Discussion on the Vikings.

I don't think the Vikings are historically overpowered. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle refers to them as "The Force." Any acount usually begins, "And they met The Force at..." and ends, "And the King was driven from the field with (insert horrifice casualties here."

So the Saxons saw the Vikings as unstoppable supermen, until Alfred and he almost lost. The Huscarles were the elite, the problem is that in VI you usually only meet the king and his son, so all you see are the Huscarles. As to the Saxons and Angles having them, well the Vikings get them straight away. Over all its probably the most accurate TW set up.

Gameplay is a different matter.

Oh, and the Saxons weren't the majoriety in England until quite late, in 600 AD 35 men was considered an army. The Majoriety of the population were Romano-British in pretty much the same state as the Saxons were when the Normans took over.

The moderators have already requested of myself and Sensei Warrior that this topic not go off topic from "Viking Units overpowered" to "Anglo-Saxon and Viking History" which is where it's going. So in view of this, this will have to be my last few comments as regard the historical aspects. I have placed these comments in smaller type so that they can be easily avoided by patrons not wanting to read historical comments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

I don't think the Vikings are historically overpowered. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle refers to them as "The Force." Any acount usually begins, "And they met The Force at..." and ends, "And the King was driven from the field with (insert horrifice casualties here."

---

Hmmm... well Bede's accounts have since been proven as rather 'poetic'. It is pretty normal for a defeated faction to record their downfall in such a manner as their enemies were "supermen" and they had no hope of defeating them. There is absolutely no doubt however from both bede's and other accounts that the Vikings were hardy and highly competent fighters and raiders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

So the Saxons saw the Vikings as unstoppable supermen, until Alfred and he almost lost. The Huscarles were the elite, the problem is that in VI you usually only meet the king and his son, so all you see are the Huscarles. As to the Saxons and Angles having them, well the Vikings get them straight away.

---

Exactly, there is a glut of royal Huscarles one after the other which are gained for free. The player/AI need train nothing else for the first 30 years, because he has this ready supply of killers that just need to be supported!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Over all its probably the most accurate TW set up.

Gameplay is a different matter.

---

Well I'm not sure I agree. There is alot of obvious innacuracy in the VI campaign, the Huscarles are only part of it. The Picts, Scots and others are all inbalanced and innacurate, this is why the VI campaign never really took off and is not that popular. The Scots have 16-17th century clansmen, the picts have the 'berserker' units and the crossbows which are a bit exaggerated. The pictish crossbows were wooden weapons, not the much more powerful crossbows and arbalests that were commonplace a few hundred years later. The selection of units for all the celtic factions apart from the Irish is otherwise very generic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Oh, and the Saxons weren't the majoriety in England until quite late, in 600 AD 35 men was considered an army. The Majoriety of the population were Romano-British in pretty much the same state as the Saxons were when the Normans took over.

---

Anglo Saxons kept the Roman british as serfs, so the British never really went away.

Use this thread for discussion on the historical aspect of the vikings.

In eastern england it has been proved that nearly the entire pop of male britons was wiped out.

Has it? when and who by?

The BBC did that genetic profiling thing a while back but IIRC that showed there was not much genetic variation between England, Scotland, Northern Germany, the low countries, and Denmark. Interestingly Wales did have a different profile, putting a different perspective on the celtic fringe (ie, it doesn't include scotland). And the western Isles and Norway were closely linked but that's no surprise.

Has anyone read "Vikingarnas stridskonst" by Lars Magnar Enoksen?:book:
It translates to someting like The vikings art of war or somthing like that. And this guy that has written it has done 15 years of researing on vikings.
Basicly they wehre bad asses :).

I will try to summarise and give you a picture.
First you need to understand the vikings life and values.
The vikings belived in that all should be fair, almost extrem fair, but that everybody should, as the swedish saying still to day goes, "if you are in the game, you need to accept the consecvenses". Basicly don't cry if you joined the game voulantery.

Also a viking needed to defend his hounor, so if one was offended one needed to make a stand against that. If you did nothing you was a pathetic coward.
So legal matters could be decied by one-vs-one swoed play, and here also the "fairnes" comes in. If one got tired he was allowed a pause to rest. And also the honour of his family/relatives.
And also everyone was extremly fit. At a very early age children was encourage to play,"work out",sport and to explore there bodys limitations. And even adoults frecvently "played"/competed. They practise running,swimming,claiming, lenght jumping,sking and the most importand and most respected sport Wrestling.
In everyday life these things wehre practised. And the book mention one actuall acount where during a siege of paris the viking began to sport and compete while passing the time.

And the most wide spread wrestling variant was called "Famn tag" which translate to around chest grip. And meant that both wrestlers held around each outhers backs, arms crossing. Sence it was the most fair start position. And then by manauvering one is trying to bring the outher one down. If you weher hurt is was the "if you are in the game, you need to accept the consecvenses" that you followed, but if you, when being brought down, dragged your opponent with you to the ground it was considerd a great offence. And equally if you delibretly followed down and landed on your opponent.

But the most repsected was the one called "glima" which mean around shine for a second or glim or sudden movment. It was called this becouse skilled wrestlers moved so fast. And this really emphasisec all things one needed, balance,strenght,speed,brevery,constitution and fairnes. Wher you had an equally hold on the outher pants and tried by your hands to ofbalance him and with you lower body (read below waist) to bring him down.

And here was a ceratin melle where both had swords and they made strikes ont turn. First one hit, then the second one make a swing, then the first one again.

But the actual sword/warrior traing was done as realistics and orgainsed as possible. In actaul combat the vikings did not take the rules whihc they used when trainign/"playing" into consideration, then it was all means allowed (and all means should be used!). This is a quote ,translated by me , on unarmoured fighting style when all thing allowed.
"In unarmoured combat the vikings preferd a fighting style that used all of the bodys resourses/capabilities, which meant hits,kicks and wrestlings grips/holds..."

And now a little about viking law. If you on a road kick, swing at,shoots , throws or hits a man the penalty is exile. Even if you do not actually hits him , like the defender managed to block or evade, it still counts. And the ways that you can evade is very detalied said, thus indicating that oridnary people masterd this. And also outlawing is a very common charge for what we today might call mild... medium crimes. Even if one was shooken it still counted as an assoult, sence the attacker was only off balancing him for a wrestling move. So here it is also indicated that everybody knew how to fight and wrestle. And i almost forgot in about once or twice everyyear there was a big gathering (called "tinget") of people from around the local area, where people could talk and decide things. But most importantly the legal matters where settled here, and most of them could be settled by the sword. So you needed to be fit.


Seems i got a little carried away thier :oops: .
But it is my personal belive that after the spartan the vikning was the most battle orientated people that has been. And the viknig where better sence they actually had a decent socity. They did things for fun, playing practicing sports at gathrings and the like. But they needed to be fit, for if one of your relatived was attacked so was you. And thus you could be target by some relatvie/famaly from the attackers relative/famaly. And you might need to defend you homour in a one-on-one on the "tinget". Not only focus thier whole life to kill like spartans. The vikings also practice all this to defend the honour of the... (damn english language) a word like family but includes all the realtives also, they did not practice only to kill. They had a hard but fair socity.

Quote:

---

They had a hard but fair socity.

---

Indeed their society was often hard, not to say very harsh and cruel. Ill try to get time to give you a longer answer once I get home from work but it wasnt all about fairness and honour, not even at "tinget".

Kalle

Looking forward to your response.
Now looking back i see i missed some points, but sence i see you are a swed "Jag orkar inte :)". The english really don't got a word for "orka", thats why i will never put it above swedish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CheziScrotus XVI

The moderators have already requested of myself and Sensei Warrior that this topic not go off topic from "Viking Units overpowered" to "Anglo-Saxon and Viking History" which is where it's going. So in view of this, this will have to be my last few comments as regard the historical aspects. I have placed these comments in smaller type so that they can be easily avoided by patrons not wanting to read historical comments.



Hmmm... well Bede's accounts have since been proven as rather 'poetic'. It is pretty normal for a defeated faction to record their downfall in such a manner as their enemies were "supermen" and they had no hope of defeating them. There is absolutely no doubt however from both bede's and other accounts that the Vikings were hardy and highly competent fighters and raiders.



Exactly, there is a glut of royal Huscarles one after the other which are gained for free. The player/AI need train nothing else for the first 30 years, because he has this ready supply of killers that just need to be supported!



Well I'm not sure I agree. There is alot of obvious innacuracy in the VI campaign, the Huscarles are only part of it. The Picts, Scots and others are all inbalanced and innacurate, this is why the VI campaign never really took off and is not that popular. The Scots have 16-17th century clansmen, the picts have the 'berserker' units and the crossbows which are a bit exaggerated. The pictish crossbows were wooden weapons, not the much more powerful crossbows and arbalests that were commonplace a few hundred years later. The selection of units for all the celtic factions apart from the Irish is otherwise very generic.



Anglo Saxons kept the Roman british as serfs, so the British never really went away.

---

I basically said they were serfs, there was study of graveyards and they realised that only Saxons were buried with weapons.

I said it was the most accurate, which is to say still very generalised.

I was thinking of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which IIRC wasn't written by Bede. Yes your point is taken but the Vikings did steamroller the Saxons a bit.

The Huscarls in VI are a bit of a glut for the Vikings but I think its more of a engine thing, you certainly have to build troops if you want to hold on to anything and then you usually have to leave half the Huscarls behind to fight the thousands of peasents that pop up every turn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kalle

Indeed their society was often hard, not to say very harsh and cruel. Ill try to get time to give you a longer answer once I get home from work but it wasnt all about fairness and honour, not even at "tinget".

---

Indeed, look at Harald Hardrada (Hardrada actually means "hard-ruler"), probably one of the most bloodsoaked Viking rulers in history. Lots of massacres of women and children, lots of blood, lots of guts, lots of dynastic murder. Not a nice man.

Were not the Vikings and the Saxons from the same general stock. The Saxons, were of Norse desent, yes? I guess living on Britain must have made them soft. All joking aside, the Vikings are oddly distributed around Europe. If you count the Normans (I do), Viking desendants were in Sicily, Russia (it gets its name from Rus, or red hair, a trait known almost only to the Vikings), France, Britain and Ireland, in addtion to their native lands of Norway, Sweden and Finalnd (I could be wrong about their native lands. I am no Viking expert.) Do not forget they got high before battle that made them go crazy, or "beserk" if you will. They would kill everything and anything, including their own.

The Saxons came from what is today Northern Germany. There are still numerous states in the Federal Republic named after them (Niedersaken and Saksen itself); they are still a German people like any other, such as the Bavarians or Swabians.

The Angles came from what is today mainland Denmark, as did the Jutes. Northern mainland Denmark is still called Jutland, and has a markedly different character than that of the area of, say, Copenhagen.

On the Vikings: they were what they were -- Germanic tribesmen. The Vikings are, by the very fact that their appearance, customs and everything else about their culture was almost anachronous when they began their feared raids, the most famous exponent of the Germanic tribal culture that was dominant in mainland Europe during the Great Migrations.

What I see described by Sirex1, for instance, is pure Germanic warrior culture. No, the Vikings were not so very different from the Franks, Saxons, Alemanni, Goths, and all the other mighty tribes that have gone down in history as the most glorious of barbarians...

But like most Barbarians, their culture was not too strong, because the Vikings assimilated into other Cultures be it Irish (Dublin was originally a Viking colony), English, French (Normans) etc in a not-so-long time.

Quote:

---

But like most Barbarians, their culture was not too strong, because the Vikings assimilated into other Cultures

---

I wouldn't be so sure about that. They didn't simply melt in with the locals and forget their own culture, rather they often adapted it to fit their new enviroment (the Normans being a good example of this). Ever been to York? Their cultural impact there is still vaguely noticable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justiciar

I wouldn't be so sure about that. They didn't simply melt in with the locals and forget their own culture, rather they often adapted it to fit their new enviroment (the Normans being a good example of this). Ever been to York? Their cultural impact there is still vaguely noticable.

---

I have never been to York. Could I see a picture?

The evidence of Viking culture in Eastern and Northern England is quite apparent nearly everywhere. You can simply grab a telephone directory from say, Yorkshire, and another from Wiltshire, and you will immediately see the difference. The number of names ending in "son" will be quite obviously more in the Yorkshire directory. It's a simple fact. Even after centuries, the abundance of names in the former Danelaw which have Scandinavian origins is undeniable, as compared to those areas which were not under the Danelaw.

The same goes for place names, and even local dialects. Look at the sheer numbers of place names with Viking endings, like "-by" and "-thorpe" in the Danelaw as compared to other parts of England. Those aren't the only Old Norse influenced place names, either. Anything ending in "toft" or "holme" or "kirk" or "thwaite" is Old Norse in origin.

As for language, the sheer number of words which are almost exact transfers from Old Norse, and are quite distinctly not of Saxon origin, is amazing. Next time you use the words angry or anger, you can thank the Vikings. There are thousands more just like it.

When a culture is around long enough to have a lasting and obvious effect on things such as family names, place names and local words, then I'd count that as evidence of a rather strong culture.

Quote:

---

I have never been to York. Could I see a picture?

---

A picture? :inquisitive:

http://www.jorvik-viking-centre.co.u...navigation.htm

Hardly solid proof. :laugh4:

I thought the Norse ending was -sen, instead of son. And, for this discussion it seems you are saying the Saxons are not Vikings? I learn something new everyday. Thanks Justiciar, that was a good link, and Aenelic, yous should be a historian.

If I had my college years to do over again, which I'm too old to consider at almost 47 now, then I probably would do history. It's my avocation rather than my vocation. :wink:

The Saxons aren't Vikings, no. They're closely related; but they are different branches of an early Germanic people who probably settled in Jutland, and the littoral areas of southern Scandinavia and the southern Baltic. These are the proto-Germanic tribes. From there they spread north into the rest of Scandinavia, and south, southeast and southwest into greater Europe. By the time of the Roman Republic, they'd even spread far southeast along the Danube to Scythia, Dacia and Pannonia, as the Gothi and east into what is now Poland as the Vandals; both of whom would later wreak so much havoc on Rome. But at the time, there were also the Frisii and Batavi in the Lowlands, the Suoines (Swedes) and Geatas in Scandinavia, the Chatti in what is now the Rhineland, the Markomanni and Gepids and Lugii south and east of what is now Austria, and the parent tribes of the later Saxons and Angles and Jutes - the Danes, Cimbri, Ambrones (who were possibly a mix of Celtic and Germanic), Teutoni, Langobardi, Semnones and Hermunduri, all spread out in what is now Jutland and northern Germany. All of these tribes spoke related languages, which over time drifted apart, some more than others. Some were absorbed into larger tribes, like the Geatas into the Swedes or the Cimbri into the Danes. Some had more contact with Celtic speakers than others, which had a lot to do with language drift.

By the time of the Viking invasions, however, their languages and cultures were very much separate. Just as the Celtic languages diverged into what are called the p-Celtic and q-Celtic. There are still some similarities; but by then Saxon was much more closely related to the southern Germanic dialects. At the time, it might have been possible for an Anglo-Saxon speaker in England to just barely understand an Old Norse speaker from southern Jutland, due to similarities. However, an Old Norse speaker from what is now Norway would not have been as easily understood; because the language drift was already that large after just 3-4 centuries.

As for -sen versus -son, they are almost the same thing. Modern Norse is not the same as Old Norse. The patronymic ending of -sen is a more modern dialect change which originated with -son. The closest existing language to Old Norse is Icelandic. In Icelandic, you'll find the patronymic (or sometimes matronymic) of -son much more often than -sen; but both are used.

The Regia Anglorum society has a wonderful web site discussing the Anglo-Saxon and Viking remnants in English names and places - http://www.regia.org/languag.htm

/pedant mode off

Sorry about that. I got carried away. :book: