What can you tell me about their battle tactics? How good were they at warfare?
>>950104
They where better at fighting than at warfare. I would attribute much to their religious beliefs as dying in combat was the way to get to vallhall
>>950104
They where better at fighting than at warfare. I would attribute much to their religious beliefs as dying in combat was the way to get to vallhalla
>>950202
>better at fighting than warfare
As evindeced by what?
>>950208
Well when you look at the battles they where apart of they where not so successful against organized armies. Their main tactics amounted to "stick together and put the best fighters in the front"
>>950104
Typical Germanicshit tactics. The Longboats were the only thing that really separated them.
>>950239
I mean what's the evidence that they were good 1v1?
>>950104
their main advantage was the longboat and the ability to bring in troops from everywhere and focus them all on 1 cuckdom
>>950254
Both nordic sagas and christian scholars attributes them as ferocious warriors. I would however argue that they where successful because they where reckless and intimidating.
>>950104
Really good at fucking you up when least prepared. The fact that Bjorn cucked Engerland with 2000 men no cavalry and inferior equipment is a testament to their resilience.
>>950104
>purple tunic
that freaking t-shirt would of been more expensive than his whole household slaves and cattle included
>>950104
I know it is wikipedia, but it is a start.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_raid_warfare_and_tactics
>>950280
>christian scholars
of course a monk is afraid of pirates
>nordic sagas
wow they described themselves as good that's totally not biased
>>950239
would say a big part of their tactics was 'avoid organised armies'
>>950104
As I understand it the shieldwall was their tactical mainstay in direct confrontations. They would slap all their shields together to present a solid line against the enemy's main force. This shieldwall would serve as a holding pattern, fixing the enemy's main force in place, neutralizing it so that it can be flanked.
Also used longboats for mobility and surprise attacks that enabled them to pick when and where and who to attack. Often they would prioritize soft targets like monasteries and so on, because they were after loot, not prolonged conflict.
>>950352
thing is, everyone used shieldwall, most fights in the whole of western europe were either cavalry skirmishes or shield walls against shield walls, there were whole tactics on how to use shieldwall to break trough shieldwall, weapons with that specific purpose etc...
>>950331
>I'm so much smarter than that stupid monk
>I KNOW what the vikings were like
Fuck off troll
>>950410
Monks never called them ''ferocious fighters'' to begin with they described them as brutal and that's it they never said they were good when they went against soldiers.
>>950331
Well, Ofourse we can dismiss all the eyewitness with "they where biased". I am not sure what souce material you would approve of? But these accounts, with the fact that small groups of northmen made such an impact that they manage to extort entire nations, was a warrior culture, was admitted as royal guards by the byzantines because of their fighting prowess(see väringar/varangians) makes me to believe that there is something to the "vicious viking" stories that are true.
>>950104
Well, the under the leadership of Thrain and Thror, the dwarves of Erebor mainly used heavy infantry, and fought almost entirely by themselves.
Later leaders such as Dain and Thorin III recognized the importance of mixed forces and even included human allies for use as cavalry.
>>950523
Varangian Guard also consisted of Saxons and Russians and Constantinopole was sacked so they didn't do terribly well in that job either.
>>950533
They still lost moria.
>>950523
>warrior culture
You know most Norsemen were peaceful farmers and vikings were a minority right? Also it's hardly a warrior culture if they avoided enemy armies what's so warrior like about killing women and monks?
>>950553
Some argue that the rus where vikings who settled across the baltic sea, but thats irrelevant. Constantinopel was sacked, doesnt mean they where poor fighters, the pelekyphoroi barbaroi(axe wielding barbarians) where described by contemporary scholars as ferocious and loyal.
>>950561
Well maybe violent culture is a better term, i am fully aware the the it was a minority who went viking, but violence was central in law and religion in the norse society.
>>950617
They might as well describe Saxons and Ruskies...Norsemen weren't the only ones who used axes.
>>950617
violence was a constant on the entire eurasian continent at the time, you can bet there were equaly 'viscious' croats, bavarians, scotts, berbers, hungarians, tatars, welsh... its basicaly a -insert name- kind of deal
>>950629
I am not saying that there werent any saxons or russians, but we know that there was norsemen in service of the byzantine emperor from runestones and runes in the haga sofia etc.
>>950650
Sure, but why do you think that only vikings got the "vicious warrior theme" and all sources concur with that?
>>950754
because they made themselves known all over the place, what with raiding and trading and renting out their mercenary services, other peoples were more 'homestuck', so only sources concerning local or regional stuff mention them
but lots of people got some variation on the 'viscious warrior theme', warriors are by necesity brutal bastards
>>950754
They got romanticized in 19th century no enemy they fought with described them as particularly good fighters.
>>950912
Essentially all sources state that they where a bunch of big savage brutes? Contemporary sources that is.
>>950850
Well that is sort of what i am saying, they where a band of pagan brutes. And they where terrifying for the christian world as they didnt "care for anything holy". I think that is what helped them as soldiers get low morale from fighting something they are terrified by.
>>950952
>savage brutes
that's completly different than stating they were competent warriors
well the vikings were excellent at pillaging
>>951030
So are niggers.
>>951017
And I have never said that they where more skilled than any other, my position is that their reputation as scary savages helped to become more successful in battle.
>>951000
idk, that sounds more like the church demonizing them for propaganda purposes, i mean im sure they were as blasphemous and barbaric to christianty as any tribal pagans, but those other people they were raiding were themselves pagans just a generation or so ago, and most ordinary people were still klansmen and tribesmen, habitual fighters, doubt that much was different in general mentality and morale outside cultural idiosincracies, people dealt with such shit on a daily basis, doubt anyone was realy even literate enough to 'care for anything holy' back then except for high ranking feudals and clergy, think the biggest grief people had with them was simply that they were pirates and raiders and no one had the means to prevent their raids or retaliate, so obviously they were hated, and therefore demonised
same thing went for pirates, bandits, mercenaries, highlanders, and other assorted 'savages' all over the place, its suprisingly easy for humans to be viscious bastards and get away with it long enough to become feared, and if they proove at least resilient or elusive they soon become legend
the fascinating thing about scandinavians is the extent of their travel and influence, the viking warrior wank part is mostly just romanticism any way, i mean its obvious they were supperior sailors and craftsmen for example
>>951160
But they weren't successful in battle they usually lost when faced soldiers they were successful in raiding defenceless villages and monasteries.
>>950254
When they fought in other better organized armies they were considered some of the best fighters. The varangian guard were the elite troops of the Eastern Roman Empire for a couple hundred years.
>>951329
Name other instances aside from Varangian Guard (which was defeated as well) when vikings were called good fighters.
>>950290
None of the Anglo-Saxons have Cavalry either besides using the few horses for transport.
They're part of the old-school Germanic footsoldier game.
You have to separate Viking raids and battles fought by Norse armies. Of course, sometimes you had said Norse armies go pillaging, so it's a kind of difficult topic.
When they were raiding, of course they were avoiding larger enemy groups and went straight for the weak points - monasteries. Other folks did this on land too, Hungarians for example went pillaging as far as Hispania without fighting any larger battles, looting monasteries as they went.
We can't really mesure how well the average Norseman fought in 1 on 1, I think we can agree that they weren't worse than for example Saxons or Franks, but nothing supports that they were the berserker battle tanks that people so often think.
My personal opinion is that their battle tactics weren't so different from those of other Western European armies. They fought in shieldwalls, usually supported with archers and occasionally with cavalry too. They had a hard-on for ambushes though, they had a widespread tactic called Svinfylking, where they assumed a wedge formation supported with troops on the sides, and charged into the enemy shieldwall/line of defense, hoping in quick breaktrough, since this formation gave them a great disadvantage in lingering battles (they got flanked pretty easily).
That's more or less all that comes into my mind at the moment.
>>951414
Saxons used shieldwall as well idiot..
>>951477
>"My personal opinion is that their battle tactics weren't so different from those of other Western European armies."
Can't you even unterstand a fucking simple sentence like this, you illiterate motherfucker? I can't believe you're being this much of an idiot faggot.
Wouldnt vikings have an edge experience-wise, as go on raids was an reoccuring thing and the armies of western europe was peasant levies pritty much?
>>951501
dont underestimate what a angry pesant can do with a axe
>>951559
You're right about armies consisting mostly of peasant levies (who were supported by proffesional warriors it wasn't just pure levy army) but I'm not sure if monk killing translates well where it comes to attacking someone who fights back. I guess they at least knew where to cut.
>>950104
Just seafaring raiders
>>950334
Most raiders tend to crumble to organised armies. Their aim is to find easy fights with little casualties and steal shit.
>>951329
Varangian Guard lost its "viking" heritage quickly after being created. Afterwards it was just a mess of Northern Europeans
