Quite possibly. However, not sure I'd be able to necessarily accept any Viking myths or sagas as true/based on fact without a bit more evidence. Just as I'm not able to accept Beowulf as history, although I suspect there's perhaps a kernel of truth somewhere.
Were the Vikings actually great fighters?
- Thread starter Girgisjus
- Start date
Last edited:
Multi-skilled to an extent, perhaps, but you can't expect any farmer or warrior to have the same skill level as a professional ships carpenter or navigator, any more than you could expect the latter to have the same combat skills as a professional fighter. The sorts of jobs I described were, at least in later eras of seafaring, the kind of thing that you started apprenticing at from a young age and focused most of your time on learning, in order to become a specialist who could do their work as efficiently as possible, the same way that professional fighters focused most of their energy on learning how to kill people. I imagine even an early-medieval culture like the Norse/Vikings would have needed at least a few professional craftsmen around.
Would it have been wise to risk your most skilled crewmen in battle and run the risk of them being killed and unable to render their services for the rest of the voyage? What if Sven the ships carpenter had his head lopped off while fighting ashore, who was going to keep the vessel seaworthy for the return trip? Also, when vikings made landfall, did they not leave someone behind to guard their longship while the rest went off pillaging? I can't imagine it would be a smart move to leave your only means of transport completely unguarded in hostile territory.
Joined Aug 2014
10,465 Posts | 4,802+
Australia
Last edited:
To these people, the only risk is not dying properly. If they needed a craftsman, they would just raid a village and take one or buy one from a slaver.
Last edited:
That's a very simplistic and stereotypical view of the Norse. You've been watching too much netflix mate
Not everyone from Scandinavia in that period was a berserker. They would have had their own native craftsmen too.
Joined Aug 2014
10,465 Posts | 4,802+
Australia
What does that have to do with being on campaign? If they needed a craftsman while viking, they would take one or buy one. Slaves were one of the most highly-traded commodities.That's a very simplistic and stereotypical view of the Norse. You've been watching too much netflix mate
Do you have any evidence to support that claim? Seems to me it would make more sense, when setting out on a raid, to bring one of your own people who had the craftsman-like skills. In this way not only would you have someone available to keep the vessel in working order before you reached your target and had the opportunity to capture a slave, but you'd also have someone who could lend a hand in the fighting in-extremis, something which a slave wouldn't be as likely to do.
Joined Aug 2014
10,465 Posts | 4,802+
Australia
Yes you would bring a craftsman. He would be a fighter like everyone ese. If he died, they would take or buy another one.
That seems to be banking on the assumption that every place you raided would have someone available for capture who'd know how to mend and maintain boats. I doubt every English monastery was full of ships carpenters who could replace your own dead craftsman for the voyage home...
Even if you were raiding a coastal village that did have a local with the necessary skills, what if that local was killed or fled before you managed to capture him? You'd be out of luck unless you still had one of your own alive who could do that job. Better hope nothing bad happens to your vessel on the trip home...
Joined Apr 2010
50,502 Posts | 11,794+
Awesome
Joined Jan 2012
1,190 Posts | 453+
South Midlands in Merlin's Isle of Gramarye
Seriously?
Under Shaka Zulu or a bit later, if they could fight on their own terms*** the Zulu would obliterate the Vikings. If only by force of numbers.
***using their 'buffalo head' formation, in the open, they would encircle and wipe out the Vikings.
Joined Aug 2014
10,465 Posts | 4,802+
Australia
That tactic only worked because Shaka outnumbered his opponents. To work against similar numbers you'd need a more sophisticated variant such as the one that Hannibal used at Cannae
Joined Jan 2015
4,856 Posts | 2,895+
MD, USA
I'm not sure what the concern is. If the ship is in such poor condition that only a skilled boatwright can keep it afloat for a few days until we all get home, you shouldn't be using that boat anyway. If it's sound enough to get you to your target, you can get home in it without a trained carpenter. Any leak you spring at sea, or broken spar or whatever, is going to be hastily patched with materials on hand in any case, and anyone who has been on a boat more than a once or twice will be familiar with those procedures. If *no one* knows how to get a ship home, that's called "suicide". It's literally a ship of fools who will probably all die at sea anyway.
Yes, skilled men risked their lives in battle, that was just part of life. And "professional soldiers" really didn't have a lot of military training beyond the standard militia muster, anyway, as far as we can tell. Sure, they probably spent a little more time at weapon practice, but it wasn't like comparing a modern couch potato to a Ranger or Navy SEAL. They were mostly just guys who were more inclined to fight than other folks, and were getting paid to be ready to do it.
But again, if your whole raid depends on men who are too skilled to risk in "combat" against those unarmed monks, you've probably already lost. Not every raid succeeds! Sometimes raiders get killed and their buddies run away. If it weren't dangerous, everyone would be doing it, eh?
Matthew
Just so. That's why I wrote "if they could fight on their own terms" .That meant outnumbering their enemy. Even then it didn't work at Rorke's Drift in 1879. The Zulus numbered between 3000-4000, the Brits had 150. The Brits had two advantages; they were fighting from an entrenched position. They also had the breech loading Martini-Henry rifle. I can't claim the Brits were more disciplined than the Zulus under King Ceteswayo, because I don't think they were.
Viking raiders tended to number between 30-100 fighters. That number, with a few berserkers against an equal number of Zulus armed with spears and assegais would probably result in the Zulus being obliterated.
Joined Jul 2011
7,400 Posts | 945+
Australia
I don't know, The Norse did not do so well against the Skraelings (North American Indians). In fact its likely that an inability to dominate the natives was the reason they abandoned their North American colony. Would they fare any better against the Zulus?
Joined Aug 2014
10,465 Posts | 4,802+
Australia
A few hundred visitors vs a continent of natives? Why would the Skraelings have to fight? They would just need to harass them so that they couldn't forage for food and water.
Joined Mar 2012
2,758 Posts | 533+
Others have gone over some salient facts. I would just suggest that it would help if you read a few Viking sagas. The idea that these guys never trained is ridiculous. They were CONSTANTLY fighting. It was a way life. If was literally an every day thing in which they would fight each other.
Start with EGIL'S SAGA. It is an absolutely terrific read.
One other point is that you cannot separate the raiding from the fighting. The strategic mobility of the long ships is comparable to the advantage that Mongols, Magyars, etc. enjoyed.
Final point...and this is a reiteration what has been said...they were good enough that the Byzantine emperors hired them, so they most have been doing something right.
Two very different cultures,with different weapons and fighting styles.
Still think the Norse would have crushed Zulus if the numbers were equal, on open ground.
I don't have enough information to reach an informed opinion about the Norse in North America. Such as relative numbers of each group. Methods of fighting. How many of the Norse settlers were experienced men of fighting age ?
As Dan said, why would the Norse need to dominate the indigenous people? With some exceptions, it's my understanding that most indigenous American tribes were originally quite peaceful. How would the Norse settlers have antagonised them and why?
.. dont know about the machine guns, but they kinda used flamethrowers in 988 when Basil II with his 6000 Varangians given to him by his brother in law Vladimir crossed the Bosporus and defeated the rebel troops, taking their leader Kalokyros Delphinas into custody. During the attack a squadron of imperial flamethrowers sprayed the shore with Greek fire.
More History Discussions
Trending History Discussions
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 7- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 861
-
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 5
- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 3K
-
The Diversity Of Early African Architecture/Ruins Thread- Started by Kilwa Sultanate
- Replies: 2K
-