View Full Version : Celts and Vikings....
2 things that bothers me... first of why do all the vikings have axes? the favorite weapon of the viking was the sword, Not the axe. The whoel axe thing is just some hollywood thingi.
And what makes the celts morale so low? is so why isnt the viking morale low? the only thing i think that differt the celts from the vkings was the sense of organisation and quality of weapons and armor... so the morale thing is all wrong when it comes to the celts and vkinings.
and another thing... what kind of a picture is the Joms one? Ok.. now that axe the jomsviking is holding is so large its lame... and vikings did NOT have hornes on theere helmets...
sorry if i was wrong about the hornes thing and if i spelled like s**t as usual... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Urban Legend
07-05-2003, 15:17
Vikings have horns because its cool.
Like ninjas and their black costumes. Without which, and their ninjas stars, they would not be cool.
And like ninjas, vikings flip out and kill people.
Who will win in a fight? A ninja or a viking berserker? Assuming both flip out.
Parmenion
07-05-2003, 15:52
Hmmm.... Vikings are cool, especially when they flip out, but ninjas can wail on their guitars and then totally flip out. The Viking would have 3 ninja stars buried in his horned helmet before he could even think about flipping out.
If you don't beleive me visit this website : www.realultimatepower.net
thanx for such serius answers http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif
solypsist
07-05-2003, 16:30
It was explained last year the game development team at CA that while Vikings historically did not have horns on their helmets, the Marketing department insisted they be depicted that way. So that's why most Viking images have horns, including the box cover. It's a truthful answer.
Suppiluliumas
07-05-2003, 23:22
I don't have VI, but what I hear about the weakness of the celtic units is disappointing. It is especially so in light of the fact that historically they repelled the vikings far more successfully than english and continental forces. Are the vikings so powerfull in the game for the same reason that they are given horned helmets (ie. popular misconceptions)? Any insights are appreciated.
historicly (spelling?) the Vikings won alot of battles couse of the sanse of tactics and warfare experience. They wheere very organised and ofcourse the fought like madmen. But the celts wasnt very diffrent, they to had the morale and the experience.
The reson that the vikings was defeated by the saxons was becouse of the overhwelming numbers of the saxons.
so... more swords for the vikings, and no god damn horns, the hornes was only used for cerimonial reason.
Quote[/b] (solypsist @ July 05 2003,18:30)]It was explained last year the game development team at CA that while Vikings historically did not have horns on their helmets, the Marketing department insisted they be depicted that way. So that's why most Viking images have horns, including the box cover. It's a truthful answer.
Figures. Trust marketing to screw everything up for everyone else.. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif
solypsist
07-06-2003, 03:39
there's a good thread by Lady Ann about strategy for using Vikings in VI. SEARCH for her username in the MH and it should come up.
And yeah, those Vikings are pretty killer - they're also very expensive to maintain. Every VI campaign I've played (not as the vikings) they run out of steam within ten years and are a non-threat to Brittania for the rest of the game.
DDogwood
07-06-2003, 06:32
Historically, the Celtic peoples probably repelled viking attacks for the same reason they do in the game - it's easier to defend hilly terrain, and the vikings were interested in the wealthier regions in the lower midlands.
Personally, I doubt that the Norse raiders really had better morale than the Anglo-Saxons or the Celts; they did have some very good equipment, and probably would have had a number of experienced raiders, but the Celts and Anglo-Saxons were defending their wives and children. Vikings could attack unexpectedly with relatively large forces, however, which usually gave them a tactical and numerical advantage. When the English started to establish the fyrd, the navy, and a network of fortified villages, the viking raids slowed down considerably. Of course, the vikings did eventually overthrow the English, in the early 11th century.
Vikings may have worn horned helmets, but so might the Celts and the Anglo-Saxons. Since nobody has ever discovered a horned helmet, though, there isn't really a good reason to suppose that they did.
Another hotly-debated aspect of the vikings is what ratio of raiding to trading they did. Cork and Limerick in Ireland were both originally viking trading posts. The only people who really wrote about the vikings were Christian clergymen, who sat in undefended storehouses full of silver and gold and other treasures, and really didn't like pagans. It's entirely possible that the accounts they handed down to us, describing vikings pillaging towns, raping women, and beheading kings, are exaggerated. Hard to tell.
I think vikings were traders and farmers first and raiders second. As I've seen it described going raiding was like a rite of passage for most vikings - not at lifetime occupation.
And I never tire of ranting against helmets with horns. It's so stupid, to put horns on the helmet bqz ppl expect it. It's a vicious circle since ppl seeing this game will come to expect horns on other viking helmets since they were on the cover on this otherwise very historically accurate game.
STUPID http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif
well the fact that the vikings could fight is true... once they accualy launched a number of attacks against byzans. And when the emperor got tired of it he offered the vikings a deal, and so the viking got to be in the varanigan guard.
One thing ppl dont talk much about is the fact that back then the vikings often wheere taller then the anglo-saxons. They had other kinds of food, alot of meat and milk and so on. And as everyone might understand the vikings had an advantage just by that; the could hit hte saxons with swords before the saxons could.
The vikings also had good ledership, thats a good thing. They wheere very motivated to.
The ones that often went of raiding( atleast in the start of the raidings)was the sons that had no "heretige" and land to claim back home. So theese ppl gathered men and killed a few englishmen, took the money and so on... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif we scandinavians wasnt very nice ppl at that time. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
solypsist
07-07-2003, 16:07
horned helmets for the vikings:
http://www.sjolander.com/viking/museum/m/L/horned.htm
but for the most part everything about the Hollywood-ization of Vikings and horned helmets is true.
deejayvee
07-08-2003, 07:29
Quote[/b] (solypsist @ July 05 2003,10:30)]It was explained last year the game development team at CA that while Vikings historically did not have horns on their helmets, the Marketing department insisted they be depicted that way. So that's why most Viking images have horns, including the box cover. It's a truthful answer.
As far as I understand it, the ones with horns are Jomsvikings. Now if anyone has read the Jomsviking Saga, or even done a little reading about vikings, will surely have read that this saga is mostly fiction. No one is sure if Jomsburg existed (although it's likely), but the stories regarding their exploits and abilities are exagerated.
Therefore, everyone's complaining that some fictitious characters are not historically correct
And if you have a problem with fictitious characters being included, what about the Sherwood Foresters??
Yoko Kono
07-09-2003, 20:54
yes because we all know robin hood was really a scottish leutenant from dumbartonshire called robin of loch sleigh
Parmenion
07-11-2003, 02:37
Better that than if he was a Yorkshireman...... shudder..... (I'm from the Red Rose County and so any Yorkshire-based Robin Hood would obviously be a murdering robber, and not the good guy he would be if he was from Notts.)
Anyhoo, if the VI box had the same picture but without horns, those guys could be anybody. You may aswell call it 'Northumbrian Invasion' as no-one would know that they were Vikings without their horns.
Hakonarson
07-11-2003, 04:43
Viking Carles used axes a lot - everyone had a sword - Bondi, Leidang, Carles, etc., which of course makes it common.
Quote[/b] (solypsist @ July 05 2003,20:39)]And yeah, those Vikings are pretty killer - they're also very expensive to maintain. Every VI campaign I've played (not as the vikings) they run out of steam within ten years and are a non-threat to Brittania for the rest of the game.
Try giving the Vikings a Merchant to start the game with in Jutland. It makes a big difference.
In my current game, all the Viking generals are being hidden away in Hortaland because they only have one man left in the unit, and apparently the AI doesn't know how to refit its units.
As for the Irish; The thing that seems to kill them to me is the fact that CA gave most of their units javelins and heavy spears, and never taught the AI how to use them properly. They run from anything because of the skirmish mode, and then you can ride them down and route them by the thousands.
I really hope they have stuff like this fixed for Rome.
Red Harvest
07-14-2003, 16:29
Quote[/b] (WesW @ July 11 2003,00:01)][quote=solypsist,July 05 2003,20:39]
As for the Irish; The thing that seems to kill them to me is the fact that CA gave most of their units javelins and heavy spears, and never taught the AI how to use them properly. They run from anything because of the skirmish mode, and then you can ride them down and route them by the thousands.
I really hope they have stuff like this fixed for Rome.
Yep, that was something I noticed right away. Even good javelin units like the Almughavars that could win a "stand up fight" run away instead without throwing their missiles. Javelin units should have no trouble throwing a volley or even two into an onrushing unit, *then* bugging out. It should also be possible to tell them to stand and fight.
The only javelin unit that works well in AI hands is the Spanish Jinette. That unit is so fast that it can get off a volley, run back a short distance, then hit you again. They are a real pain...
They worked better in STW/MI where the Korean javelin unit could be quite deadly on high ground or in bridge defense (loved those guys.)
I have to agree with Lazul about the axes. But about the moral, the Vikings had the highest of those.
About the axes. The lendsmenn could get swords, the carls could get axes. The jomsvikings should only be a mercenary, while the kings guardsmen should be called hirdmen, they should have a sword and a shield, so should the huskars. The jomsvikings can keep the axes, but they should only be mercenary.
"while the kings guardsmen should be called hirdmen"
Not just the king's men actually http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Most members of leading families had hirdmen follow them. They were measured in 'tylft's which I'm pretty sure consisted of 12 men.
DemonArchangel
07-30-2003, 19:31
Well, the only viking units i use are beserkers. I don't use ANYTHING else cuz it's just plain f**king cool to use beserkers.
Quote[/b] ]As for the Irish; The thing that seems to kill them to me is the fact that CA gave most of their units javelins and heavy spears, and never taught the AI how to use them properly. They run from anything because of the skirmish mode, and then you can ride them down and route them by the thousands.
I really hope they have stuff like this fixed for Rome.
I agree Wes. I have found (and I believe you have as well with your mods) that increasing the range of javelins and heavy spears in the projectilestats file makes units wielding these weapons much deadlier. Not a true fix but every little bit helps.
A quick fix would be to have the AI automatically shift these units into Hold or Engage mode once their missile ammo has been depleted. But I'd really like to see basic javelin units behave more like hit and run cavalry in melee. Fire off all their javelins, dash in for a blood curdling charge and then withdraw to a safe distance to leave the fighting to heavier infantry. Rinse, repeat.
Barring the discharge of their missiles 'heavy javelin' units like Bonnachts & Almughavars should behave like normal infantry all the time.
Quote[/b] (jLan @ July 30 2003,09:40)]Most members of leading families had hirdmen follow them. They were measured in 'tylft's which I'm pretty sure consisted of 12 men.
That would stand to reason, as "tylft" means a dozen.
As for the axes being too common, I strongly disagree. The axe was the most common weapon with the main competition being the spear. The reason being that it was cheap. Swords were the weapons of the rich and considered quite a treasure.
What might seem a little off in the game, would therefore be that the carls get the swords while the others get the axes.
Another thing is that the housecarls are an elite unit and the unit of the royalty. My guess is that the reason for this is the account of Harold's housecarls in the battle of Hastings, where they distinguished themselves. A housecarl was actually about the lowest rank a free man could have. Carl (or karl as it was) simply means man and a housecarl (húskarl) is therefore a "houseman". It was a free man but not an independent farmer. The houscarl lived with a free farmer and worked for him. He had a specific field of work and could not be ordered to work outside his field, as that would only be the lot of slaves (thralls/þrælar). Hence housecarls were farmhands, so it's a bit amusing to see the viking kings and princes being housecarls.
Quote[/b] (Cazbol @ July 30 2003,17:31)]Another thing is that the housecarls are an elite unit and the unit of the royalty. My guess is that the reason for this is the account of Harold's housecarls in the battle of Hastings, where they distinguished themselves. A housecarl was actually about the lowest rank a free man could have. Carl (or karl as it was) simply means man and a housecarl (húskarl) is therefore a "houseman". It was a free man but not an independent farmer. The houscarl lived with a free farmer and worked for him. He had a specific field of work and could not be ordered to work outside his field, as that would only be the lot of slaves (thralls/þrælar). Hence housecarls were farmhands, so it's a bit amusing to see the viking kings and princes being housecarls.
Ah yes, the name does indeed mean that.
But in both viking and saxon society (pretty much the same on the continent) these men were often the ones that sought to go out into war, thus becoming the military elite. The free peasants and artisans didn't have the time to go to war as much.
Thus in time what had once only meant a 'serving man at a farm' had now become equal to a professional soldier as well.
That doesn't sound right... A lot of Jarls (sort of like a tribe leader or warlord) used to go on raids, and they took their strongest men with them. That would be their hirdmen, most of the free farmers in the area, and a few slaves that could fight for freedom. If they distinguished themselves, they might be set free.
Anyway, the raids usually set off after the sowing had been done, and they returned in time for the reaping. That was usually how it worked - it kept the men busy, and brought a lot of riches to the free men (for instance more slaves) while older slaves might be set free and given a small piece of land to take care of for the Jarl.
Of course, we might just be speaking of different periods, or even different places (which might have different customs), as the vikings weren't from a single nation, but rather a whole bunch of small holdings. Denmark weren't established as a nation untill the Viking era was almost over if I remember correctly... Around 900-1000 AD? And Denmark was the first of todays countries in Scandinavia I believe.
The Danish king Godfred is the first king to rule the entire country, he fought against Charlemagne. It is entirely possible that the country fell apart again after him but it is simply not known.
I indeed spoke of earlier times, before the vikings came to be. Back when the people fought against each other under the command of a local Jarl, then they didn't confine themselves to summerfighting and thus a professional elite was born out of the guys that had time to fight all year (or rather those that were expendable). Most likely around 500 AD.
While the general population would participate in the raiding only the huskarles were ready all year (naturally people would defend themselves if attacked). The transition was logical. The timeline also explains why the English Saxons and the vikings used the same term for professional soldiers, despite being seperated for around 300 years.
Sounds very logical and correct http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Thanks for clear-up
Btw, do you know if these Housecarles were present in Norway as well? I can't say I've heard of them, but it might very well be possible..
Lol, my name was mentioned and I actually forgot what I said http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I played as Viking and I raid a lot and I won a lot and I got bored because it was so easy... So I changed to play Welsh, and produce a lot of those "Topless Lunes" (I like the name they give to describe the Celt. Warriors) but couldn't figure out how to generate welsh bandits (the only reason I was trying to play Welsh), so in the process of finding the Welsh Bandits, which hide too well for me, I set out and conquered first the Saxons and then the Mercians and by the time I am setting to get rid of Northumria, I got bored again and said to myself, "there must be a way",... and then I go play "Diplomacy" by email...
Oh well, perhaps not the kind of answer you want to hear? If I sound bombastic, it meant to be humorous http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Annie
ps: BTW, I played on Expert mode and I took advantage of the fact that the AI sucks in battle, so I rely on Merc. to do the work. And a lot of Topless Lunes, of course.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Kraxis can you advice me on any reading materiel regarding the development of those housecarls?
No, sadly I can't. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
You shouldn't take my words as evidence, for it is not.
I have read a little here and there, pieced it together in what seemed to be a logical connection out came this. I haven't found a single book that discusses this in a serious way.
But if you look up book that explain the Saxon society and the Danish society (pre-viking) then you will most likely come to the same conclusions I did. At least I hope so. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.