Rome VS. Vikings

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

Vikings didn't use berserkers... They used sophisticated formation fighting, usually like an hoplite phalanx with throwable weapons. The Saxon tactics at the Battle of Hastings are a defensive example of Viking tactics.

[Carpathian Wolf]

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.

I'm sorry but did I make any claims of racial superiority? No? Guess it isn't really comparable.

Where is this source that states they were taller because of their diet? And since when is being taller mean anything? Arguably the two greatest Empires were in Rome and China.

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.

Nobody said they were inferior but I think people have this as a popular image of the average viking:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_0KKBXVyKOx...ior-752252.jpg

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.

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.

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.

Awesome.

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

Diversions...answer the questions.

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?

That Arabic source also had some very crude things to say about the Vikings. Should we take those into account as fact as well?

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.

A claim was made and I am simply asking why.

[Erebus Pasha]

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.

To be honest there is no way of telling in alternative scenario's like these but Norwegian and Danish tactics during the 'Viking' age would've been similar to other armies in Northern Europe and hence not to dissimilar to tactics used by Germanic armies during the late-Roman era. But even during time of a time of extreme crisis the Late Roman Army was still an effective fighting machine despite the odd defeat or two to Germanic armies (I'm thinking here of Abrittus and Adrianople), so you would have to favour them in such scenario that we are trying to represent in this thread. I think numbers of Germanic troops that faced the Romans have sometimes been exaggerated but I think they would have been comparatively larger than even larger armies that the Danes and Norwegians often brought to bear, such as Cnut's campaigns in England and Scandinavia or Harald Hardrada's invasion of England in 1066). On the other hand Norwegian and Danish armies were hardly a rabble - they had professional bodies of men within their ranks and were well drilled. Leaders such as Hardrada had experience serving as mercenaries in Europe and would've been well versed in the tactics of foreign armies.

Viking longboats were durable vessels well suited to northern waters but again we have no way of telling how they would in a battle with the Roman Navy. Navies raised by Norway and Denmark normally fought against each other and not against any other powers. The English had a strong navy only in certain periods and their vessels would've been similar to Scandinavian designs, whilst I'm not sure about the Franks. There are a few examples of Romans coming into contact with enemy vessels in northern waters such as the naval campaign against Gallic Veneti during Caesar's conquest of Gaul and Roman actions against Germanic pirates in the 3rd and 4th century AD (apparently Carausius had a good deal of success against Frankish pirates before he rebelled against central authority).

[Vezon]

I think the Romans would win both battles, though the land battle would result in heavy losses. First, the naval batte. I agree that a trireme would have a hard time ramming a longboat. Probably the only way it could happen would be the stupidity of the longboat. But the Romans had better crews than you might think. While not up to par on there own, they woulld hire/recruit greeks or phonecians to man their ships. Most would be Romans, but some crewmembers would be highly skilled. Also, the Romans knew that they couldn't beat anyone strictly through manevure. They had marines to board ships. That's how they beat Carthage in the First Punic War. And a gladius would have the advantage on a broadsword in tight quarters...if they were tight enough.

As for the land battle, I admit the Vikings would be quite a challenge. But the Vikings were not big on formations or discipline, I believe. The Romans were. If the Romans formed a checherboard formation, the Vikings would come charging in on the front cohorts, sweeping around the flanks. The rear cohorts would then come in, pushing them back. The lack of discipline among the Vikings would make it harder for them to keep attacking effectively. Oh, and I should clarify. I'm not saying the Vikings were nesacarily a unruly mob. They would be in a formation, but not very good. The warriors were out for glory, at least in part. The Romans were highly disciplined, and used to facing mobs of barbarians. The Vikings, though better equipped and with better tactics, were similar. The Romans main problem would keeping in formation during the initial clash. If they failed, the battle would be much more grim in its outlook.

[Erich Hartmann]

@Sith|Galvanized Iron

I believe the Vikings used Beserkers since I've never read any source that claims they didn't.I doubt they were any bigger than the rest of the vikings,its just they used some herb,alcohol whatever to put them in a frenzy.I think your right about the way cikings fought under a king,as in an ordered formation,but not necessarily under certain chiefs or in smaller battles.The Beserkers were actually banned by scandinavian countries in written law and Barry Ager, the curator of the Continental Medieval Collections Dept of the British Museum mentions this about them.He describes them a little colorfully though

The famous 'berserks', whose name suggests they wore bearskins, may have fought in groups, and believed that Odin, the god of war, gave them both protection and superhuman powers so they had no need of armour. They would work themselves into a battle frenzy so intense it is said they bit on the edges of their shields, and could even ignore the pain of wounds.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient...apons_01.shtml

Awesome.


Diversions...answer the questions.

Ironic,I did answer your questions and you threw a hissy fit.Glad to see that your not getting so riled up over a theoretical thread.Btw, the way you asked that question it seems like I'm under interrogation

That Arabic source also had some very crude things to say about the Vikings. Should we take those into account as fact as well?

Sure why would I care?At that period of time most of Europe was horribly unclean compared to the Arab world.Besides, how does that have to do with height or build?You think your clever,but I already noticed the wipe the crap out of your behind remark earlier to reference what Ibn said concerning Viking cleanliness.I was going to use that to defeat your Poetic argument,but what Ibn said about their cleanliness standards was just too nasty.With these kind of questions ,I'm getting this strange feeling,as if I'm feeding an internet monster.

[Vezon]

Okay, I take back what I said about the Vikings lacking formation...but I still say it wasn't as good as the Romans. And don't forget the pilum. Also, the quality of Vikings wasn't standard. Each soldier would be of different quality. I had to take back what I said do to what you guys said. I started my post back on page 2. When I finish, Page 3 is halfway done. I'm slow.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Ironic,I did answer your questions and you threw a hissy fit.Glad to see that your not getting so riled up over a theoretical thread.Btw, the way you asked that question it seems like I'm under interrogation

So your tactic is pretty much "umad lol?" Nice.

You didn't answer the question.

Sure why would I care?At that period of time most of Europe was horribly unclean compared to the Arab world.Besides, how does that have to do with height or build?You think your clever,but I already noticed the wipe the crap out of your behind remark earlier to reference what Ibn said concerning Viking cleanliness.I was going to use that to defeat your Poetic argument,but what Ibn said about their cleanliness standards was just too nasty.With these kind of questions ,I'm getting this strange feeling,as if I'm feeding an internet monster.

No he pretty much said that the Rus were a bunch of stinking drunk rapists. My point is that you can't use the opinion of someone as fact. Your argument that the Scandinavians were somehow better simply because they were Scandinavian is pretty much racism. You have to make actual points such as tactics, organization, over all strategy. I mean what sort of wealth did the Vikings have in order to mobilize an army?

[Vezon]

Well, they managed to invade Saxon England. They lost, but hey, it was still an army.

[Manco]

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.

No you won't.

The chance of you actually providing a reputable and noteworthy source for that statement is exactly nil.

[Vezon]

|Sith|Galvanized Iron, you mentioned the Vikings fighting in a hopilite-style form. I don't know if that's true, but allow me to point out that Rome defeated hopilites.

[Erich Hartmann]

@ Erebus and great post, I didn't see until after I posted unfortunately I don't know how to give rep .

I think the vikings would have used many of the tactics the Germans used against the Romans,but with superior equipment.However, in 800 years there passes a good deal of knowledge concerning tactics of other tribes they came into contact with.Its my opinion that's at least part of the reason the Romans were starting to suffer defeats against tribes such as the Vandals and Goths.I believe after the Germanics were fighting so many battles and losing they started to adjust their battlefield tactics to better counter the Romans.Of course a very good Roman general would also change his tactics on the spot if he felt the standards one weren't working in a particular battle. This battle would have to be against similar numbers though,because because as you say the Scandinavian armies were pretty small for the most part. If the Roman army sent 200,000 men against a 10,000 man Scandinavian army, the Scandinavians would cease to exist.

Its without question the Romans don't have ships that are as fast as the vikings,but I would consider the Roman ships better for war than the Viking.The viking didn't fight very many naval battles,but there ships were great for getting troops quickly on land to fight a land battle and make a quick getaway if thing aren't going their way.

@ Vezon good points also.Discipline is also a key factor.I don't care how good an armies solders are with a spear or a sword,but if they lack any sort of discipline to follow commands then the battle might as well be lost.

[Vezon]

Well, I don't know about the German tribes sharing knowledge of tactics. They weren't all that friendly towards each other. And the Vandals and Goths cam from a fair ways beyond the Roman world, at least the Vandals did. I think they gained sucess because of the fact that they were an entire nation moving west, wheras the Germans before them were mostly raiding armies. And the Vandals and Goths had another motivator: the Huns. They had to either flee west or be destroyed as a nation. Oh, and you give rep by clicking the green button with a plus sign that is at the bottom left corner of a post.

[Carpathian Wolf]

@ Erebus and great post, I didn't see until after I posted unfortunately I don't know how to give rep .

I think the vikings would have used many of the tactics the Germans used against the Romans,but with superior equipment.However, in 800 years there passes a good deal of knowledge concerning tactics of other tribes they came into contact with.Its my opinion that's at least part of the reason the Romans were starting to suffer defeats against tribes such as the Vandals and Goths.I believe after the Germanics were fighting so many battles and losing they started to adjust their battlefield tactics to better counter the Romans.Of course a very good Roman general would also change his tactics on the spot if he felt the standards one weren't working in a particular battle. This battle would have to be against similar numbers though,because because as you say the Scandinavian armies were pretty small for the most part. If the Roman army sent 200,000 men against a 10,000 man Scandinavian army, the Scandinavians would cease to exist.

Its without question the Romans don't have ships that are as fast as the vikings,but I would consider the Roman ships better for war than the Viking.The viking didn't fight very many naval battles,but there ships were great for getting troops quickly on land to fight a land battle and make a quick getaway if thing aren't going their way.

@ Vezon good points also.Discipline is also a key factor.I don't care how good an armies solders are with a spear or a sword,but if they lack any sort of discipline to follow commands then the battle might as well be lost.

No the reason the Romans had issues with the Germanics had more to do with politics and social instability then anything else. Even the Goths and various Germanic people adopted Roman ways of fighting. What exactly, in those 800 years could the Vikings learn to do that would give them such an upper hand that they would win?

[Erebus Pasha]

@ Erebus and great post, I didn't see until after I posted unfortunately I don't know how to give rep .

I think the vikings would have used many of the tactics the Germans used against the Romans,but with superior equipment.However, in 800 years there passes a good deal of knowledge concerning tactics of other tribes they came into contact with.Its my opinion that's at least part of the reason the Romans were starting to suffer defeats against tribes such as the Vandals and Goths.I believe after the Germanics were fighting so many battles and losing they started to adjust their battlefield tactics to better counter the Romans.Of course a very good Roman general would also change his tactics on the spot if he felt the standards one weren't working in a particular battle. This battle would have to be against similar numbers though,because because as you say the Scandinavian armies were pretty small for the most part. If the Roman army sent 200,000 men against a 10,000 man Scandinavian army, the Scandinavians would cease to exist.

I really don't see how the 'Vikings' had superior equipment to the Germanic armies of the 3rd-5th centuries. There would've have a similar make-up...a chief or a king's bodyguard, a core of well-armed noblemen and the rest of the army made up of tribal levies armed with little more than a spear and a shield. The tactics wouldn't have much different too.

Roman defeats were far out numbered by their victories. The reason why battles like Abrittus and Adrianople stand out because they were the exception rather than the rule. The late Roman army was a highly flexible and effective fighting machine until the late 4th century (I'm talking about the army of the Western Empire here). Sure I think Germanic armies under good leadership could perform competently by this time, such as Cniva's Goths against the forces of the Emperor Decius but in most cases the Romans would prevail if their forces were adequately disciplined and lead. Even in times of crisis such as the mid-3rd century you still have notable victories over the Alamanni and Goths by Gallienus and Claudius II even when they had limited resources at their disposal. Like CW stated the problems with the German tribes during the later Roman period had more to do with the empire's internal issues rather than any drastic increase in effectiveness by Germanic armies on the battlefield.

Its without question the Romans don't have ships that are as fast as the vikings,but I would consider the Roman ships better for war than the Viking.The viking didn't fight very many naval battles,but there ships were great for getting troops quickly on land to fight a land battle and make a quick getaway if thing aren't going their way.

Sea battles were rare in northern waters during the period and were fought usually between the Scandinavian nations and were characterised by boarding actions. 'Viking' ships weren't built for a conflict with other naval vessels out at sea.

[Erich Hartmann]

So your tactic is pretty much "umad lol?" Nice.

Whats hilarious is that you think I'm using tactics like were playing chess here.I only call it as I see it,If anyone disagrees that you were way overrating they are more than welcome to step in.

You didn't answer the question.

"The average Scandanavian is in better shape than anyone in this time says who"

I told you who and this was Ibn's response which answers your question directly.

"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"

Now see if any one here on this forum agrees with you about me not answering your question.I didn't think so.

No he pretty much said that the Rus were a bunch of stinking drunk rapists. My point is that you can't use the opinion of someone as fact. Your argument that the Scandinavians were somehow better simply because they were Scandinavian is pretty much racism. You have to make actual points such as tactics, organization, over all strategy. I mean what sort of wealth did the Vikings have in order to mobilize an army?

Nope, I really shouldn't bite.Their morality has nothing to do with their physical body does it? very weak argument.He could have said they were cannibals and ripped open pregnant womens bellies and ate their fetus and how does that relate to their size?Where did I say the Scandinavians were better just because they were Scandinavian?In fact my posts have been pretty balanced and I keep wondering one moment that the Romans would win and the next the Scandinavians will. Wealth" Ironic you mention that since you said that they were raiders that pillaged monasteries.I agree.They were also merchants and Pirates if you will,money wasn't really an issue . Their had large cargo ships called Knarrs that were specifically for trade.It is mentioned though that an average viking would typically have to go on a few raids to afford good weapons and armor

Let me ask you this.Am I a racist If I say that in today's age I believe the average black person is stronger and more athletically built than a white person while an asian is on average smaller in size than a black or a white individual, but smarter? I live in America and black people dominate sports because of their size and their abilities compared to most whites.I only need to look at the NFL and especially the NBA roster to prove my point.

Honestly, I think your here just for the attention and looking to see if you can get a reaction and upset me or another member here with your logic.Ain't going to happen and I'm finished taking your baits.I'm reminded of a saying that someone told me once that made me feel pretty foolish after getting so irate at a troll on an internet forum.He said "Calm down,arguing over the internet is like the special olympics,you may win the argument, but you're still retarded"Soand since I've had forum experience elsewhere, I expect you'll still reply with a boring answer that doesn't compute,tell me I'm still not answering you're question,accuse me of using some "tactic",and tell me you're "superior" arguments won the "debate" because according to you I chickened out and quit.Hey,maybe you'll be original and call me names


Oh I almost forgot,doesn't you're link on post#42http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...96#post8895796
Remind you of thishttp://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...53#post8805553 Sorry goes both ways

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

|Sith|Galvanized Iron, you mentioned the Vikings fighting in a hopilite-style form. I don't know if that's true, but allow me to point out that Rome defeated hopilites.

Not quite, hoplites were gone when the Romans invaded Greece. The Romans defeated the Macedonian Phalanx, the two fighting styles are very dissimiliar.

[Silverheart]

No you won't.

The chance of you actually providing a reputable and noteworthy source for that statement is exactly nil.

Now, that´s a very unnecessary comment...
Don´t look down on me, just because you don´t read history magazines and try to keep up with what´s new in the archaeological world. Everything you know about know history started out as this, a new theory.

@Erich Hartmann
When it comes to Berserks, it is my understanding that they were beginning to get out of use in the Viking age, after being quite common in Scandinavia and northern Germany for a couple of thousand years before that.
With Scandinavians settling many of their tribal wars through Holmgangs, having a real Berserk as your champion was a clear advantage.
But in actual battles, they were better used as scarecrows for the enemy.
Berserks typically fought alone, because there was no guarantee that wouldn´t hurt their own in their rage. While being unrestrained like that made them effective, it also made them vulnerable to large numbers...
They used several methods to get into their legendary rages: The popular theory is that they ate "fly-mushrooms" (as they´re called in swedish) or mixed several kinds of drugs.
Though, I have read that it was more common for them to actively place themselves in rough company, which would cause them to build up irritation and anger. Then, they suppressed the anger, only to release before a battle by standing in a close circle yelling and insulting each other.

The accuraccy of any of these theories is debateable though, with precious little trustable material on the Berserks, so I always keep an open mind when it comes to them.

[wowbanger]

@Carpathian Wolf
Seeing as though earlier you were claiming that Vikings didn't fight in pitched battles and requested the names of some Viking battles, I thought i would provide this link which lists all battles involving Vikings listed in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. There are above 80 battles listed here.

http://www.angelfire.com/mb2/battle_...onbattles.html

[Akrotatos]

Not quite, hoplites were gone when the Romans invaded Greece. The Romans defeated the Macedonian Phalanx, the two fighting styles are very dissimiliar.

Carthage fought with hoplite-like units. Also the Greeks in the battle of Corinth probably used mostly hoplites.


Anyway, a shieldwall or a wedge are not what I would call "advanced tactics". Roman would first throw pilla and then attack and I don't see any non-professional army withstanding that. Nobody did in the ancient world too. As Erebus pointed out 5,000 mail-clad, armed with swords and the best equipment possible men would be difficult to gather, it would propably be half the jarls of all Skandinavia. Most would be levies, ill-trained, ill-disciplined and wth litle encouragement other than looting the dead enemy.

[Akrotatos]

@Carpathian Wolf
Seeing as though earlier you were claiming that Vikings didn't fight in pitched battles and requested the names of some Viking battles, I thought i would provide this link which lists all battles involving Vikings listed in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. There are above 80 battles listed here.

http://www.angelfire.com/mb2/battle_...onbattles.html

Most of these "battles" are skirmishes between a few hundred men.