How impressive were the Vikings militarily? [Archive] - The Apricity Forum: A European Cultural Community

GeistFaust

03-02-2012, 12:51 AM

The Viking were a fascinating historical phenomenon throughout all of Europe. They were opportunists though, and they would intentionally attack peoples and areas they knew they could conquer. A lot of their attacks were based on the element of surprise attack, but they were very effective at doing it.

That said you have to understand in the context of this time there was little social or militaristic order in Europe due to the fall of the Romans. The Vikings also struck to quickly, and tended to avoid to attack in land often. The feudal system led to the rise of socio-political forces, which kept the Vikings from being able to pillage and attack relatively defenseless peoples.

The Vikings were amazing sailors, and masters in their own way at psychological way, but never had a moment where their fighting power was put to the test. That said their descendants would fight in the Crusades, and inspire and compel the emotions, which brought about the Crusaders. The Crusades had some amazing victories, but some bad defeats as well, so I would say the Vikings are just impressive, and maybe just slightly above average.

Joe McCarthy

03-02-2012, 12:58 AM

Very impresive I think; They raided the whole Europe.

Their success had more to do with the mediocre nature of medieval warfare than anything. Lack of strong governments, standing armies, and less than formidable opponents contributed to the Vikings, a proto-guerilla force, being able to hit and run and terrorize weak opponents. Even the Verangian Guard's reputation is based more on the Byzantines' impression of them as barbarous than their actual fighting prowess.

Bardamu

03-02-2012, 01:00 AM

They conquered Russia, they conquered Normandy, they supplied palace guards at Constantinople, they conquered large sections of Britain, they founded Dublin, they terrorized defenseless monks throughout Europe, ;) they conquered the seas. I think they were remarkably good fighters.

Damião de Góis

03-02-2012, 01:06 AM

Very impresive I think; They raided the whole Europe.

Hit and run kind of raids, by surprise. Their settlements (conquest) were not vast. I give them more credit for their navigation skills.

Joe McCarthy

03-02-2012, 01:12 AM

GeistFaust

03-02-2012, 01:14 AM

The Viking's perceived greatness is just merely a Romanticized claim made by people.

They played a significant role in the dark ages, when Europe was in a chaotic situation, but their status of almighty greatness is more a think of myth than reality.

They did not even have horns on their helmets, and were not as tall people depict them to be.

GeistFaust

03-02-2012, 01:23 AM

How do you think they would have managed against the Roman legions or even Ottoman janissaries?

This is always something historians argue about, because the Romans had issues with the Adriatic pirates, who were far less organized and masterful at fighting as the Vikings were. That said if the Vikings had to go up against a two or three Legions in a face to face battle they probably would be crushed.

They might stand a chance if they made it into a sneak attack war, but their tactics and fighting spirit would probably yield to the disciplined and highly professional nature of the Roman legion.

The Vikings usually had beserkers that would clean out some initial order among their enemies, and then they would launch weapons from behind a core of soldiers holding up shields for their protection. After they had launched some projectiles into the enemies rank, and hopefully dispersed them, they would charge into the ranks of a disorganized and dismayed group of fighters.

Joe McCarthy

03-02-2012, 01:24 AM

Let's also add that how Rurik arrived in Novgorod is a matter of historical debate. It could be that he came due to being invited, rather than as a conqueror.

Joe McCarthy

03-02-2012, 01:55 AM

One of the rare occasions where the Vikings faced a first class military force, in a conventional battlefield situation was at the Battle of Manzikert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Manzikert), where the Seljuk Turks, outnumbered at least 2-1, defeated a Byzantine force accompanied by most of the Varangian Guard. The Varangians ended up encircled.

At least they fought though. The Armenians simply ran. :D

Mercury

03-02-2012, 01:57 AM

Bardamu

03-02-2012, 01:59 AM

How do you think they would have managed against the Roman legions or even Ottoman janissaries?

Germanic warriors defeated the Roman legions mainly because as mercenaries they became the Roman legions. Had the Viking, or Scandinavian warriors, been such an easy conquer for Roman legions in Rome's heyday why did they not defeat them then? Rome never defeated the heartland of Scandinavia yet German soldiers, cousins to Scandinavian soldiers, defeated the Romans.

Joe McCarthy

03-02-2012, 02:10 AM

Germanic warriors defeated the Roman legions with ease mainly because as mercenaries they became the Roman legions. Had the Viking, or Scandinavian warriors, been such an easy conquer for Roman legions in Rome's heyday why did they not defeat them then? Rome never defeated the heartland of Scandinavia, so?

Well, the Roman Empire didn't make it into Scandinavia and fell before the Vikings existed, so this is entirely conjectural, but in comparing the Vikings to the Roman legions, we're looking at amateurs vs. a professional army with superior command and logistics. It'd be something akin to Pete Rademacher fighting Floyd Patterson, if you're a boxing fan at all.

Hevneren

03-02-2012, 02:42 AM

The Norse were not simply pirates, as their Berserkr troops were religious cultists trained in the art of war, and some Norse took part in military raids and had experience as mercenaries through many campaigns. Many also joined the Crusades.

Nor were they disorganised. Their most common military formation was "The Boar's Head", which looks like a spear-point.

Bardamu

03-02-2012, 02:44 AM

Well, the Roman Empire didn't make it into Scandinavia and fell before the Vikings existed, so this is entirely conjectural, but in comparing the Vikings to the Roman legions, we're looking at amateurs vs. a professional army with superior command and logistics. It'd be something akin to Pete Rademacher fighting Floyd Patterson, if you're a boxing fan at all.

The Vikings did not exist at the time of the Roman legions, but Scandinavian warriors did. Is there a real difference between Vikings and Scandinavian warriors of antiquity? You are putting forth Roman legions as though they define excellence in fighting, yet they lost to Germany. Vikings were Germanics in good standing, no?.

Joe McCarthy

03-02-2012, 02:47 AM

The Vikings did not exist at the time of the Roman legions, but Scandinavian warriors did. Is there a real difference between Vikings and Scandinavian warriors of antiquity? You are putting forth Roman legions as though they define excellence in fighting, yet they lost to Germany. Vikings were Germanics in good standing, no?. I'm not seeing the truth in your point of view. :)

Well, correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be alluding to the exploits of Arminius, who was trained by the Romans, and conflating that with Scandinavian Vikings. The only similarity is that both were Germanic.

Aemma

03-02-2012, 02:25 PM

I quite like what Gwyn Jones, author of A History of the Vikings, has to say about it all:

"Though trade and trade's dark sister piracy were essential to the Viking movement", he also relates:

One other cause of the viking movement invites comment. The northern peoples as the ninth century drew near had to be ready for it. Here, too, there is no mystery. Greed, self-interest, profit, advantage, describe or qualify it as one will, is endemic in human nature. Yet this is an unflattering way of describing the viking upsurge. That it was the expression of a heroic ideal is, on the other hand, all too flattering--and misleading. To see the viking movement in terms of heroic literature is like seeing the Italian Risorgimento in terms of grand opera, or the winning of the American West in terms of its equine equivalent. We have noted the three viking compulsions of land, wealth, and fame. Naturally these did not operate separately or in isolation. They arose out of the northern way of life, and were pursued in the existing context of politics, geography, and economics. They indicate a not unusual way of thinking expressed in appropriate action. It was not even a matter of bravery, much less a heroic ideal: the vikings were no braver than the English whom they eventually subjugate (with curious consequences for themselves), or the Welsh with whom they would fail. But by and large they were self-confident; today, tomorrow, or the day after they knew they had the beating, or it might be safer to say outmanoeuvering, of their enemy.

Take self-confidence and professional skill, add resource, cunning, no nonsense about fair play, a strong disregard for human life and suffering, especially the other man's, and you have a good soldier. Give a ship's crew or a mounted commando of such men a leader in whose intelligence, tactics, valour, profitability, and record of success they can trust, and you have a good unit. Multiply the units, find them a general like the famed Halfdan or Hastein, Ganga-Hrolf or Olaf Tryggvason, or a monarch like Svein Forkbeard or Knut, and you shake kingdoms.(pp 201-202)

Impressive? I cannot see any reason why the vikings could not be seen as impressive.

Teyrn

03-02-2012, 02:48 PM

I voted so-so on this one. As raiders and mercenaries they were pretty impressive but in an organized, logistical sense not really. They were good skirmishers but they had no staying power- which was proven more than once when the Danes simply quit the battlefield when they were fighting Alfred's men of Wessex.

Aemma

03-02-2012, 03:22 PM

Well I guess Normans aren't really Vikings, but their military history is indeed impressive. Can't say Vikings (pirates) are really that spectacular. Like a previous poster stated, their navigation skills were innovative. But the Phoenicians were doing the same thing a thousand years earlier with less rape and pillaging.

LOL Well first of all, I think that perhaps the notion of rape and pillaging might be applicable to a whole host of other peoples, quite frankly. So let's not heap it all onto the shoulders of the vikings, shall we? I doubt other peoples were any different. ;)

As for bringing the Phoenicians into this, I think is really a moot point. We're talking entirely different time periods altogether. I doubt very much that vikings knew of the existence of Phoenicians, much less could ooh and ahh about their naval prowess. To be fair in this kind of assessment, one truly needs to compare vikings to their contemporaries.

Most of you are also forgetting that what made the vikings successful were their superior naval skills. Much of it was based on a tradition of sailing by landmarks, knowing the waters, reading cloud formations, examining sea creatures, knowing the feel of the wind and best of all being able to fix a latitude.

In addition to this, throw in the craftsmanship of their ships and you have, for its day, a military might that was undeniably militaristically effective and impressive.

For its day, excellent navigational skills, excellent marine equipment, and excellent "naval intelligence" is what gave them the edge. If you really want to make some kind of modern-day comparison, I don't think I'd be stretching it too much by saying that having those ships and naval skills would be the equivalent of a nation's military forces having and being able to effectively use a stealth bomber as part of their military operation. Ok my example is an aircraft, but I'm sure you get my drift. :shrug:

Hevneren

03-02-2012, 03:42 PM

Sorry if I go off topic, but I'm tired of the word "Viking" being misused. It's often used as analogy for Norse people. There was no Viking society, as being "Viking" was more of a profession than anything else. There were also Norse merchants who didn't rape or pillage, as well as farmers settling in new lands, who traveled by ship to other destinations, and it's believed by many that simply the act of leaving land and exploring, trading or settling somewhere else meant you "went Viking".

Norse societies were largely based on farming. Only a small minority were engaged in "piracy" activities, and indeed many Norse who plundered other lands, also stayed and built villages and cities where they were. More importantly, the Norse built a trading network from the British isles, to Scandinavia and to Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Constantinople.

It seems there's a very simplistic view on Norse societies, and a lot of the perception is clouded by English Christian propaganda from the times and the centuries after.

Peyrol

03-02-2012, 03:47 PM

http://vikings2011.westwood.wikispaces.net/space/showlogo/1302745487/logo.jpg

Great naval knowlege ad great spirit of group...they arrived in many places...Canada, France, England, Sicily, Apulia...

Joe McCarthy

03-02-2012, 10:58 PM

Great naval knowlege ad great spirit of group...they arrived in many places...Canada, France, England, Sicily, Apulia...

You seem to be arguing they were great explorers, not so much warriors.

On that I might be inclined to agree.

Mercury

03-08-2012, 06:36 PM

LOL Well first of all, I think that perhaps the notion of rape and pillaging might be applicable to a whole host of other peoples, quite frankly. So let's not heap it all onto the shoulders of the vikings, shall we? I doubt other peoples were any different.

As for bringing the Phoenicians into this, I think is really a moot point. We're talking entirely different time periods altogether. I doubt very much that vikings knew of the existence of Phoenicians, much less could ooh and ahh about their naval prowess. To be fair in this kind of assessment, one truly needs to compare vikings to their contemporaries.

Most of you are also forgetting that what made the vikings successful were their superior naval skills. Much of it was based on a tradition of sailing by landmarks, knowing the waters, reading cloud formations, examining sea creatures, knowing the feel of the wind and best of all being able to fix a latitude.

In addition to this, throw in the craftsmanship of their ships and you have, for its day, a military might that was undeniably militaristically effective and impressive.

For its day, excellent navigational skills, excellent marine equipment, and excellent "naval intelligence" is what gave them the edge. If you really want to make some kind of modern-day comparison, I don't think I'd be stretching it too much by saying that having those ships and naval skills would be the equivalent of a nation's military forces having and being able to effectively use a stealth bomber as part of their military operation. Ok my example is an aircraft, but I'm sure you get my drift.

Their naval navigation was impressive. I won't argue that. I brought up the Phoenicians because they were another sea-faring people who managed to sail from Sub-sahara Africa to British Isles (and perhaps even further into America or Scandinavia, as some evidence suggests) with less technology than Vikings and before the Greeks even rose to dominance. If you would ask me, I find that more impressive than what the vikings did.

Not to mention the Phoenician Empire was more sound. With it being centralized and actually governed properly. There was no "Viking empire," just loose confederations of various vikings conquering places and fighting each other for power.

The "rape and pillage" stereotype can be applied to the Vikings, imo. Since as Hev pointed out, they (Vikings) were a small caste of Scandinavian society. Essentially pirates. I don't mean to say Scandinavians were all rapists and pillagers.

Sorry if I go off topic, but I'm tired of the word "Viking" being misused. It's often used as analogy for Norse people.

Yeah it's frustrating. It would be like if people thought Americans were all barbarians looking for treasure and plundering ships because of Captain Blackbeard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbeard).

Great naval knowlege ad great spirit of group...they arrived in many places...Canada, France, England, Sicily, Apulia...

Did Vikings ever do anything with Sicily? I know Normans owned it at one point, but I'm uncomfortable referring to the Norman Empire as Vikings/pirates.

Kalitas

03-08-2012, 07:36 PM

Viking= Nordic pirate (at least is what I understand)

Vikings appeared in a period when Europe was in disarray. This allowed them to commit pillages not only in the rest of Europe, but also in Nordic areas. Their religious beliefs made them indifferent towards death, and their ability for sailing allowed them to reach new lands. They weren´t very organized, but being their tactic a surprise and quick attack, there was no need to be organized.
Talking about the kidnapping of women and rape, once I read a theory that said that among the northern tribes there was a tendency to female infanticide, because families used to prefer to raise strong boys able to fight and work hard instead of girls who had to be cared and protected until after marriage. For this reason it is believed that competition for women in the nordic countries was high, so many men used to seek partners beyond borders.

Beorn

03-08-2012, 07:44 PM

Yeah it's frustrating. It would be like if people thought Americans were all barbarians looking for treasure and plundering ships because of Captain Blackbeard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbeard).

Was Capt. Blackbeard an American?

MandM

03-08-2012, 07:55 PM

did viking ever go on a full scale attack against an other army or did they just plunder?

mihaitzateo

03-08-2012, 11:14 PM

Vikings did not "conquered" Russia the people of Russia asked for a viking as tsar.
Rurik was bearing N1C1 which is same with most north russians and finns.
Beside,how do you know that R1A1 norse are not from same group of populations with north slavs?
Are different branches of R1A1 russian slavs and norse vikings.No ideea which was the time to the common ancestor.
How you tell in russian fairy?
фея - which is feya;Which is quite closer to Freya.
http://www.forvo.com/search/%D1%84%D0%B5%D1%8F/
(so you can hear how it sounds in russian).
So I do not think you can talk about some conquest.

What happened to swedes+teutons when they wanted to conquer Russia?
They got pwned.
Go see about Alexander Nevsky,that is a russian,from Rurik dinasty (so on paternal line he is from Rurik grand....grand sons),which is a russian saint,a holy warrior who helped beating them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Nevsky

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish-Novgorodian_Wars

Napoleon got pwned also in Russia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_invasion_of_Russia

Most warrior vikings left to Russia I think and in Scandinavia remained mostly peacefull vikings.

Beside those vikings who went to Russia were understanding much better old vikings/norse religion in the true meanings of it,because their descendants mass turned to christian orthodoxy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_of_Kiev

Mercury

03-08-2012, 11:14 PM

Was Capt. Blackbeard an American?

Anyone that lives near the Americas would be American back then.

Black Sun Dimension

03-08-2012, 11:18 PM

Overrated

Practically every professional medieval army would had had a field day with them.

Joe McCarthy

03-08-2012, 11:49 PM

Overrated

Practically every professional medieval army would had had a field day with them.

Agreed, to the extent there were professional medieval armies, that is.

Bardamu

03-08-2012, 11:53 PM

Overrated

Practically every professional medieval army would had had a field day with them.

You mean armies of future generations? Because the armies of their time were certainly not having field days with the vikings.

Joe McCarthy

03-08-2012, 11:55 PM

did viking ever go on a full scale attack against an other army or did they just plunder?

The most impressive military actions, imo, were Canute the Great's in England. He is largely forgotten but he ruled the largest Viking empire in history, which for a time included England. This is noteworthy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Assandun

Mercury

03-08-2012, 11:55 PM

You mean armies of future generations? Because the armies of their time were certainly not having field days with the vikings.

How many times did the Vikings actually meet armies? Most of the time they randomly showed up to a place and pillaged, stole, looted and left.

Bardamu

03-09-2012, 12:00 AM

Well, correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be alluding to the exploits of Arminius, who was trained by the Romans, and conflating that with Scandinavian Vikings. The only similarity is that both were Germanic.

No, I am only pointing out that Romans were not beating Germanic people generally and Scandinavians were part of that group that were not generally being defeated so to say that Roman professional armies were superior is not born out by the facts.

Joe McCarthy

03-09-2012, 12:10 AM

No, I am only pointing out that Romans were not beating Germanic people generally and Scandinavians were part of that group that were not generally being defeated so to say that Roman professional armies were superior is not born out by the facts.

I think if one looks at the Germanic Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_Wars) one will see that the Romans almost always won except at the very end. The Cimbrian War was especially ugly as a couple of the Germanic tribes were exterminated.

Bardamu

03-09-2012, 12:13 AM

I think if one looks at the Germanic Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_Wars) one will see that the Romans almost always won except at the very end. The Cimbrian War was especially ugly as a couple of the Germanic tribes were exterminated.

Yes, the Romans tended to win the border skirmishes but they never came close to conquering Germania as they did all the other nations of Pax Romana, so it cannot be said Romans won against Germany.

mihaitzateo

03-09-2012, 02:10 AM

Go praise vikings more,is not like normans who are descendants of vikings founded England and they went and robed a lot of people,they killed native americans from North America.Because normans gave nobility/land owners in England and those educated the people of England.
What did they taught them?
To go rob other populations.
Here info about Rollo either a norwegian or danish viking who went to Normandy with other vikings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollo
From DNA tests in Normandy R1A1 norse is not too present but is present a much higher percentage of I1A than in the rest of France which suggest not too many norwegian vikings went there but rather more swedish and danish vikings.
Norman conquest of England:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_conquest_of_England

Their brothers from Russia took all land from west of them,they got to get some lands from Japan and met their brother vikings in north of America,with Russia having Alaska and Uk having Canada and US.
Here about Rurik,first tzar of Russia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rurik

Can you name another nation speaking a slavic language with a behaviour similar to Russia?
You can not.
What is the difference between Russia and other nations speaking slavic?
The fact that Russia got a lot of viking ancestry and more important that a lot if not all from Russia nobility/land owners were of viking descent so they imposed a viking education,they shaped the behaviour of russians.

However,it seems most trouble maker vikings left from Scandinavia but those vikings (the trouble makers) were those who were the authors of this so called "impressive military".

Mercury

03-16-2012, 07:57 PM

Normans could hardly be referred to as Vikings (pirates). They were influenced by Vikings, sure. But for the most part they took their culture from the Frankish and Gallo-Romance populations already present in Neustria.

However,it seems most trouble maker vikings left from Scandinavia but those vikings (the trouble makers) were those who were the authors of this so called "impressive military".

Calling them trouble makers is an understatement. They would purposely target monasteries, and if they had their way the Dark Age would have never ended. It's no surprise their mythology wasn't even recorded until they converted to Christianity and began appreciating knowledge and the written word.

The Lawspeaker

03-17-2012, 04:55 AM

Impressive enough. I wouldn't have wanted to meet them in a dark alleyway.

Osprey

03-17-2012, 05:45 AM

Vikings were barbarians. They fought for riches, women and beer. They did'nt have the honor of Templars, Religious Devotion like the Teutonic Knights, discipline and training like the Roman Legionnares and ethnic pride like the Spartans. They just killed, fucked and looted the places they went.
Their strength was in their strong frames and tough constitutions. They lacked in skill.
Thus their only use was as a Shock Infantry to break enemy morale or guard the emperor to the last breath.

Rødskjegg

03-17-2012, 05:51 AM

Osprey and Mercury, I suggest that you do some more research. Seems you have been taught by Hollywood.

The Lawspeaker

03-17-2012, 05:54 AM

I wouldn't be too bothered about meeting the French or Italian army in a dark alleyway. But meeting the Vikings in that same dark alleyway must be a very unpleasant experience.

Osprey

03-17-2012, 05:56 AM

Sorry, i have not seen one film about the Vikings. That's just what the internet offered me.
Ok, if you have anything better, you can tell me,
Do you think Vikings were tall, blond Godmen sent by the heavens to punish the wrong doers and establish justice?

Osprey

03-17-2012, 05:59 AM

Just to show you lot: I wouldn't be too bothered about meeting the French or Italian army in a dark alleyway. But meeting the Vikings in that same dark alleyway must be a rather unpleasant occasion.

You would be scared to meet a Big Nigger with a pistol in a dark alley too. Does that means Niggers have ever produced Warriors of renown?
All i could think of is Zulus and Impis, who were taken head on by British Soldiers outnumbered more than 50-1.

The Lawspeaker

03-17-2012, 06:01 AM

You would be scared to meet a Big Nigger with a pistol in a dark alley too. Does that means Niggers have ever produced Warriors of renown?
All i could think of is Zulus and Impis, who were taken head on by British Soldiers outnumbered more than 50-1.
The problem with big niggers is is that they don't come on their own. They always bring their cousins with more knifes and pistols. And unfortunately: those fuckers know how to kick ass.

Joe McCarthy

03-17-2012, 06:13 AM

Osprey and Mercury, I suggest that you do some more research. Seems you have been taught by Hollywood.

If anything the Hollywood version is more along the lines of over-dramatizing and romanticizing the Vikings. It has contributed to their overrated reputation enormously, if it isn't the main contributor.

Osprey

03-17-2012, 06:15 AM

that's the point.
Vikings were crazy motherfu**** and knew how to fight. But they were more savage and brute force oriented, than impressive Soldiers.
Ok, two thing Vikings have over Niggers : Courage and Good Looks

Contra Mundum

03-17-2012, 07:04 AM

Hit and run kind of raids, by surprise. Their settlements (conquest) were not vast. I give them more credit for their navigation skills.

Perhaps because they were few in number.

Libertas

03-17-2012, 08:32 AM

I wouldn't be too bothered about meeting the French or Italian army in a dark alleyway. But meeting the Vikings in that same dark alleyway must be a very unpleasant experience.

Meeting the DUTCH army in a dark alleyway wouldn't scare anybody either.

You didn't do too well against Napoleon and Hitler.

The Lawspeaker

03-17-2012, 08:55 AM

Meeting the DUTCH army in a dark alleyway wouldn't scare anybody either.

You didn't do too well against Napoleon and Hitler.
Hitler thought he could take over the Netherlands in just one morning. It took him 8 days.

Napoleon never invaded the Netherlands and we were invaded in 1793 and 1795. The first invasion was repelled.. the second one: our army in a shit state and all the rivers frozen, our defences useless. We couldn't stop them. In 1672 we did stop them though: all 4 invading armies.

Whereas when it comes to Italy. The shortest booklet published yet to date would be titled "Italian and French war heroes during World War II"

Joe McCarthy

03-17-2012, 10:19 AM

Dutch military history is actually very impressive. They fought Louis XIV to a standstill, kicked out Spain when it was a superpower and mortally wounded its navy in the Battle of the Downs, and inaugurated new firing techniques. They fought the French probably better than anyone else when they were riding the revolutionary wave during the War of the First Coalition and Hitler had to resort to terror bombing Rotterdam because the Dutch were putting up stiffer resistance than expected and might have fought on indefinitely otherwise

Osprey

03-17-2012, 12:39 PM

Äike

03-17-2012, 12:48 PM

Joe McCarthy

03-17-2012, 12:52 PM

Looking that Way, Danish and Polish armies were good too.
But the thing is, Dutch and Germans were brothers, still werr eager enough to take each other's lives.
Hitler should have either left Holland alone or done what he did in Austria. Terror Bombing Amerstdam was a sick move.
In case of the Dutch, they were eager to lick British and American ass but fiercely resisted Hitler, as if he had an army of Negroes all set to rape Holland.

The Poles were run by incompetents in WW2. On paper they were a match for Germany but got run over by mobile, mechanized warfare. There's nothing impressive about the Danes in that war. The joke is they surrendered so fast because their soldiers were too stoned to come out of their barracks.

Osprey

03-17-2012, 12:59 PM

the wiki article inflates the german dead in the norwegian danish invasion. And yes, tehy surrendered quicker than the dutch. For them a warning was enough.

Hevneren

03-17-2012, 01:08 PM

If anything the Hollywood version is more along the lines of over-dramatizing and romanticizing the Vikings. It has contributed to their overrated reputation enormously, if it isn't the main contributor.

I must confess I've almost started hating the word "Viking" because of its misinterpretation and overuse by foreigners, especially Americans. As for Hollywood, they've created nothing but anti-Norse propaganda when depicting our ancestors in movies. Hollywood is of course known for shameless cultural rip-offs and exploitation, so this is to be expected.

The Norse were not without honour (they had an honour code of fighting to the death), they were not cowards, and they did fight armies. Quite often, two Norse armies would fight each other.

They used military tactics and formations such as the "Boar's Head". They weren't without military knowledge. After 1066 some Norse would go on to fight in the Crusades. One Norseman from Norway even became the leader of Jerusalem for a period.

There's a lot of propaganda here. The Vikings were not a people, nor were all of them so called pirates. Not all Norse were Vikings and not all Vikings were savage brutes without honour or military knowledge. The reason these attacks worked so well was because they used successful tactics. They employed hit-and-run tactics and deceptive tactics to fool their enemy. They'd ambush foes, and sometimes they'd overwhelm their foes in a direct assault.

They had superior ships to their adversaries, and they had a strong fighting spirit. They were employed as mercenaries from Constantinople to Arabia. Why? Surely not because they didn't know how to fight?

beaver

03-17-2012, 02:32 PM

Usual bandits, like our Ushkuiniki

Libertas

03-17-2012, 03:01 PM

Hitler thought he could take over the Netherlands in just one morning. It took him 8 days.

Is that supposed to impress?

Militarily incompetent Fascist Italy lasted THREE YEARS.

The Lawspeaker

03-17-2012, 06:31 PM

Is that supposed to impress?

Militarily incompetent Fascist Italy lasted THREE YEARS.
Thanks to German support. We, basically, stood alone.

Libertas

03-18-2012, 08:33 AM

Thanks to German support. We, basically, stood alone.

Even without the Germans Italy lasted a lot longer than 8 DAYS.:rolleyes:

Give me a break!:p

Osprey

03-18-2012, 08:37 AM

That's because Nazi War Machine was more efficient than Allied sluggards.

The Lawspeaker

03-18-2012, 08:38 AM

Even without the Germans Italy lasted a lot longer than 8 DAYS.:rolleyes:
The Germans were in Italy until the very end. Remember what happened when the Italians invaded Albania and Greece ? That's right.. Adolf had to drag them out of the quagmire. The Italians were also the first to break in North Africa.

Libertas

03-18-2012, 08:45 AM

The Germans were in Italy until the very end. Remember what happened when the Italians invaded Albania and Greece ? That's right.. Adolf had to drag them out of the quagmire. The Italians were also the first to break in North Africa.

Yes, but the Italians were on their own (unsuccessfully) for over 6 MONTHS from entry into the war in June 1940 till early 1941 when the Germans began to help them out in Greece and North Africa.

The Italians did not break in a few days like the Dutch.

The Lawspeaker

03-18-2012, 08:48 AM

The Italians did not break in a few days like the Dutch.
No they broke before they got started (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Italy_during_World_War_II). And you know that as well as I do.

Libertas

03-18-2012, 08:51 AM

The Dutch surrendered in days. You said so yourself.

The Italians lasted over 6 months before the Germans bailed them out.

Do the maths and face the truth.

Osprey

03-18-2012, 08:54 AM

Civis Batavi and Libertas.
stop Squabbling.
We all know Germans were the most superior race during WW2

Libertas

03-18-2012, 08:55 AM

Civis Batavi and Libertas.
stop Squabbling.
We all know Germans were the most superior race during WW2

They certainly owned both Italians and Dutch!:thumb001:

The Lawspeaker

03-18-2012, 08:56 AM

The Dutch surrendered in days. You said so yourself.
8 days. And we fought on the rest of the war.

The Italians lasted over 6 months before the Germans bailed them out.
They didn't. The Germans were already in Italy when the bloody Allies came.

Libertas

03-18-2012, 09:03 AM

8 days. And we fought on the rest of the war.

They didn't. The Germans were already in Italy when the bloody Allies came.

Jesus. Don't you know any history?

You surrendered after 8 days. Many Dutch later actually volunteered to fight for the Reich.

The Allies did not invade Italy till 1943 and any German presence in Italy before 1943 was because Italy and Germany were allies (unequal) ever since June 1940.

In any case both Dutch and Italians were a disgrace to the profession of arms in WW2.

Joe McCarthy

03-18-2012, 09:18 AM

The Franco-Dutch War, at least in the early going, was a sort of 17th century version of the Winter War. The Dutch under Lieutenant-Admiral Michiel de Ruyter repelled a combined Anglo-French invasion with four strategic victories (this part of the conflict is often called the Third Anglo-Dutch War).

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Dutch_War

As for the Italians holding up in the Balkans... That might be due to Italians fighting Albanians and Greeks instead of Germans...

Just sayin'.

The Ripper

03-18-2012, 09:26 AM

The vikings were very impressive. Entire Christian Northern-Europe (Sweden, Denmark and Germany) had to form a coalition to defeat the Estonian vikings. All 3 nations had tried to defeat the Estonian vikings single-handedly but always failed.

When we speak of vikings, we mean the actual vikings, not Estonian pirates who present national romantics like to call "vikings". ;)

The term Viking (from Old Norse víkingr) is customarily used to refer to the Norse explorers, warriors, merchants, and pirates who raided, traded, explored and settled in wide areas of Europe, Asia and the North Atlantic islands from the late 8th to the mid-11th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking

Äike

03-18-2012, 10:39 AM

When we speak of vikings, we mean the actual vikings, not Estonian pirates who present national romantics like to call "vikings". ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking

The Norse referred to them as "Vikingr fra Esthland", if they called them vikings 1000 years ago, then I won't argue against them.

You're just butt-hurt because the Finns didn't do anything and were slowly just dominated by the Swedes, while Estonia had a golden age. :p

Google "Finnish vikings" = No results
Google "Estonian vikings" = They burned down the Swedish capital

The Ripper

03-18-2012, 10:43 AM

The Norse referred to them as "Vikingr fra Esthland", if they called them vikings 1000 years ago, then I won't argue against them.

You're just butt-hurt because the Finns didn't do anything and were slowly just dominated by the Swedes, while Estonia had a golden age. :p

Google "Finnish vikings" = No results
Google "Estonian vikings" = They burned down the Swedish capital

I'm just using the word as it is customarily used.

And no Karl, I'm not generally butt-hurt about things that happened eight centuries ago (unlike some).

Äike

03-18-2012, 10:45 AM

I'm just using the word as it is customarily used.

And no Karl, I'm not generally butt-hurt about things that happened eight centuries ago (unlike some).

I'm using the word in the same sense as Scandinavians used it 1000 years ago. The only reason why you and many other people disagree with me and the Scandinavians 1000 years ago, is because Estonia was ruled by foreign powers for 700 years and the Estonians having a golden viking age just "doesn't sound right" as we were all "serfs".

The Ripper

03-18-2012, 10:48 AM

I'm using the word in the same sense as Scandinavians used it 1000 years ago. The only reason why you and many other people disagree with me and the Scandinavians 1000 years ago, is because Estonia was ruled by foreign powers for 700 years and the Estonians having a golden viking age just "doesn't sound right" as we were all "serfs".

No.

Äike

03-18-2012, 10:50 AM

No.

A 21th century average Finn knows better than a 11th century Scandinavian chronicle writer?

The Ripper

03-18-2012, 10:54 AM

A 21th century average Finn knows better than a 11th century Scandinavian chronicle writer?

What are you on about? You just told me why I think the way I do, and I said no.

When people speak of Vikings, they mean Norsemen who raided and traded all over Europe, not a few Estonian pirates who did their share of pillaging in the lake that is the Baltic well after the actual "viking age" was over elsewhere.

Äike

03-18-2012, 11:03 AM

What are you on about? You just told me why I think the way I do, and I said no.

When people speak of Vikings, they mean Norsemen who raided and traded all over Europe, not a few Estonian pirates who did their share of pillaging in the lake that is the Baltic well after the actual "viking age" was over elsewhere.

"Few Estonian pirates", lol someone is jealous. Estonians were very active even during the viking age. It was usually Scandinavians V.S Estonians. When the Scandinavian accepted Christianity, Estonian vikings just started dominating the Baltic sea region.

Read this:

Yngvar Harra (or Ingvar) Proto-Norse *Ingu-Hariz (d. early 7th century) was the son of Östen and reclaimed the Swedish throne for the House of Yngling after the Swedes had rebelled against Sölvi.

Snorri Sturluson relates in his Ynglinga saga that King Ingvar, Östen's son, was a great warrior who often spent time patrolling the shores of his kingdom fighting Danes and Estonian vikings (Víkingr frá Esthland). King Ingvar finally came to a peace agreement with the Danes and could take care of the Estonian vikings.

He consequently started pillaging in Estonia in retribution, and one summer he arrived at a place called Stein (see also Sveigder). The Estonians (sýslu kind) assembled a great army in the interior and attacked King Ingvar in a great battle. The Estonian forces were too powerful and Ingvar fell and the Swedish forces retreated. Ingvar was buried in a mound at a place called Stone or Hill fort (at Steini) on the shores of Estonia (Aðalsýsla).

Snorri then quotes a stanza from Þjóðólfr of Hvinir's Ynglingatal:

Þat stökk upp,
at Yngvari
Sýslu kind
um sóat hafði,
ok ljóshömum
við lagar hjarta
her Eistneskr
at hilmi vá,
ok austmarr
jöfri sœnskum
Gýmis ljóð
at gamni kveðr.[1]

Certain it is the Estland foe
The fair-haired Swedish king laid low.
On Estland's strand, o'er Swedish graves,
The East Sea sings her song of waves;
King Yngvar's dirge is ocean's roar
Resounding on the rock-ribbed shore.[2]

The Swedish king Ingvar had to make peace with the Danes, to have enough military power against the Estonian vikings and he still was defeated.

The Ripper

03-18-2012, 11:04 AM

Someone is delusional.

Äike

03-18-2012, 11:06 AM

Someone is delusional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingvar

The Estonian president, Toomas-Hendrik Ilves has even mentioned this episode from our history in a speech in Sweden when talking about our bad and good historical ties through history...

The Ripper

03-18-2012, 11:08 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingvar

The Estonian president, Toomas-Hendrik Ilves has even mentioned this episode from our history in a speech in Sweden when talking about our bad and good historical ties through history...

Like I said, Estonians did their share, but they did not rule over half of Britain, establish colonies all over Europe, discover America, colonize Greenland and Iceland, make a name for themselves in Byzantium, rule over Kiev and Novgorod, etc, etc, etc. They are not what people mean when they speak of vikings.

Äike

03-18-2012, 11:12 AM

Like I said, Estonians did their share, but they did not rule over half of Britain, establish colonies all over Europe, discover America, colonize Greenland and Iceland, make a name for themselves in Byzantium, rule over Kiev and Novgorod, etc, etc, etc. They are not what people mean when they speak of vikings.

You are correct in most parts, but some historians have said that Estonians might have served in Byzantium and they also played a role in Kiev and Novgorod(as personal guards of czars)

Libertas

03-18-2012, 11:49 AM