Romans v Vikings

Viking vs. Legionary

  • Legionary wins

    Votes: 48 68.6%
  • Viking wins

    Votes: 22 31.4%

  • Total voters
    70
Status
Archived
Joined Jul 2006
6,111 Posts | 7+
UK
Last edited:
Both had advanced equipment and were the most feared warriors of their time.
Vikings: chainmail and helmet, Dane Axe, long sword, round shield
Romans: Lorica Segmentata armor and helmet, pilum, gladius, scutum shield
Who would win if they met in battle?
 
Joined May 2008
68 Posts | 0+
Honolulu, Hawaii
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?
 
Joined May 2008
4 Posts | 0+
Yorkshire
It is my belief that if a battle was fought between ten thousand Romans and ten thousand Vikings on an open grassy plain then the Romans really wouldnt have much trouble with defeating the Vikings. It would be a fight that would require massive amounts of endurance and that is what the Romans had plenty of.
 
Joined May 2008
68 Posts | 0+
Honolulu, Hawaii
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.
 
Joined May 2008
4 Posts | 0+
Yorkshire
The Vikings as far as I am aware fought in a Shield Wall type of formation. This may have been the best way at the time to get large amounts of people into a battle but I do not believe it would have been able to stand against the abilities of a a Roman army.

In my mind this is how the battle would go on an open plain. Both armies would form up, the Romans would stand their ground as the Vikings advanced on their location. The Vikings would have the initial advantage being both physically bigger and wielding axes as well as other quite formidable weapons.

Once both of the front lines were fully engaged the advantage would swing to the Romans using their short swords. To use a weapon like an axe or anything as substantial as that required a lot of room, the short sword that the Romans used on the other hand was a lot more effective in the sort of fight I believe such a battle would turn into.


Add in the damage caused to the Viking line by the Pilum and the ability to throw fresh reserves into the battle would in my mind throw the battle quite heavily into the Romans favour.
 
Joined May 2008
68 Posts | 0+
Honolulu, Hawaii
Well Vikings actually used shortswords alot of the time. The danish axe, or hand axe would actually have an advantage over some roman weapons because its not really blockable, and it can parry a gladius easily. The viking shortsword would match the roman gladius, then brute strength would come in, and I'm pretty sure that we know who has the upper hand there. Vikings used some tactics as well, they would have a calvary line off to the side with the cheiftans best huscarls then when the romans would break off fromt he viking charge to regroup they would swoop in and crush them.
 
Joined Feb 2008
43 Posts | 0+
I think the Romans would Thrash (note the capital 't') too.

Vikings were strong raiders against disorganised, tactically poor medieval kingdom armies. They were opportunists looking for easy spoils.

The Romans had one of the largest empires on earth in their time, and had conquered almost every square inch of it by force. They were empire builders.

I don't even put them in the same league.
 
Joined Apr 2008
35 Posts | 0+
Belgium
Harald Hardrada is estimated to have brought an army of 7,500 to the battle of Stamford Bridge, and that was an army intended to conquer a kingdom. Yet is was considerably smaller than one late-Republic or early-Empire legion with its auxiliaries. Thanks to their superior organization and logistics, the Romans would probably always enter the battlefield with a numerical advantage.

On the battlefield, Roman professionalism would probably have been decisive. Man for man the Vikings may have been about equal, but a Roman commander would have had far more control. That means far more ability to move units around once the fighting has started, and to commit reserves at the critical point and the critical time. The Romans were also organized as a well-rounded force with heavy infantry, light infantry, cavalry, artillery, and engineers, which gave them an important advantage in their flexibility.

In reality, if 1st century Romans and 10th century Vikings had co-existed, then pitched battles would have been unlikely. The real problem for the Romans would have been small raids along the coastline, and this would have been an interesting naval problem. The Viking longship was considerably smaller than a trireme or liburnian , and not designed to actually fight at sea. On the other hand, the longship could be used for long-distance blue-water sailing, and a Roman galley could not -- even if it didn't perish in the first storm, the crew would die of thirst.
 
Joined May 2008
68 Posts | 0+
Honolulu, Hawaii
Vikings had logistics to xD. Ok first what would be the romans first line of defence?
 
Joined May 2008
177 Posts | 0+
Slovakia
In reality, if 1st century Romans and 10th century Vikings had co-existed, then pitched battles would have been unlikely. The real problem for the Romans would have been small raids along the coastline, and this would have been an interesting naval problem. The Viking longship was considerably smaller than a trireme or liburnian , and not designed to actually fight at sea. On the other hand, the longship could be used for long-distance blue-water sailing, and a Roman galley could not -- even if it didn't perish in the first storm, the crew would die of thirst.

Yup. That's a good point. A battle is just a battle...a war is something different.
 
Joined Oct 2007
366 Posts | 0+
Southern Vermont
The Vikings, generally, avoided pitched battles. As Emmanuel said, they would have been a naval problem. Whether they would prove to be anything more than a nuisance is debateable.
 
Joined Jan 2008
19,014 Posts | 433+
N/A
Since the Roman legions were basically NEVER defeated in the perfect conditions (an open plain with the lines drawn up and prepared etc) Id say Romans regardless of the Viking 'ferocity'. Im also not convicned a charge from the Viking would be able to break a roman line either.... especially after being pelted with pilums.
 
Joined Aug 2009
81 Posts | 0+
The minds of the Admins
Well let's see (assuming this is 1st century AD Legionaries VS 10the Century vikings)

Romans 5, 8 - 6 feet

Vikings about the same (maybe bigger)

The Romans were trained in boxing, wrestling, grapping, their diet was desinged to build strength, they were trained in things like obstacle jumping, survival, running in full kit for long periods of time, weight lifting, ect.

Vikings were trained in wrestling and grappling and such, did weight lifting stuff but it was like a competition.

Formations:

Romans: Anti-Cavalry, Anti-Missile troop, and anti-infantry formations.

They used Cavalry and Missile Troops and Field Artillery in support as well as light Ballistae that were used as sniper weapons.

Gear: Romans (Besides the pack anyhow) would wear either Maille or a Lorica Laminata, a Helm, Carry a Scutum, Gladius, Pugio, and Pilae. If they're From Trajans time they would also wear Manicae and Greaves

Auxilaries had the same gear except their armour was primarily maille and they carried a spear instead of Pilae

They had an excellent command system/staff

Vikings:

The wealthiest wore maille and a helm, would carry axes (the wealthiest would swords) and a shield and spear. (Remember what the Romans did to spearmen)

They also used archers although not too that great an extent

They have no Cavalry to speak off

The two forces square off

The Romans open fire, the Ballistae punch holes in the enemy formation and the 'snipers' take out Viking leaders while the Vikings are reeling from this the Romans advance under cover fire and loose their Pilums, they then close with the enemy and pinning the Vikings and engage in a viscous hand to hand fighting. Meanwhile the Alae (Roman Cavalry, equipped like the Auxilaries) which have spent the harrassing the Vikings and drawing them out charge into the flanks of the Viking troops. One unit of Alae circles around and after driving off the Viking archers hit the Vikings in the rear.

The Viking army is destroyed and the new Language of Scandinavia is Latin.
 
Joined May 2009
710 Posts | 6+
New Jersey
That was a great post Kharn. I could picture the fight :). The Roman war machine sure was amazing. The only thing wrong with it is that I think Romans were 5'5 and the vikings 5'7-5'8, but the outcome would still be the same.
 
Joined Jun 2008
1,966 Posts | 0+
India
It is a cold dark morning, one that forewarns of that death and bloodshed. Lines upon lines of extremely well equipped battle scarred Roman troops in textbook formations advance forward under the command of their seasoned veteran commanders.

The Vikings hastily form up for battle in their regular disorganized manner with pretty much no uniform central command authority making great noises, jeering all the time. Their haphazardly formed battle lines and sick sense of clothing doesn't help either:D .

Keep in mind that the Viking mentality was one of adventuresome and a get rich quickly philosophy whereas the immaculately trained and extremely well led Romans are a totally professional war machine whose soldiers are amongst the most elite and battle tested in the world. The Vikings had to have pretty much no qualifications to battle except for being aged generally between 18 to 50 and being physically strong.

The Viking hordes charge with their trademark ferocity under the cover of their archers who along with their meagre guard are getting destroyed by Roman onagers and eventually get driven away by the the small Roman cavalry units supported by auxiliary units.

The poorly armoured frontline Vikings in the meantime are being peppered by Roman archer/slinger fire and getting holes punched in them by the trebuchets with take down tactically important figures. By the time they get close enough the Romans devastate them with their pilas opening very wide gaps at operationally important vulnerable areas. As the Vikings smash into the centre of th Roman line, the Romans partly by force of Viking vivaciousness and partly by their own plans retreat from the centre at a moderate pace. In the meantime the Romans have all their artillery concentrate on the flanks where the puny Roman archer/slinger force is concentrating their fire in co-ordination with the best cohorts who through achieving local superiority of numbers overwhelm their opponents and utterly destroy them.

That done, the Romans throw in their reserves at the centre to halt the Viking advance dead in it's tracks which will have inflicted massive losses by then but will have been unable to break through thanks to Roman discipline and superior equipment which would act as force multipliers. The other cohorts which hadn't been pushed back and had defeated their enemies roll around and outflank the Vikings even as they leave a small space open for them to escape who will eventually be slaughtered by the cavalry units.

The end. Romans win.
 
Joined Jan 2008
19,014 Posts | 433+
N/A
It is a cold dark morning, one that forewarns of that death and bloodshed. Lines upon lines of extremely well equipped battle scarred Roman troops in textbook formations advance forward under the command of their seasoned veteran commanders.

The Vikings hastily form up for battle in their regular disorganized manner with pretty much no uniform central command authority making great noises, jeering all the time. Their haphazardly formed battle lines and sick sense of clothing doesn't help either:D .

Keep in mind that the Viking mentality was one of adventuresome and a get rich quickly philosophy whereas the immaculately trained and extremely well led Romans are a totally professional war machine whose soldiers are amongst the most elite and battle tested in the world. The Vikings had to have pretty much no qualifications to battle except for being aged generally between 18 to 50 and being physically strong.

The Viking hordes charge with their trademark ferocity under the cover of their archers who along with their meagre guard are getting destroyed by Roman onagers and eventually get driven away by the the small Roman cavalry units supported by auxiliary units.

The poorly armoured frontline Vikings in the meantime are being peppered by Roman archer/slinger fire and getting holes punched in them by the trebuchets with take down tactically important figures. By the time they get close enough the Romans devastate them with their pilas opening very wide gaps at operationally important vulnerable areas. As the Vikings smash into the centre of th Roman line, the Romans partly by force of Viking vivaciousness and partly by their own plans retreat from the centre at a moderate pace. In the meantime the Romans have all their artillery concentrate on the flanks where the puny Roman archer/slinger force is concentrating their fire in co-ordination with the best cohorts who through achieving local superiority of numbers overwhelm their opponents and utterly destroy them.

That done, the Romans throw in their reserves at the centre to halt the Viking advance dead in it's tracks which will have inflicted massive losses by then but will have been unable to break through thanks to Roman discipline and superior equipment which would act as force multipliers. The other cohorts which hadn't been pushed back and had defeated their enemies roll around and outflank the Vikings even as they leave a small space open for them to escape who will eventually be slaughtered by the cavalry units.

The end. Romans win.

No real surprise there.
 
Status
Archived

Trending History Discussions

Top