If Romans and Vikings ever fought how fucked would Romans be?
>>1039609
Not fucked at all. What advantages would even the proper danish army of the late viking period have over a roman army? Nevermind a fucking raiders band.
>>1039609
Which Romans? Which Vikings?
Rome would have an advantage.
really fucked. they would literally be shopped into pieces.
>>1039609
Assuming it's Marian era Romans with Lorica Segmenta and all the other iconic equipment none. The Romans were a professional army, something very rare in medieval Europe where the Vikings inhabited. It's also arguable that the Romans are better equipped then the Vikings.
>>1039609
Rome would destroy them.
>>1039632
Remember Teutoburg forest?
>>1039629
If they have the lorica segmentata wouldn't they be early imperial army, rather?
>It's also arguable that the Romans are better equipped then the Vikings.
How is it arguable? For the vikings chainmail was chieftain armor. For the romans it was standard issue.
>>1039626
t. literal butthurt monk
>>1039609
Rome had defeated Germanic and Goth tribals before. What exactly is the advantage or impetus for Vikings?
>>1039649
Are we assuming an ambush? If so that's pretty fucking stupid.
In a standard battle on level ground with equal forces, Rome would tear Vikings apart.
>>1039649
Remember almost every battle vikings participated in? Yeah exactly. Not so tough when not against women and kids.
>>1039629
vikings were taller, fitter and stronger. romans were something like 155-160cm tall and ate nothing but white bread. you can take some friends and go and try wrestling a full grown gorilla, that would give you some comparison what would happen to roman unit when they face a crazed berserker at his peak of strength.
>>1039649
You mean an incompetent general/governor who got jumped and ambushed in a heavily wooded area while Arminius' forces surrounded the Roman baggage trains and caravans that were trailing the army with the soldiers families? A place that Arminius spent weeks scouting, preparing, and prepping on with his people?
And the same Arminius who spent most of his adult life prior in the Roman army learning how to be a soldier and how the Roman legion operates? How is that applicable to Vikings?
>>1039629
>Marian era Romans with Lorica Segmenta
>>1039649
Remember the Marcomannic wars?
>>1039669
Then how come niggers didn't take over the world. Why hasn't the NBA conquered America.
>>1039669
So were the Germanic tribes but Augustus, Tiberius, and other Roman Emperors and generals were able to keep the Germanics from raiding into Roman territories for centuries. What's your point you moron?
>>1039668
Vikings were savage when it came to battle. If out of formation the Legion would be torn to pieces no doubt.
>>1039655
I was mainly thinking of weapons. I'm not sure if a Dane axe is superior in this situation to a glad it's or vice versa. Then there also forging techniques and the materials available.
>>1039669
>>1039689
>Better ships?
That's it.
>>1039688
Why would the Legion be out of formation. Why would an army not use tactics? Is military strategy just "ok go fight in this field"?
We know the results. The Cimbri, Tuetones and Ambrones were all but genocided.
>>1039685
Yes.
>>1039697
An axe is a superior weapon pretty much never.
The only decent use for axeblades is being affixed on top of polearms, but that's not something you'd use in a viking shieldwall.
>>1039688
>Vikings were savage
So are all Germanic barbarians in general. Big whoop.
>Out of formation Legion
Why would the Legion be out of formation in the first place, Hans?
>>1039679
If the Romans were so successful why didn't they move theirs borders across the Danube?
>>1039718
Literally because Commodus is a faggot.
>>1039718
Because every major empire needs to have limits on its expansions and boarders otherwise it becomes overburdened with strain and the constant shifting of manpower of the legions.
That's common sense 101.
>>1039669
>romans were something like 155-160cm tall and ate nothing but white bread
It amazes me that people actually believe this. Vegetius literally wrote that the minimum height requirement for a legionary is 5'6.
>>1039718
Because despite Germans being barbarians, they were genetically superior to Italians and stopped any attempt
>>1039713
That's cause Legions like fought pussies is behind their giant red shields. Vikings rarely used those and had the honor to have never used ranged weaponry like those javelin and arrows. 1v1 Mano a Mano they were the superior fighters.
>>1039737
Yeah I highly fucking doubt that.
>>1039740
>snowniggers actually believe this
>muh blue-eyed nordic race!!1!
>>1039713
>He bit the meme that Romans fought like Robots all the time.
Josephus in his account of the battles in Judaea jewing the Jewish Revolt, accounts that officers have lost control of their legionnaires and the battle inside Jerusalem was a series of independent shitfights between groups of rebels and legionaries scattered throughout the city.
Battles are disorderly things. Shit happens.
>>1039669
>white bread
did that even exist in the modern sense at that point?
>>1039748
You highly fucking doubt Vegetius? Fine with me. It's not like I care if you prefer your beliefs to history.
>>1039748
And you have so much proof to validate your doubt.
>>1039743
>vikings rarely used shields
Jesus fucking Christ on a cross.
>>1039753
>He bit into the meme of a single occurence equal causation belief
I don't care what Jospehus thinks. Roman East by the time of the Jewish Revolt was strained by incompetence and hands off approach by Roman officials and army officers.
But 99% of the time Romans are a highly drilled, professional, disciplined army.
>>1039753
>Josephus
And so? Sounds like a singluar inconsistency, not really that surprising given how relations between the Romans and Jews were in the first place. Its not going to contradict the fact that most of the time the Roman soldiers at their peak were usually following orders to the letter.
>Tacticus
>Dio
>Cassius
>Plutarch
>>1039688
>Vikings were savage when it came to battle.
Vikings fought by shieldwall. A fight against the romans would be a shield clash until one side breaks the line, and when that happens slaughter and routing ensue.
>>1039609
They did (sorta)
With the end of the Empire many northern barbar are viking ancestors (prolly)
Also Romans in full outfit with their more focused armies of earlier history would win against barbars they are specialized in killing.
>>1039770
The literal Penalty for stepping out of formation was 20 lashes.
>>1039792
>unrealistic claim
How is it unrealistic? Studies on roman skeletons put their average height at 170cm.
Just because your inferiority complex needs to think of the romans as literal dwarves for your dick not to shrivel, doesn't mean they actually were.
Vikings were the ultimate warriors. His must be brain dead siding with the Romans.
>>1039773
It pleases me that someone other than me also uses this expression. Kudos to you, sir
>>1039807
So you think it's a good policy to exclude everyone from the military who isn't 5'7.5 height, when half the population is the average height of 5'7 or below? I'm sure that trivial height difference was a good trade-off for not being able to use half of the entire population
>>1039782
>Singular inconsistency.
Lelno
There was also some civil war during the Empire which a battle between two legionary armies got spread out in some forest and when night fell, units were trying to find their units by yelling at each other. This isn't Josephus. trying to remember what battle that was.
And Josephus' shit was talking of a battle ALSO at the peak of Roman Imperial mastery. Not to mention was praising Roman discipline in his work.
But like what I said: battlers are chaotic things to be in. All sorts of shit happens.
>>1039609
Romans slaughtered their barbarian ancestors.
The only way Vikings could win against the Roman Empire is by mass immigration. like their ancestors.
>>1039718
They did.
>>1039830
I honestly only use it on the net, because I need an english language blasphemy to convey my emotions.
For all the wealth of expressions you have, you're remarkably tame in that department.
>>1039839
Not really dude. Your using general outliers to try and claim the opposite of how typically Roman armies operate.
>>1039784
Romans fought superior trained armies that utilized the same concepts. Like phalangite and hoplite centric armies of the Hellenistic peoples. That isn't going to help.
>>1039629
>Marian era Romans with Lorica Segmenta
XD
>>1039838
Considering that peak roman army only consisted of 0.5% of the population, I'd say it's hardly a problem.
The romans weren't above waiving requirements when absolutely necessary anyway, they'd enlist peregrines and slaves in emergency situations, so they surely broke the height rule if required too.
Vikings had more advanced weapons and tactics, and had mobility through sailing that Rome could never deal with. They could have just landed right in Rome and taken the city. By the time a legion came running back the city would be stripped barren. And meanwhile you'll have whatever enemy Rome was using the legions for come and invade.
>>1039909
Tactics? Nigga what, fucking shieldwalls are you fucking kidding me?
>>1039907
You're just theorycrafting now and we both know making half the population unavailable to service would be a retarded pointless policy. Just stfu and admit you're wrong.
>>1039746
>being held in check at the Rhine for nearly 500 years by the "manlet" Romans.
You meant by other Germanic tribes, like the Franks, who worked for the Romans?
>>1039901
Do you actually think that a shieldwall is something harder to break that a fucking phalanx?
>>1039917
muh pagan barbarians!!!! they 2 stupid 4 tactics!!
>>1039918
*I* am theorycrafting? You're the actual moron that has yet to post a single proof for his assertions.
Aren't you ashamed of your posts?
>>1039935
Vikings didn't have tactics like the Romans. They had the shield wall and knew to flank.
>>1039935
It's not a question of being stupid. Tactics require a high level of organization AND troop compostions that the vikings just didn't have.
>>1039937
What do I have to prove? We both agree on the average height of 5'7. You're just defending one guy's claim that the height requirement was 5'7.5, which would exclude more than half the population, which would be FUCKING RETARDED
Use your brain
>>1039921
>the Franks
>500 years
Sure thing buddy.
>>1039944
>5'7.5
5'6 you mongrel. Don't start lying just because you don't have any argument.
>>1039961
In reality, Vegetius probably describes an ideal rather than the reality. The army of the early Empire was a formidable fighting force, but it probably was not in its entirety quite as good as Vegetius describes. In particular, the five-foot, ten-inch minimum height limit identified by Vegetius would have excluded the majority of the men in Roman times (the Roman foot was less than the English foot, at 11.65 inches; hence, 5'10" Roman is 5' 7.5" in modern terms, which is just above average height of Roman (Italian) men of the time from skeletal evidence from Herculaneum in 79 AD).
>>1039921
>You meant by other Germanic tribes
Oh yeah buddy, tell me how germanic were Marius's legions and his italic auxiliaries. Or Tiberius's italic legions and gaulic/eastern auxiliaries, etc.
>>1039978
Don't change the argument. I literally just copy pasted that.
>In particular, the five-foot, ten-inch minimum height limit identified by Vegetius would have excluded the majority of the men in Roman times (the Roman foot was less than the English foot, at 11.65 inches; hence, 5'10" Roman is 5' 7.5" in modern terms, which is just above average height of Roman (Italian) men of the time from skeletal evidence from Herculaneum in 79 AD).
>(the Roman foot was less than the English foot, at 11.65 inches; hence, 5'10" Roman is 5' 7.5" in modern terms
So just admit you are wrong. You are being stupid. You're either trolling at this point or just too stubborn to admit defeat.
>>1039973
Even during the Napoleonic Wars, the average English soldier was 5'6 - 5'8, so I'm not really seeing how this contradicts Vegetius assertions here at all. Especially given how many Italics rather than Latins were in the Roman Army and they are described to be taller on average then their Latin brothers.
>>1039986
I think you are retarded if you think I'm the same anon who was arguing with your prior.
>>1039978
>I think you misunderstood my post completely and utterly there. I'm saying a shield wall isn't anything special, unique, or particularly foreign to Roman armies that they haven't fought and beaten before.
Actually I think you're the one who misunderstood me. Reading back it seems like you believe I was making a case against the romans. I wasn't.
I was just saying that the vikings weren't fucking berserkers, they fought orderly (more or less) in shieldwalls just like any other german tribe that didn't get slaughtered by the time metalworking reached Germany.
>>1039712
>An axe is a superior weapon pretty much never.
Axe is superior against heavy armour. It's also cheap.
>>1039987
Well in this case the only English soldier would only be 5'8 or above. 5'6 and 5'7 would be too short. Sounds like a reasonable, realistic policy that definitely existed doesn't it?
>>1040002
>In this case the only English soldier would only be 5'7 or shorter.
>>1039993
In that case I really don't care enough to explain why you shouldn't take one source as undeniable fact
>>1040012
So you are retarded? Good to know.
>>1040001
>Axe is superior against heavy armour.
Only when you put it up a long pole. You won't find one handed axes to be used against armor.
>The major samples from Herculaneum and Pompeii reveal the stature of the ancient adult body. The average height for females was calculated from the data to have been 155 cm in Herculaneum and 154 cm in Pompeii: that for males was 169 cm in Herculaneum and 166 cm in Pompeii. This is somewhat higher than the average height of modern Neapolitans in the 1960s and about 10 cm shorter than the WHO recommendations for modern world populations.
>Source: Laurence, Ray. "Health and the Life Course at Herculaneum and Pompeii." Health in Antiquity. Ed. Helen King. London: Routledge, 2005.
>Imperial regulations, though not entirely unambiguous, suggest that the minimum height for new recruits was five Roman feet, seven inches (165 cm., 5'5") ... for the army as a whole a reasonable estimate of a soldier's average height is around 170 cm (5'7").
>Source: Roth, Jonathan, and Jonathan P. Roth. The Logistics of the Roman Army at War: 264 BC-AD 235. Columbia studies in the classical tradition, Vol. 23. Brill, 1999.
Either way we can put an axe on this whole "Romans were manlets" bullshit.
>>1040017
(You)
>>1039973
5'10 in roman feet is 166.5cm, which is 65.5 inches. Does lying make you happy?
>>1040031
Well yes its (you) when your replying to one singular post. What a twist huh?
>>1040038
You don't have to keep replying you know
>>1040046
Neither do you have to keep shitting up the thread.
>>1040018
>one handed axes to be used against armor.
Actually you do. Cavalry might carry light axes to beat off other cavalry. Also, irrelevant, one handed axe is better than a one handed sword against armour regardless of what was used.
>>1040046
(You)
>>1040029
>Imperial regulations, though not entirely unambiguous, suggest that the minimum height for new recruits was five Roman feet, seven inches (165 cm., 5'5") ... for the army as a whole a reasonable estimate of a soldier's average height is around 170 cm (5'7").
5'5???? But that's not what one random writer from the year 450 claimed!
Why are viking threads always such ridiculous trainwrecks?
>>1040181
Ok but the average height requirement was not 5'7.5 as claimed by vegeta
>>1040193
>Vegeta
And yes, you are partially correct. 5'5 to 5'7 was the average, not 5'7.5
>>1039743
>caring about honor in a life and death situation
>posting on the chan while underage
>>1040211
I meant minimum height requirement, and I'm 100% correct
>>1040223
I never said anything about minimum height requirement but I imagine 5'5 would be that.
>>1039962
Oh please wise one, tell us all about the advanced tactics of the Vikings
>>1040181
>168-170cm being the average
>were not manlets
are you even trying?
>>1040223
The minimum height requirement that Vegetius wrote about was 5'10 roman, which is 5'6 1/2 imperial, so you're wrong.
Looking further into it, Vegetius can't even have been exaggerating because we know that Valentinian lowered the height minimum to 5'7 roman, which is understandable since apparently average roman height went down a full inch in the late empire (all those epidemics and famines, most likely).
>>1040259
>which is 5'6 1/2 imperial
*5'5" and a half inches
>>1040255
It's manlet for today's standards, but that would have been average all the way to the 19th century.
>>1040255
Go ahead and post those average Germanic heights.
>>1040255
>average height
>manlet
Retarded snownigger
>>1039995
In fact, not even the word berserker means berserker (as we think of). It merely meant a champion, someone who would fight your duels for you. Blindly charging naked into battle would only get one killed.
>>1039909
>They could have just landed right in Rome and taken the city
No way in hell. The vikings would have had to have sailed through the strait of Gibraltar, through the Mediterranean, cross numerous busy trade lanes, land at least once for resupply, and dodge/defeat the Roman Navy. The Romans would have fucking seen them coming months in advance and maneuvered Legions in anticipation.
>>1040616
Dont forget about Roman walls. If Vikings struggle to take Paris in the dark ages and even Hannibal couldn't besiege Rome, then there's no way that they could take Rome before another army comes to relieve them. There would also be the Praetorian guard and even Vigiles could be rallied to defend the city.
>>1040303
>being average
>good
Quit bitching about height.
Romans would beat Vikings. They took on far better warriors with better tech and tactics and won. Vikings are small time.
Vikings utilized ambush and surprise so in other words - they were exactly like most fucking barbarians Romans fought with in fact they fought guys who were described as tall with white hair and round shields and stomped them to fuck. Sounds familiar?
>>1039909
>and tactics
wow basic shield wall everyone used is so advanced
>>1039609
A bunch of beefy Germanics with long swords who focused on personal skill over group tactics?
Rome wouldn't have any idea how to deal with that.
>>1040757
>dark ages
stopped reading there
Vikings couldn't have done anything, meanwhile backwards ass Huns came and destroyed the entire Western empire
>>1040927
>long swords
arming swords if anything longsword wasn't a thing back then
>>1040959
Those arming swords were as long as Celtic longswords
>>1040957
>backwards ass Huns
How where the huns backward? Half their army was made up of german tribes formerly in the employ of the roman army.
>>1040957
The battle of the Catalaunian Plains says otherwise.
The Western empire destroyed itself.
>>1040959
I meant long as an adjective rather than a class of weapon.
>>1039609
Romans alos had way more people in theur armies. A Legion only was 5000 people,not even counting allies.
How big was the most numerous Viking army ever assable together?
>falling for the vikings meme
Some Parisians buttfucked Vikings
Now imagine Roman soldiers against Vikings...
>>1041339
>How big was the most numerous Viking army ever assable together?
Cnut and Harald both managed to assemble a 10-15k strong army. The Great Heathen Army might have had more men in total, but it arrived in waves over years and afaik never joined all up in any battle due to bickering leaders.
>>1039618
this... also;
>>1039626
this..
>>1041436
When the Romans lost 60,000 men in one day at Cannae, they were still able to raise a similar number immediately. No Viking power could outnumber the Romans, throwing endless waves of bodies at the problem is how they won most of their Eastern conquests.
>>1039973
I'd suggest perhaps not basing average height on skeletal remains from one site. I'd suggest that skeletal assemblages from rural sites in Italy would yield somewhat different averages.
>>1039609
>ITT b-brute strength is superior to an organized and well trained professional military
>>1041475
>Losing over 20% of the entire male population
>>1041436
Did the Heathen Army infight?
>>1041475
You make it sound like the romans routinely fought with massive number advantages.
The reality is that post marian reforms the roman military was always stretched to the max, and all the men they could muster were barely enough to defend and garrison the whole empire.
>>1041436
>The Great Heathen Army might have had more men in total
Doubtful. The turnover of warriors coming and going would quite probably be over 10-15k, but as one army the Great Heathen Army never got above 4-5k (at Edington)
>>1041494
Never saw any of that in Rome or Capuia for that matter.
>>1041501
Arguably.
AFAIK, the army proper, as in the troops under the main invasion leaders, did not fight each other (tho they did desert each other in various occasions causing plenty of defeats to the danish cause), but the settled danes in Britain did fight extensively over land.
>>1041526
>The turnover of warriors coming and going would quite probably be over 10-15k
Yes see that was my point. I did say that it never joined all up.
>>1041500
Its a good thing at that point in the Punic Wars Rome had complete hegemony over its Italic and Latin allies and could constantly augment its manpower with Italic and Latin replacements. That's the main reason why the Social War was a big deal in the first place.
>>1039669
>this post
>>1041501
>Did the Heathen Army infight?
There were serious disagreements, but never really open conflict. Richards (2003) suggests that the burials at Repton and Ingleby represent such infighting-the burials at Ingleby are Scandinavian-style barrow burials whereas the burials at Repton were to an extent respectful of Saxon traditions, even re-interring Mercian elite burials after they were exhumed during defensive entrenchment.
He suggests that the Scandinavian burials were done by Vikings who wished to dominate the local landscape and broke off, while the burials at Repton (possibly including the body of Ivar the Boneless) were performed by those Scandinavians who were more willing to compromise.
>>1041536
>Yes see that was my point. I did say that it never joined all up.
But the invasion period covered several decades. It's not really relevant to discuss the turnover of Scandinavians in Britain if we're talking about actual, useful military capabilities.
>>1039743
you're an idiot
>>1041572
It did create a constant stream of fresh and motivated troops, and it basically created garrisons overnight (which if I remember correctly was also basically what the saxons did some centuries earlier). That's a pretty fucking big military advantage, the invasion was really more of a successul conquest that lasted until Alfred came back to rek them afterall.
>>1041559
dug it up from my dissertation bookmarks:
>I am certainly not suggesting that the Repton charnel deposit is not the work of pagans, but
would argue that it was designed to reflect a degree of accommodation with the existing
establishment. This includes a continuity of purpose, and a deliberate and clear association
between Mercian and Viking remains, and between the Anglo-Saxon shrine and the Viking
winter camp. This continuity is also reflected by the fact that the area of the charnel mound
continued in use for aristocratic burial, with a later cemetery, including burials of those with
fine jewellery and costume, drawn up around it. Similarly, in 1801-2 a hogback monument was
found to the west of St Wystan’s church. This is too late to be associated with the Great Army, and should date to the period 920-70. We know little of the immediate history of St Wystan’s church after the Great Army departed, although by the first quarter of the tenth century it was an important minster church, serving a large region of South Derbyshire (Biddle and
Kjolbye-Biddle 2001, 53). Apparently those continuing to require burial associated with the
shrine also continued to include members of the local Danish aristocracy. Given that the Great
Army gained control of Mercia not by its destruction but by putting their own candidate on the throne, none of this should be surprising. Those Vikings buried at Repton were seeking to
legitimate their own succession by their association with the Mercian royal house, and whilst a few maintained some pagan trappings, the majority found it expedient to allow themselves to be converted to Christianity.
1/2
>>1041595
>This strategy was not, however, shared by everyone who was in the Viking Army that arrived at Repton in 873. Repton is overlooked by a number of low hills that run parallel with the Trent Valley. Some 4 km to the south-east is a block of woodland known as Heath Wood. The plantation is relatively recent and in the ninth century this was open heath land commanding impressive views northwards across the Trent Plain. Further east lies the village of Ingleby, perhaps distinctive because it was a surviving enclave of the English in an area that was now under Danish control. It was on the brow of the hill now known as Heath Wood, however, that another group of Vikings chose to commemorate their dead with a more conventional pagan burial rite than that adopted by their compatriots in Repton. Excavations at Heath Wood, Ingleby, have revealed a Scandinavian cremation cemetery of some 60 mounds, of which about a third have now been excavated
(Richards 2003, Pagans and Christians at the Frontier)
However, I'd point out that I personally disagree with Richards about Ingleby's status as Saxon enclave-while there are a lot of early-mid Saxon small finds from the village, there aren't any from the conquest period or later. I'd find it more likely they were dispossessed or killed.
>>1041591
>It did create a constant stream of fresh and motivated troops, and it basically created garrisons overnight
Not really. There actually isn't a lot of evidence that the turnover of Scandinavians continued to a large scale after the turn of the 10th century, we see very little in the way of typical Scandinavian archaeological features post that date.
So we all agree that the Vikings might do decently raiding coastal areas of the Mediterranean portions of the Roman Empire, may even sack some settlements and minor towns but as soon as they encounter a strong military force get defeated, yes?
>>1039909
>more advanced weapons
Such as?
>>1041640
>Mediterranean portions
no chance. Britain and Gaul yes
their best bet of anything into the Med would be going down the rivers of eastern Europe (like the Rus) but it's a bloody long way.
>>1039669
Caesar himself noted in his Commentaries on the Gallic War that the native Gauls were taller and stronger than the average Roman, yet the Romans won.
>>1041640
>decently raiding coastal areas of the Mediterranean portions of the Roman Empire
they'd never get to the mediterreanean considering that they'd have to either get through Gibralter, or they'd have to go down the Seine and pick up their boats to dump them into the Rhone which is retarded. OR they'd have to go down the Dneiper into the Black Sea where they would run into fucking Constantinople.
They'd raid britannia and gaul and eventually piss the romans off enough to launch a punative expedition into Jutland.
>>1041671
The Vargarians Slav Vikings did Seige Constantinople a few times.
>>1041640
Absolutely not. How would they even pass beyond the atlantic fleets, nevermind the mediterranean ones? Their best chance would be to run up some river in the north sea and raid villages.
>>1041671
>or they'd have to go down the Seine and pick up their boats to dump them into the Rhone which is retarded.
>At this point, Oleg resorted to subterfuge: he effected a landing on the shore and had some 2,000 dugout boats (monoxyla) equipped with wheels. After his boats were thus transformed into vehicles, he led them to the walls of Constantinople and fixed his shield to the gates of the Imperial capital.
> Taking their boats around 3 kilometers over a portage (Carrying their ships), they reached the sources of Volga.
>>1041697
By that time the roman atlantic defenses were gone and the mediterranean fleets were a shadow of the imperial might tho, so what's the point in considering it?
>>1041718
You do realize that this scenario would happen right in the middle of Gaul, a highly fortified province, right?
>>1039609
>a professional army that conquered one of the biggest empires the world has ever seen
>a bunch of subhuman barbarians so bad at fighting they could only be trumped by the worst of all losers: the Brits
>>1041740
Not only that but the closest that you can get to the Yonne and the Saône river is like 10-15 km.
Its just not feasible to attack the mediterreanean from sea.
>>1041726
They didn't from the Medditerianian. They came from the Black sea sailing off from the Dnieper river.
>>1039609
The samurai would beat both armies while they were at their strongest points.
>>1041771
Well obviously gunpowder is too much of an advantage, what is even the point of pointing it out?
>>1039718
Because the East was more important to them than some shithole with almost no acces to trade routes and infertile lands.
What is this fucking Deadliest Warrior shit?
>>1039669
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eexURBN53LQ
>>1039627
>literally... shopped into pieces
Shopped to death you say?
>>1042510
Wow Gauls were supposed to be the most ferocious ones. Were all barbarians fucking faggots?
>>1039685
>Byzantine
>roman
pick one and only one
>>1039686
Through negotiation. This is war, faggot.
>>1042675
Then the snowniggers get wrecked.
somebody post the battle where like 7000 vikings died to like 500 irish guys
vikings are shit
they always were
fucking any barely organised army could slap their shit
but then they got hyped on /his/ to no end by Ragnar shitters and here we are
Good bait, OP
>>1042648
>literally the eastern half of the roman empire
>not roman
not this time voltaire
>>1039609
>northern barbarian pirates vs well organized army
Romans win hands down, I don't understand why this is debatable.
Now if it was canute's heathen army vs romans then this would be a real debate
>>1039649
One single battle where three legions were ambushed by a group of Germanic tribes with roughly the same numbers? This is one of the only times in history that the Roman army has been defeated and it was a massive fluke. If you actually paid attention in history class you would remember that Germanicus led a re-conquest of that very area and reclaimed two of the fallen standards. All that battle did was embarrass the Romans. A few years later the tribes were decimated by the Romans very easily.
Well, if you want to be pedantic, they did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangian_Guard
inb4
>The Varangians weren't vikings
If by viking you mean "Raiders of Norse origin" then yes, a lot of them were.
>The Byzantines weren't Romans
It was literally the eastern half of the Roman empire.
>>1039689
>betgter ships
You do realize a longboat is essentially tiny, shitty galley with a shallow draft, right?
A fleet of fucking biremes teleported from a classical greek city states fleet would trounce longships with no ships lost fairly consistently.
>>1039789
No it wasn't.
>>1039893
There are entire fucking books that support his claims.
Along with the ENTIRE DAMN ATTLE of gergovia.
>>1041500
That's not even close to 20% of the republics male populace.
They literally lost over 90,000 when a large fleet got fucked by a storm.
They were back at sea with a bigger fleet in a few years.
>>1041640
They'd run a serious risk of bring sunk if the so much as pissed off trade galleys.
If they hit the med, they're either in mare nostrum, and get sunk by the roman fleet, or it's an earlier period, and they get FUCKING MURDERED by the pirates of the day, who are in much nastier ships than longboats.
Well Goths, Vandals, Franks, Saxons, Lombards and the like stuck it to them, so assuming they aren't wholly disalike, they could be fucked provided they're a proper army (like under Theodoric or so).
As actual Vikings, raiders, they'd likely attack an unarmed settlement and leave upon resistance.
>>1039629
They wouldn't be better equipped though. Viking swords were based largely after late Roman swords, Viking Age Germanic peoples were influenced by Roman arms and armor, and so would be using future Roman equipment over past equipment.
>>1043506
>Well Goths, Vandals, Franks, Saxons, Lombards and the like stuck it to them
Except they didn't.
"barbarian" tribes that faced the late roman army in open battle usually lost. Badly.
>>1039851
How was this different than Gaul and their Celts? Serious question.
>>1043521
Maybe I'm just an ignorant pleb, but I hope you'll understand when I ask how this is the case when the western Roman empire fell, abd was replaced quickly by Germanic Kingdoms.
>>1043532
Gaul, even Britannia, had cities. Conquerable, taxable, cities. The Germans had nothing, or close to it.
>>1043535
>Maybe I'm just an ignorant pleb
Yes.
>but I hope you'll understand when I ask how this is the case when the western Roman empire fell, abd was replaced quickly by Germanic Kingdoms.
Real life isn't a game of civilization. That's how.
You actually want to know? Tehere are man hundreds of men who've spent decades studying the fall of the roman empire.
The actual answer would take me hours to explain, and would be incomplete.
It was not a straightforward military conquest, or even close to it. with a few notable exceptions, roman armies still shit on everyone who wasn't a Persian in the field.
Roman forces took far more losses at each others hands than anyone elses, especially in the late empire.
>>1043487
>>betgter ships
>You do realize a longboat is essentially tiny, shitty galley with a shallow draft, right?
>A fleet of fucking biremes teleported from a classical greek city states fleet would trounce longships with no ships lost fairly consistently.
Bigger is not better. Viking ships should be able to outrun the big ship.
Also, your comparison does not account for the cost. A fleet that costs ten times as much winning means nothing.
>>1043538
Forest dweller here. can confirm the only profitable thing around here are trees and mushrooms. And cannabis
.
.
.
.
Also meth and heroin
>>1043535
tl;dr
>Horrid mismanagement of the treasury and economy.
>Horrid mismanagement of the military
>Mass depopulation by plague
>Mass invasions on almost every front
It was the perfect shitstorm.
The western half of the empire was done in, the eastern half was able to bounce back and stick around for another thousand years or so.
>>1039669
>crazed berserker
>berserker
>>1043556
Holy shit you're retarded.
>Viking ships should be able to outrun the big ship.
No, they can't. With just rowing, and a totally untrained crew of volunteers, a trireme can easily get up to a long ships speed.
>MUH RUNNING
To where, you fucktard?
They can't stay at sea for long, and like the galleys,must land.
The galley has far larger crews, and if they engage them on land, will swamp them.
At sea, they can ram, and will literally smash them. They're significantly higher sided, making boarding difficult. A fully decked trireme or larger will have enough marines to match the full crew of many longships.
Assuming a partially deck ship, even if they don't ram, they have a higher shooting platform to shoot DOWN Into the snowniggers, while the rovers are protected.
The marines and sailors are close to the vikings in number, and will be better armed and armored. If even 30% of the rowers join, the viking get swamped.
If they get hit by a pirate fleet, guess what?
The rowers will ALWAYS fight.
>>1043551
I will certainly look into it, but I'm not buying the idea of the Ostrogoths/Franks/Anglos taking Roman land while being shitty fighters. Maybe they were weakened internally, but most wars are decided by extraneous things, are they not?
>>1043589
I never said the were shitty fighters.
They were simply normal human being,and could not readily over come a large military full of better armed and organized men, backed by elite regiments and fucking artillery, when all of your foes are armed as well as your princes.
>taking Roman land
You realize they were routinely handed land, right?
Cheaper to hand the franks a placer to live and tell them to kill the other Germans than it is to spend soldiers killing them all. Rome barely had enough men BEFORE the migrations-and that';s without the massive civil wars and major conflicts with the Persians.
>>1043580
>just rowing
>totally untrained crew
Are you high? Even I know that's complete bullshit and im in favor of romans
>>1043640
it's literally happened. A modern reconstruction crewed by untrained volunteers can make 8 knots.
Oarsmen at the time were career professionals and typically did nothing else.
>>1039743
>had the honor
low quality bait
2/10 made me reply
>>1042623
barbarians are amateurs with no discipline.
discipline is the defining factor between a professional soldier and a typical violent thug.
>>1043529
>They get their asses kicked by Rome for nearly half a millennia until Rome is plagued by incompetence, corruption, the empire being split apart and Hunnic invasion of Attila.
>"They owned Rome lol"
Retard.
>>1043659
Modern untrained volunteers aren't seafaring barbarians dude, norsemen made a living with their longships ranging from fishing, trading and raiding etc. Sure some of them were simple farmhands but quite a few were seasoned professionals and spent most of their young adult lives as warriors until they either died or amassed enough wealth to retire, usually the former. Just because they were shit against large professional armies on land doesn't mean they were shit seafarers, especially when it fueled half of the norsemen's entire livelihood
>>1043737
Undisciplined sure but definitely not amateurs. I'd argue that just one barbarian is individually stronger than a soldier, but lack of discipline is a major drawback on their potential
>>1043529
The first four large Germanic/Proto Germanic tribes that encountered Rome in what would become the Cimbrian War ended up with all the Germanic tribes that fought Rome getting genocided. I'm not even joking and they not only had a size advantage on the Romans but also massive numbers, because these were massive tribal confederations. And even after beating two Roman armies at the start of the war and plundering around, they lost in the end hard.
This stretches back to the late 2nd century BC (113 BC - 101 BC) of the late Republican era of Rome. They enjoyed some initial successes but after based Marius, the Germanics were almost completely wiped out and the few remaining survivors of these tribes were either enslaved or routed all the way back into deep Northern Europe around Jutland and what is now modern Scandinavian. So yes, after centuries its only much much later in the mid-5th century that Rome starts collapsing against the Germanics.
>>1043781
Those pirates in the period possessed massive armies and armadas of sea raiders, bucko.
>>1043781
I'm taking about a trireme, anon. They filled a complicated as fuck, heavy as fuck vessel with untrained people and got it up to 8 knots, which is right in the middle of the expected speed range for a long ship.
Smaller galleys have hit 9 knots in their first day at sea with volunteers, meaning actual rowers could likely move MUCH faster.
Longships will get their shit wrecked if a roman naval squadron spots them. It's that simple.
>>1043831
Not even needing to beat them as superior sailors. The Carthingians for example shitted on the Roman in terms of naval skill, experience, and knowledge but Rome countered this by employing grappling hooks to forcibly pull astride and send marine detachments of soldiers to take control of the ship.
I can see the Romans do this ad naseum against Vikings.
>>1043826
Also this.
Illryia got wrecked SPECIFICALLY because rome got sick of their constant fucking piracy.
Pirates of the day crewed everything from ships that could well be mistaken for longboats, to full on warships, and could assemble large fleets.
Rome wiped piracy out for a time.
>>1043838
The Romans actually came to totally dominate the Carthaginians in terms of seafaring skills.
Once the reverse engineered the captured '4' design, Carthaginian sea dominance was done.
>>1039609
The Romans became gods at fighting poorly organised bands of raiders and covered the coastline with massive fortresses armed with huge pieces of artillery. Vikings would have been torn to shreds by them.
>>1043919
I don't think you can remotely compare the English to the Romans in that time period, especially considering the amount of internal conflicts going on on the Isles by the time the Scandis decided to invade.
>>1041705
Gothic and Heruli fleets went through the Bosphorus straits unopposed in the 3rd century and sacked half of Greece, destroyed the Temple of Artimesia and even fucked Athens itself.
>>1043947
>Gothic and Heruli fleets
Only after Roman power on the land was broken.
Just look at those stats. How do you lose?
>>1043939
Never said I was comparing rome and england, just saying that canute's army was superior to the english kingdoms at the time. But I would like to know how a battle against the great heathen army and rome would play out
>>1044055
So im guessing they couldn't maneuver through inland europe and asia?
>>1039718
>>1039851
>>1042480
>>1042480
Ahem...
>>1043580
Roman galley can cruise at seven knots max. Max speed 10 knots for a few minutes.
Viking ship has max speed 15 knots and goes 5-10 knots depending on the wind.
Also, you are comparing a ship with hunderds of people confronting a ship with 30 people. That's a pretty big difference in resource investment.
Also, fuck you.
>>1039743
Lmao dont make me laugh
Barbarians hid behind their shield wall at the sight of first Resistance doing the stabby stabby with their Spears.
Romans Had the decency to use close range swords.
Im quite sure a single Legion could have taken on the great heathen army
>>1039649
You mean romans being betrayed by romans? Not one non-roman weapon has even been found at that battle site.
>>1039669
Brute strength is nothing without strategy and tactics, something which the Romans were noted for
>>1039909
>advanced weapons
>tactics
Theres a reason why people called them the dark ages, lad.
>>1044397
Cause British think that every placeswas as shitty as their own and that everyone should use their labels no matter how stupid or innacurate?
>>1041475
Except Hannibal was more tactically and strategically innovative than the Romans back then.
If anything, his warpath compelled the Romans to step up their game and take no shit.
The Vikings, compared to Romans were the best at raids and ambush, but in a full scale battle the Romans would win, as their tools and tactics were more practical and versatile for both offensive and defensive moves
>>1044410
Not at all lad, but you cannot deny that with the fall of the Roman Empire, there was a massive STEP BACK.
>>1039609
even during its decline rome would easily wreck the shit out of the vikings
they're nothing more than memewarriors who were only good at attacking unharmed people and looting villages any kind of defensive stance by a regular army would easily kill those barbarian hordes in time for their morning baths
>>1044421
Actually writings continued and life was pretty good for most people without oppressive Roman taxation.
>>1043798
This ''muh 1v1 xD'' argument germaniggers keep bringing up is fucking idiotic because war is not about duels besides since when a grizzled war veteran would have problems in individual combat with some half naked fuckwit?
>>1044430
No they did not the Numbe of writings decreased a lot
>>1044558
Of course war isn't won by duels you fucking idiot, they're used for settling personal disputes between individuals
And that 'half naked fuckwit' was regularly employed by the romans for their armies and became those grizzled veterans as was common of western barbaric warriors.
there's a reason why the roman empire regularly employed celts and germans in its army, they were much more hardier and tougher on average than it's own citizenry.
Regardless the biggest and most important factors for rome against its barbaric neighbors was and as always will be discipline, effective tactics, efficient logistics and superior firepower.
Germaniggers just made better roman soldiers
>>1044782
>this is what germaniggers actually believe
lmao were these fierce germanic warriors throwing hadoukens as well? They were used as meat shields.
Romans struggled withe the Cimbri and Teutons, both of which migrated from Denmark. Vikings would be the equivalent of Cimbris and Teutons from the future.
>>1044363
Why use shitty germanic weapons when you can use superior roman ones?
>>1044793
Except an increasing number of barbarians became legionaries as time went on, why you had the issues with legions being loyal to their commanders first and foremost, and not really giving a shit about Rome.
>>1044793
Ah, I see that your mother let you borrow her ipad for the day. Shouldn't you be in school kiddo?
>>1044810
>increasing number of disposable cannon (or should I say spear) fodder
ftfy
>>1044817
So roman legions were spear fodder? Because that's what you're saying
>>1044829
Well they were soldiers so of course they were worthless meat bags.
>>1044849
You know who else is a worthless meatbag?
>(You)
>>1039753
City battles aren't the norm fampai.
>>1039669
Why don't Gorillas rule the earth then?
>>1039668
sick fucking burn
guess it isn't just an islamic thing, being a living piece of shit!
>>1044796
The Cimbri and Teutons don't exist because the Romans wiped them out.
>>1039743
>honor
>winning wars
kek
>>1045679
Why don't blacks rule the earth?
Didn't read the thread, but the romans always beat barbarians because they didn't had steel weapons and used little armour. In the late roman empire the barbarians started using that and the romans had more difficulty.
The vikings learned to work steel from the nearby tribes who learned it from the romans. In an conventional battle probably the romans would win, but viking raids would be devastating.
>>1043563
Lelokek
>>1039718
Parthians were trying to start shit again.
The Romans were gearing up for a full scale cleansing of every man women and child that dared be called 'german'.
>>1048570
The Arsacids rarely "started" shit with the Romans, usually its vice versa.
>>1048630
Not surrendering to the will of the Emperor qualifies as starting shit you eastern trash.
>>1039669
>how to trigger everyone on his: the post
