Rome VS. Vikings

[rrgg]

The battle is between equal numbers of men. It is not based on location.

The problem is that how well equipped and how well trained the men are is going to be determined by how much financial backing they have. If you were to raise a 1000 man army from a single Viking village then relatively few of them will be able to afford any sort of decent armor or equipment, but if you were to take the top 1000 warriors from everywhere in an entire kingdom then they'd probably all be armed head to toe in weapons and mail.

[Tiwaz]

The problem is that how well equipped and how well trained the men are is going to be determined by how much financial backing they have. If you were to raise a 1000 man army from a single Viking village then relatively few of them will be able to afford any sort of decent armor or equipment, but if you were to take the top 1000 warriors from everywhere in an entire kingdom then they'd probably all be armed head to toe in weapons and mail.

Which is why goal is to figure out what is usual makeup of viking force of certain size. There were armies of whom could be called vikings, perhaps bit small, but assuming same makeup we can increase the size to sufficient level. 10 nobles becomes 100 or 1000, but their portion of whole army remains same.

This is most accurate way to compare two forces in cases like this.

[Carpathian Wolf]

The problem is the idea of what would be a 'fair' comparison, if you have a single viking kingdom against the wealth and manpower of the entire Roman then yes the engagement would be pretty one sided. Although, if it were the viking kingdoms against a Roman province of similar size and population then it's going to be completely different result. The vikings are likely going to be able to call upon more huscarls and more heavy infantry then that province can afford in legionaries simply due to having an extra 8 centuries of technological and economic advancement.

We are speaking of an average Roman army and an average Viking army. Not all the Legions vs all the Vikings at any one instance. Just one army and on average what it would have vs another one of similar kind.

[rrgg]

Which is why goal is to figure out what is usual makeup of viking force of certain size. There were armies of whom could be called vikings, perhaps bit small, but assuming same makeup we can increase the size to sufficient level. 10 nobles becomes 100 or 1000, but their portion of whole army remains same.

This is most accurate way to compare two forces in cases like this.

That's the problem, the proportion doesn't stay the same.

Let's take a hypothetical dark age kingdom for a moment (Not based on any real statistics, just an example). We'll say that amongst the king and his various vassals there are about 3000 professional huscarls and mercenaries, but there are also about 50,000 military age freemen living in the kingdom, the law of course requires that all property owning citizens own weapons and serve in the military when required but only about 10% or so can afford really good armor and equipment. Although the King is going to avoid drafting freemen willy nilly because a. most of them don't have good equipment and won't make a major impact in combat and b. because that's pretty much his entire male population if large numbers of them are killed in battle he's going to have a serious problem.

As a result, any instance where the king needs an army of less than 3,000 men it's generally going to be composed almost entirely of professionals, men whose entire purpose is to fight wars, on campaigns this is generally going to compose the main component of an army probably accompanied by as many volunteers and mercenaries that can be found.
If the Kingdom is facing a larger threat he and needs more men, we'll say 6,000, then he won't be able to rely entirely on his professional troops and start drafting freemen but he doesn't just pick them out at random. The poorer troops as I said aren't going to be nearly as effective, so instead he collects the strongest and best-armed fighters from each village. So now you have an army that is composed of about 3000 professional troops as well as 3000 well armed levies. It's only when the king gravely needs even more troops that he starts calling upon the lower classes to bolster the ranks.
So this is basically what we see the feudal system built on, it more or less starts to center around those who can afford good equipment and warfare becomes based on how many 'strong men' a king can gather.


If we compare this to the post-Marian Roman system then the the Legionaries would actually be a lot more similar to the professional huscarls, the main difference is that they are a lot more numerous due to being backed up by the taxes of a 50-60 million people allowing them to become a larger focus (there weren't many threats that couldn't be dealt with via 80,000 or less legionaries, although even then mercenaries and auxiliaries saw quite a bit of use).



One last historical example for comparison with medieval forces, the Gauls. In Gallic warfare armor was far less common and far fewer people could afford it so it didn't play a very big role in battle (if you could afford a shield and a weapon, you were among the strongest warriors in an army). Thus when Julius Caesar arrives we see Gallic tribes raising massive armies of more than 100,000 men strong, literally just about every fit male in a tribe (but they wind up being no match for Caesar's legions because they are poorly equipped by comparison). You never see anything even close to that in medieval times despite much larger populations and better economies, this is because warfare becomes delegated almost entirely to the small proportion of society who can actually afford good armor and weapons.

[Tiwaz]

That's the problem, the proportion doesn't stay the same.

Yes it does when we simply expand army of force which mostly operated in smaller groups and then turn it sufficiently large to make proper comparison.


You take the common makeup of "average" viking army and expand it until it meets on numerically equal grounds the legion.

Like said, if average viking army has 100 huscarls and 900 whatevers, then we simply multiply by 5 both numbers to compare them against 5000 legionaries.

Comparison is on abstract level where different sizes of economies are ignored in preference to compare pure military capability of formations.

[rrgg]

Yes it does when we simply expand army of force which mostly operated in smaller groups and then turn it sufficiently large to make proper comparison.


You take the common makeup of "average" viking army and expand it until it meets on numerically equal grounds the legion.

Like said, if average viking army has 100 huscarls and 900 whatevers, then we simply multiply by 5 both numbers to compare them against 5000 legionaries.

Comparison is on abstract level where different sizes of economies are ignored in preference to compare pure military capability of formations.

There is no "average" viking army. The composition varied greatly depending the available manpower, money, and the size of the conflict.

In my opinion the most appropriate comparison would be 5000 legionaries against 5000 huscarls (small professional elite vs small professional elite, perhaps you could add in auxiliaries and land-owning volunteers/mercenaries respectively). However if that was the case then the huscarls would probably win.

[Vezon]

There is no "average" viking army. It varied greatly depending the available manpower and the size of the conflict.

In my opinion the most appropriate comparison would be 5000 legionaries against 5000 huscarls (small professional elite vs small professional elite, perhaps you could add in auxiliaries and land-owning volunteers/mercenaries respectively). However if that was the case then the huscarls would probably win.

Why don't you take an actual viking army, like the one that invaded England before the Battle of Hastings, or some other invasion? Use that for proportion, if you want. But it will be unique too.

[rrgg]

Why don't you take an actual viking army, like the one that invaded England before the Battle of Hastings, or some other invasion? Use that for proportion, if you want. But it will be unique too.

An invasion army like that would probably be primarily huscarls and mercenaries along with a number of loot-eager volunteers.


How about 2000 huscarls, 2000 mercenaries, and 2000 freemen of varying armament and experience vs. 3000 legionaries and 3000 auxiliaries?

[Vezon]

Sounds ok.

[muller227]

Whose leading the Romans? Crassus who will draw up his forces the way the book says even though its against larger stronger, equally armed men. Or Caesar, who will meet them with slingers at landing show them his Legionairres, who then retreat, oops we forgot the booze. Darn those barbarians are drinking it, hey looks like their a little wobbly, OK now we kill them.

[Vezon]

I think a textbook style of Romans would be best, as there is no way to tell what someone would do outside of it.

[Erich Hartmann]

The problem with this debate is we need more detailed descriptions of how Viking armies fought full on battles in the Viking High age.I think we can all agree to use Huscarls as the main Viking army,but it would be nice to to be able to read detailed depictions of them fighting on the battlefield.I think the period starting when Cnute the Great took power would be the ideal period. I'm looking at Google books and almost everything is written in the late 19th or early 20th century.I would rather look at modern books for reference. Sometimes the older books just look at primary,and secondary accounts from the middle ages without having a more critical and discerning eye .That's why I'm looking for more modern scholarship.I guess I can go to the library or the bookstore to see if they have any cheap books,but looking at the few books on Canute I'm finding on Amazon,I'm finding that they run a pretty penny.

I'd love to get my hands on this book by Timothy Bolton.Unfortunately its $173.00. Where's the drool smilie when you need it hehe.


http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Cnut-Gr...7734092&sr=8-5

[Turtle Hammer]

I'd probably lean towards a Roman victory. While more advanced in weapons and tactics, in some ways the Vikings still fought like "barbarians", so to speak. They did form shield walls, and they did throw spears and axes before closing in with long swords... but they also placed a great deal of value upon personal valour and individual combat. This is almost the opposite of how a legionary opperates, fighting as part of a cohesive unit, and rotating soldiers from the front to the back so there's always somebody "fresh" up front, to my knowledge no other army did this. The Romans, inspite of being smaller, would still have plenty of stamina, if not the brute strength of the vikings, and in a hand to hand head on clash I'd expect them to win. Then again, we'd have expected them to win at Cannae too...

If the Romans were caught in a forest, I think it'd be all "Varus, give me back my legions!" yet again. This would favour the viking style of fighting, and they would benefit from the confusion and broken terrain.

But, if Vikings and Romans were to clash, I think it'd most likely be Roman farmers and border auxileries facing hardened raiders. Rowing up rivers in longboats, raiding, burning, stealing, then getting out again before a real legion even knows they've been visiting. If Rome were ever to encounter vikings in a realistic scenario, this would be it. And I have my doubts that Romans would ever catch them at sea due to the vikings superior navigational skills and seamanship. It'd be aproblem that could only be solved with a long, expensive expedition North, in which the logistics of it and the harsh climate would likely do as much to defeat Roman efforts as the Vikings could. Although I suppose another option would be to hire other vikings, as they often did with problematic barbarians. Viking auxileries would be a far better antidote to constant raiding. I imagine it wouldn't be that dissimilar to the Varangian guard, or the way Sarmatian auxlieries were used to plug the cavalry deficiency the Romans had. Eventually, Rome tended to assimilate any method of warfare it found problematic to face. Heavy cavalry, horse archers etc.

[General Brittanicus]

Well I would have thought a Viking army in a pitched battle would have relied heavily on some form of shield wall. A few volleys of the legionary pila would cause a good number of casualties/shields to become useless and make it more difficult to form a shield wall, thus making it easier to kill the vikings. And if they didnt form some kind of line/ shield wall, they would just be charging wildly at the romans and they would just be cut down. I think i will go for a Roman victory given the choice.

[Vezon]

I'd probably lean towards a Roman victory. While more advanced in weapons and tactics, in some ways the Vikings still fought like "barbarians", so to speak. They did form shield walls, and they did throw spears and axes before closing in with long swords... but they also placed a great deal of value upon personal valour and individual combat. This is almost the opposite of how a legionary opperates, fighting as part of a cohesive unit, and rotating soldiers from the front to the back so there's always somebody "fresh" up front, to my knowledge no other army did this. The Romans, inspite of being smaller, would still have plenty of stamina, if not the brute strength of the vikings, and in a hand to hand head on clash I'd expect them to win. Then again, we'd have expected them to win at Cannae too...

If the Romans were caught in a forest, I think it'd be all "Varus, give me back my legions!" yet again. This would favour the viking style of fighting, and they would benefit from the confusion and broken terrain.

But, if Vikings and Romans were to clash, I think it'd most likely be Roman farmers and border auxileries facing hardened raiders. Rowing up rivers in longboats, raiding, burning, stealing, then getting out again before a real legion even knows they've been visiting. If Rome were ever to encounter vikings in a realistic scenario, this would be it. And I have my doubts that Romans would ever catch them at sea due to the vikings superior navigational skills and seamanship. It'd be aproblem that could only be solved with a long, expensive expedition North, in which the logistics of it and the harsh climate would likely do as much to defeat Roman efforts as the Vikings could. Although I suppose another option would be to hire other vikings, as they often did with problematic barbarians. Viking auxileries would be a far better antidote to constant raiding. I imagine it wouldn't be that dissimilar to the Varangian guard, or the way Sarmatian auxlieries were used to plug the cavalry deficiency the Romans had. Eventually, Rome tended to assimilate any method of warfare it found problematic to face. Heavy cavalry, horse archers etc.

We're not talking about real life. We're talking about an unrealistic face off, comparing weapons, armour, tactics, skill, etc. Raiders always had sucess against the Roman Empire...until they were in there deep. A Roman legion could quickly march towards any raid. And Viking raids weren't big enough to present a good sample. Of course they would win. They aren't attacking the main forces. We are not having Roman Empire vs. Scandanavia, just 1 land battle and 1 sea battle with even numbers.

[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!!!