Romans v Vikings - Page 5 - Historum

**okamido** · April 6th, 2010, 03:57 PM

One on one, I am of the same opinion as Rasta. Armies meet in a pitched battle, I will give the push to the Roman.

Perhaps for a one on one it should be a Gladiator, who is more trained in that scenario, rather than a Legionary.

**Chookie** · April 7th, 2010, 11:37 AM

One on one - the Viking.
Pitched battle with equal numbers the Vikings would probably take it.

**Rasta** · April 7th, 2010, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by okamido

One on one, I am of the same opinion as Rasta. Armies meet in a pitched battle, I will give the push to the Roman.

Perhaps for a one on one it should be a Gladiator, who is more trained in that scenario, rather than a Legionary.

Yes. How many Legions did Spartacus tear through before getting cut off? 3 or 4?

**Labienus** · April 7th, 2010, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rasta

Yes. How many Legions did Spartacus tear through before getting cut off? 3 or 4?

they were lead by incompetents. Spartacus, on the other hand, was a quite competent leader.

Volkov · April 11th, 2010, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Komroden

Discipline wins over brute force and numbers almost 9 out of 10 times, i read once, The vikings where brutal and vicious, feared warriors, but the Romans where trained killing machines who took orders, and formations. The romans would Thrash the vikings sadly to say in my opinion. unless, is there specifics for where this battle is being held?

Another man once said, there are three kinds of lies, lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Any way, Who is leading the Vikings? Because if it's Ragnar, the Romans could be in deep trouble if this is your average general.

berserknurple · April 26th, 2010, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belisarius

Ohh all right, just to clear a few misconceptions about Vikings:

The nucleus of a Scandinavian army would be composed of the Hird. Hirdmen or Thingmen were paid retainers who swore allegiance to a King or Jarl and were maintained by him as a permanent professional military force. The Danish fortified camps of Trellborg, Aggersborg, Fyrkat and Nonnebakken, for example, could house a standing army of about 6,000. These troops were kept under strict discipline with regulated codes of conduct and military courts.

The Hird, along with mercenaries and hired “pirates” provided the personnel for most Viking raids. This dispels the misconception that Vikings were all undisciplined barbarians.

A ‘national’ army on the other hand was based on the Leidang, a ship levy. The coastal areas were divided up into shipredes, each providing a number of warships crewed from the Lides (a farm or group of farms) who were each required to provide a man over the age of 18 along with his equipment. Norway’s Leidang in the mid 10th century gives an estimated ‘national’ army of around 27,000 men.

Vikings fought primarily on foot although Viking cavalry did exist, for example, at Sulcoit in 968CE, and in Danish campaigns against the Wends in the late 11th century. Horses were widely used to mount infantry, giving raiders the mobility to conduct cross country raids.

In battle Vikings formed a shield wall, normally one huge phalanx at least 5 men deep but they had sufficient tactical sophistication to deploy in several divisions on occasion as at Ashdown and Meretun in 871CE, Corbridge in 918, where one of 4 such divisions was held in reserve in a concealed position, and Clontarf in 1017. The basic tactic was a steady disciplined advance to contact, charging at the last moment to maximise impact under a hail of spears, javelins and/or axes to try to disorder or break up the opponents’ formation. Archers and slingers would cover the advance of the shield wall and provide overhead fire during the combat.

A favourite tactic was the svynfylking, basically a wedge shaped formation designed to penetrate and disrupt an opposing formation. Usually following on the heels of a Berserker attack. This comprised Axe or Swordsmen in the first rank, then spearmen/halbardiers (yes, Vikings used cut and thrust polearms before almost anyone else in Europe) and archers. A favourite trick would be for the “halbardier” to hook the shield and pull it aside to let the axe/swordsman get a clean strike at the enemy.

Archery was widely practiced by the Vikings and Robert Hardy, in his “Social and Military History of the Longbow”, credits the Vikings with introducing the weapon into Britain. Viking Longbows that have been found are estimated to have had draw strengths of 100 pounds, performance not too far off that of the medieval weapon, and easily capable of piercing a lorica segmentata or scutum.

As regards armour, almost all the Hird would have worn mail or lamellar armour. Cured reindeer hide is mentioned in the sagas as being arrow proof and capable of deflecting sword/spear thrusts and this would be worn by the Leidang along with other forms of reinforced leather or cloth.

Vikings didn’t like cavalry but were capable of defeating heavily armoured knights, so Roman auxiliary cavalry wouldn’t be too much of a problem.

So a Roman Viking fight may not be as one sided as some people imagine.

This. Also, Vikings had iron and steel, while if I remember correctly the Romans were still in the bronze age. One on one, The Viking would definitely win, and army on army it all depends. If it's a surprise attack (like the Vikings were famous for) I definitely hand it to them, and even in a perfect battle situation I think it would be close.

**Naomasa298** · April 26th, 2010, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by berserknurple

This. Also, Vikings had iron and steel, while if I remember correctly the Romans were still in the bronze age. One on one, The Viking would definitely win, and army on army it all depends. If it's a surprise attack (like the Vikings were famous for) I definitely hand it to them, and even in a perfect battle situation I think it would be close.

The Romans did indeed have iron, even near the beginning of the Republic. Not so sure about steel though.

berserknurple · April 26th, 2010, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Naomasa298

The Romans did indeed have iron, even near the beginning of the Republic. Not so sure about steel though.

Thanks! I wasn't too sure but because we were talking 1st century Romans I leaned towards them not having iron. =]

Himanil · June 10th, 2010, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Komroden

Well, an allmighty charge with Viking berserkers weilding danish axes, and spears might break the roman lines and scatter them an then the Huscarls and viking regulars could move in to pick them off and it would all be over, this of course if it was like 500 vs 500 on a league of 10,000 ferocity might overwhelm endurance.

Whilst no sweeping and conclusive statements can be made regarding the battles the place where sweeping statements can be made is in leadership and strategy. One proper Roman general is any day worth a thousand Viking ones (that is if they had any). One can bet on the Romans to never give the Vikings a fight in a situation where they'd be put at any sort of disadvantage.

Himanil · June 10th, 2010, 05:36 AM

Whilst I'm inclined to say so that not many here will contest against the staement that Roman leadership was far superior to the Vikings (both at the strategic and the tactical level). Viking policy of leading up front and risking one's own isn't the smartest move possible seeing that Romans aren't just one of the ramshackle forces that the Vikings usually faced. What I'd like to see is if anyone here disputes the superiority of Roman equipment over their Viking counterparts.

As for numbers, there is no contest. The Romans would if teh situation so demanded easily deploy legions in numbers that would far outnumber the Vikings. Not standard policy to send too many legions marching around under a general's command I gather, nevertheless the point is clear that the Romans could levy far more soldiers than Vikings.

As for training there is no contest ever between them. With the possible exception of Thingmen who could perhaps macth Roman superioirty in terms of training I see little else as to who could stand up to the Romans.

So what we have is -

1.) Equipment (Romans)
2.) Training (Romans)
3.) Numbers (Romans)
4.) Leadership (Romans)

Far too one sided this would appear to many I'd guess, so I would ike to see people contest this.