at the enemy before a charge. This is described in the book "the Viking".
    Battles: Except for the countless tribal wars in Scandinavia?
    There is still the Siege of Paris, the Invasion of England => creation of the Danelaw, the Invasion of France => creation of Normandy, the Battle of Svolder, and then more countless battles between Viking raiders and Irish kings.
    Technology: don´t know what you´re referring to here, but I assume you´re talking about the Longboats? It´s better to just wait for your reply, though.
    Physique: As I said, Archaeology has proven that the Scandinavians of the Viking age were in fact the biggest and strongest people in the world. They dug up graves, examined skeletons, used carbon-dating and compared bone sizes to come up with this. About 1000 years ago, the average scandinavian was physically greater than any other people in the world (generally speaking, of course). After that, they started to grow smaller, and are currently beginning to get around back to the same sizes they were of a millenium ago.
    That´s a new theory, yes, but it has strong and undeniable evidence (or are you going to say that they faked the examined skeletons?)
    Archaeology is advancing fast, and what´s a determined fact one day can be a corrected mistake the other - One should always keep that in mind when discussing history...
    Last edited by Silverheart; January 31, 2011 at 05:55 PM.
    Heart of silver, Mind of gold
    Fist of iron and Tongue to scold

    Proud to be a Viking!

  16. #36
    Hastatas Prior
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    672
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Rome VS. Vikings

    Quote Originally Posted by Silverheart View Post
    Physique: As I said, Archaeology has proven that the Scandinavians of the Viking age were in fact the biggest and strongest people in the world. They dug up graves, examined skeletons, used carbon-dating and compared bone sizes to come up with this. About 1000 years ago, the average scandinavian was physically greater than any other people in the world (generally speaking, of course). After that, they started to grow smaller, and are currently beginning to get around back to the same sizes they were of a millenium ago.
    That´s a new theory, yes, but it has strong and undeniable evidence (or are you going to say that they faked the examined skeletons?)
    Archaeology is advancing fast, and what´s a determined fact one day can be a corrected mistake the other - One should always keep that in mind when discussing history...
    do you have a link?

  17. #37
    Silverheart's Avatar Pili Prior
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,268
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Rome VS. Vikings

    Quote Originally Posted by rrgg View Post
    do you have a link?
    Unfortunately, no.
    I´ve read about this in a history magazine, which I have misplaced.
    But I´ll search around the boxes, and see if I can´t find it.
    Heart of silver, Mind of gold
    Fist of iron and Tongue to scold

    Proud to be a Viking!

  18. #38
    Erich Hartmann's Avatar Sukauto
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Inside your head and in your mamas bed
    Posts
    68
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Rome VS. Vikings

    Quote Originally Posted by Akrotatos View Post
    Nobody doubts Scandinavian shipbuilding. They built ships capable of traveling anywhere, oceans and rivers. BUT. They did not build ships for huge naval battles. They built for raids. If the thread was "who would win in a naval race" I would pick the Vikings. But it's not.

    Roman ships carried catapults and had towers for archers. And rams. Freaking rams. There is just no way a longship can answer to this much firepower.

    As for the shieldwall......Romans defeated many a shieldwall in their day.
    I totally agree with you,and I admire your maturity in keeping a civil debate. I think the only way the Vikings could win against the Romans navally would be if they ganged up on a Roman ship unawares and closed in on it with grappling equipment.I see that to be highly unlikely,however. If this thread was talking about Byzantine era Romans with Greek fire its nigh impossible.The Byzantines already destroyed them in the Rus Byzantine naval war of 941,though I doubt that that 1,000 viking ships lost to just 15 Roman as Wiki says.

    Battle wise I think the vikings might stand a chance if were talking early imperial.The much later Rus Byzantine wars took place between Romans and Vikings, .In those wars,the Rus had the upper hand when they caught the Romans by surprise,but in 971 the Romans caught the Rus by surprise at Arcadiopolis through the aid of their navy and defeated them in a series of pitched battles and forced the Rus to terms after a 3 month seige.Too lazy to quote multiple sources,but the Battle of Arcadioplis at least is mentioned here if your interestedhttp://www.ireference.ca/search/Batt...s%20%28970%29/

    I think their lack of cavalry and possibly artillery on the battlefield could also play in their defeat unless they managed to get a strong force of cavalry from an ally who could be trusted. Anyways, my point is that I value the Byzantine army over the early imperial because of their cavalry,and it wasn't exactly a cakewalk for them to defeat the Rus.

    Quote Originally Posted by Carpathian Wolf View Post
    It's pretty much been proven by genetics and linguistics.



    That's retarded and your whole nationalistic Scandinavian raw raw raw is laughable.



    I'll stop talking down to retarded ideas when they stop being retarded. If the VV forum had an ass crack this section would be it, and this thread is the morsel of stuck between the ass crack that didn't get wiped away. When I asked about tactics, no answer was given. When i asked about technology no answer was given. When I asked about actual pitched battles, no real answer was given. So now you are trying to tell me that Vikings (Scandinavian warriors in general) were just awesome because they were Vikings. And then try to give me some poetic chronicle as "fact" that Scandinavians were the "strongest tallest" most this and that people in the world.

    And no I didn't think you were confusing Vikings with Ninjas. You missed the point.
    Holy cow batman.When you see someone someone so irritated in a debate it usually means they aren't doing so good.Its just an internet forum for crying out loud thats discussing what might of been.I guess the saying goes when you can't handle the heat you should get out of the kitchen even on a alternative history history of all places


    Well when you get into talking about a race being the "tallest strongest" this and that, excuse me if I suggest that sort of talk would work better on storm front. Especially considering that sort of talk seems to be typical of that region.

    Nice the Vikings were the dominant sea power during a time when nobody else in that region of the world was sailing. Awesome proof. And what? An internet link to back it up! WOWzerz!
    I just answered your question that you gave to Eirmar by giving you a name and a source.Now your just making all these nonsense assumptions in your head about race.I guess you expected no one to answer your questions. You can call the quote from the scientific American stupid,but yes that's why the vikings met with such success with raiding because most of Europe had a weak or nonexistent navy.My point wasn't directed at you( it was Akrakatos) anyways and neither did it have to do with war.I'm guessing you have a problem comprehending posts?


    ===================


    As I was saying again no ample argument has been given aside from circular logic: "Vikings would win cause they are Vikings."
    As I was saying your taking this way too seriously by getting bent out of shape,and I'm scratching my head as to why.I also don't see you adding anything but whining to the discussion.Maybe the games forum is more your forte.
    Last edited by Erich Hartmann; January 31, 2011 at 06:37 PM.

  19. #39
    Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    771
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Rome VS. Vikings

    I suppose central organization would be a factor as well. For example, a small scandinavian tribal village wouldnt stand a chance. now say the king of denmark mustered his jarls and all of their feudal bands... you have quite a force to be reckoned with. and while they had no professional armies, they did have at least a hand full of professional troops (huskarls). and not to mention the occasional 6'8" superpissedoff berserker crashing through enemy ranks...

  20. #40
    Erich Hartmann's Avatar Sukauto
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Inside your head and in your mamas bed
    Posts
    68
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Rome VS. Vikings

    Quote Originally Posted by Théoric HämmerHörde View Post
    I suppose central organization would be a factor as well. For example, a small scandinavian tribal village wouldnt stand a chance. now say the king of denmark mustered his jarls and all of their feudal bands... you have quite a force to be reckoned with. and while they had no professional armies, they did have at least a hand full of professional troops (huskarls). and not to mention the occasional 6'8" superpissedoff berserker crashing through enemy ranks...
    Good point, I've a hard time deciding who would win since were talking post Marian and early imperial. The vikings have superior military equipment and an 800 years or more advantage of tactical knowledge they have learned over the years from civilizations they've come into contact during that period of time.If under a strong unified leader such as a king like Canute, who could instill discipline and organization in the ranks I believe that the vikings may win though the battles would be far from easily fought.The vikings fought a series of battles in England,Ireland and other places is western Europe,but since the Viking age was during the Dark ages there isn't always a lot of written information concerning how each side fought tactically.I know their beserkers would obviously be used as shock troops,but I just wonder how many beserkers were typically used during a battle and their average effect on the outcome of a battle.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •