 | | Speculative History Speculative History Forum - Alternate History, What If Questions, Pseudo History, and anything outside the boundaries of mainstream historical research |
September 29th, 2009, 01:56 PM
|
#1 | | Suspended indefinitely
Joined: Jul 2006 From: UK Posts: 6,114 | Vikings vs Aztecs
The year is 900 AD. Three Viking longships returning from a successful raid on Ireland are blown off course. After weeks of sailing they eventually reach land. They set up camp and begin repairing their ships. One day they are confronted by a lot of strange people wearing feathers and jaguar skins and armed with razor sharp cricket bats. The Vikings, who match the Aztecs numerically, don armor, draw swords and form a shield wall...
Who wins?
| | |
| |
September 29th, 2009, 02:39 PM
|
#2 | | Historian
Joined: Mar 2009 From: Hofheim, Germany Posts: 1,029 | Re: Vikings vs Aztecs
The Aztes have the advantage of home ground and the Vikings would probably collapse from heat exhaustion! | | |
| |
September 29th, 2009, 03:09 PM
|
#3 | | Suspended indefinitely
Joined: Jul 2006 From: UK Posts: 6,114 | Re: Vikings vs Aztecs Quote:
Originally Posted by Fluffybunny The Aztes have the advantage of home ground and the Vikings would probably collapse from heat exhaustion!  | Viking mercenaries did rather well when they fought for the Byzantines.
| | |
| |
September 29th, 2009, 04:35 PM
|
#4 | | Suspended indefinitely
Joined: Jan 2008 From: Chile, Santiago Posts: 2,831 | Re: Vikings vs Aztecs
You should make a difference between Norse and Vikings. The guys that came to the Americas were Norse, common folks, with not that much military training, that had quite a lot of problems with the locals... They hardly would have defeated Aztecs. Now, if the same Vikings that were fighting in Europe had moved to the Americas things may have been different.
May, because Spanish success was based on diplomacy as much as military power. These Norse would need a guy equivalent to Cortes, with his same political skills, to have a chance to succeed.
| | |
| |
September 29th, 2009, 05:37 PM
|
#5 | | Lecturer
Joined: Sep 2009 From: United States Posts: 276 | Re: Vikings vs Aztecs
The Vikings were common folk too, pinguin. Norse farmers and the like who went on a raid. So really, the people who came to the Americas were vikings.
The vikings would win, hands down.
The Aztecs had little armor and the weapon tech was just not as adavanced though that itsn't to say that the Macuahuitl wasn't a fearsome weapon. I just think that the Norse would of been better equiped with their steel swords, leather or chain armor, sheilds, and not to forget the somewhat fabled viking axe! All agaisnt the unarmored, less technologicaly advance Aztecs.
The Aztecs would probably win if there was an all out war, vikings would be too far away to come immediatly for reinforcements, but in just one pitched battle I would give it to the vikings hands down.
| | |
| |
September 29th, 2009, 05:49 PM
|
#6 | | Suspended indefinitely
Joined: Jun 2009 From: Loudonville, NY, and soon: St. Petersburg, RF Posts: 3,106 | Re: Vikings vs Aztecs
I'd love to see an aztec with wooden and rock tools fight a viking with metal armor, axe, sword, helmet, and reach advantage, and height advantage. Pretty sure it would be a slaughter, and the vikings would win, but you never know...the underdog has won before.
| | |
| |
September 29th, 2009, 05:51 PM
|
#7 | | Suspended indefinitely
Joined: Jan 2008 From: Chile, Santiago Posts: 2,831 | Re: Vikings vs Aztecs
Vikings had a change in Greenland and Newfoundland, and they ended up with arrows in theirs asses.
| | |
| |
September 29th, 2009, 05:53 PM
|
#8 | | Suspended indefinitely
Joined: Jun 2009 From: Loudonville, NY, and soon: St. Petersburg, RF Posts: 3,106 | Re: Vikings vs Aztecs
that was a small expedition of like 15 vikings, hardly constitutes a defeat.
| | |
| |
September 29th, 2009, 05:56 PM
|
#9 | | Suspended indefinitely
Joined: Jun 2009 From: Loudonville, NY, and soon: St. Petersburg, RF Posts: 3,106 | Re: Vikings vs Aztecs
That is like saying the Natives beat the Spanish because Columbus didn't conquer them with his crew of less than 500 men...it's an absurd notion.
| | |
| |
September 29th, 2009, 06:06 PM
|
#10 | | Suspended indefinitely
Joined: Jan 2008 From: Chile, Santiago Posts: 2,831 | Re: Vikings vs Aztecs Quote:
Originally Posted by Wobomagonda that was a small expedition of like 15 vikings, hardly constitutes a defeat. | Curious. I never knew that only 15 Norse conquered Greenland...
The simply fact is that Norse failed were Inuits and Amerindians succeed.
| | |
| | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.
|  |