Scary units

[Phalanx300]

Er... bears usually have a thick fur and are more massive than humans...

When someone fights without any disregard of pain he will be hard to kill.

General live expectancy of a berserker was one battle, and I can bet they killed more then they were killed.

[Macilrille]

When someone fights without any disregard of pain he will be hard to kill.

General live expectancy of a berserker was one battle, and I can bet they killed more then they were killed.

Source?? I am- as you might have noticed- a Danish Viking Age/medieval historian and I can think of no source saying this. Enlighten me please.

Aparently the occupation of acting as crazy half-naked shock troops wasn't that fatal, the Vikings actually had problems dealing with all the out of work beserkers that were bumming around after the Norse civil wars were done with.

Again I would very much appreciate a source for this assertation...

[the unique joe]

Although fanatics ignored pain and would be harder to bring down than the average scantily clad soldier. I find myself pretty doubtful that one could ignore a sword in the gut (the gladius was meant for stabbing right?)

Naked fanatics should have a high attack and charge along with great morale and stamina and speed along with frightens nearby infantry, but for defence it should be purely defence skill and a little shield (if one will be given to them) IMHO but i dont think they should be able to stand up in a long pitched battle so much as be shock infantry meant to finish what the archers have started in one swift appendage swinging blow.

[antisocialmunky]

Again I would very much appreciate a source for this assertation...

It was something I heard a long time ago so I don't remember the source but as you know. However, as you know they were quite plentiful and made themselves troublesome when there were no wars and were outlawed for a variety of reasons. They were also considered traitors because they had a bad habit of killing friend and foe alike.

I would love to hear your opinions of how crazed shocktroop type guys faired in battle.

[Macilrille]

It was something I heard a long time ago so I don't remember the source but as you know. However, as you know they were quite plentiful and made themselves troublesome when there were no wars and were outlawed for a variety of reasons. They were also considered traitors because they had a bad habit of killing friend and foe alike.

I would love to hear your opinions of how crazed shocktroop type guys faired in battle.

There are so many misconceptions about "Berserkers", they fascinate us, tingle the mind... and we know so very little, so there is so much scope for our fantasy to create interpretations. Ranging from elite armoured troops wearing bear coats as a special sign of their elite status, over individuals with troll blood going crazy (Egil and Skallagrim) to just normal combat rage and to naked, religious fanatics on mushrooms...

Personally I think they would fare well on the initial charge, but then be cut to ribbons as does anyone who does not care about defense- RL is not like the Hollywood "all-offense" doctrine we see in films... Ignoring pain or not, it is hard to walk, run or fight for long with your guts hanging out, a sarrissae in the throat/eye that you neglected to defend, your leg sinews cut and the like. I suspect a trained warrior using the distance advantage his sword and height gives him and keeping his head cool is much more dangerous.

Consider also that Poybius might have embellished for effect, all authors of antiquity and the middle ages did that. Indeed, all authors tend to for effect, even myself. Taking them (us?) at face value is a dubious thing.

What would be scary would be seeing them pull out javelins and such, but... veterans would know that they themselves, when on a combat high, would not notice non-debilitating wounds. Cause that happens to all men.

Viking berserkers I cannot comment much on, for I know enough to know that we know very little but fantasy, but not enough to make an analysis (and I know more than most mind you).

Gallic naked dudes... I think would be in trouble against veterans, but might scare green troops. But again we know too little, and have too few actual sources to make a real analysis. And as with the Vikings, this leaves much room for fantasy to work its unenlightening ways...

[ziegenpeter]

Sorry guys (I'm actually lmaf, while typing this) but are you nuts? A bear is firstable, bevor everything else an especially... a BEAR!

I mean it is not particularly dangerous because it is naked but because its much bigger and stronger than a human. And since we are talking about interhuman warfare lets stick to humans.

About naked units: Of course they are easier to kill. This disadvantage might be slightly but not entirely taken away by the higher dexterity (yeah I know thats sounds like D&D talk...) but dont forget its harder to evade in a shield line or whenever you have someone at your sides and behind you. If they are fanatic/drugged up they may have a diminuished sensation of pain.

I think their skill and reputation was what counted a lot.

[Genava]

Hi guys, I'm Swiss and passionated by the Celts

For the naked warriors, I think that many stereotypes were showed by several illustrations. It is necessary to understand in which circumstance a warrior can want to put himself naked. A noble warrior does not have any reason to put himself naked, it has sufficient means to protect itself. Moreover, the nobles and the rich men fight in front of the adversary. Difficult to survive a long time in full battle while being naked. During the combat, the warrior will be crushed by the mass of the combatants, he will have much weapon who will pass very close to his body. He will walk on stones, corpses and sharp weapons. His comrades will pass very close to him with their weapons. And the weather, the forests where he can fight or to flee etc. There is thus little chance that the shockwarriors fought naked. Especially that the Celts were the inventors of the chain mail and that they developed their means of defense.

The combatants who could have fought naked would be the skirmishers. And there still nothing is sure, because to run agreeably, it's better to have shoes! Especially that it still remains of other problems referred to above.

Then the most frequent quotation used to speak about the Celtic warriors is that of Polybius. The Battle of Telamon is particular, because the Celtic army is taken by two sides and is in numerical disadvantage. It is possible that Gaisatoi (Gaesatae) had a heroic behavior because they knew that they were going to die. Because to die bravely at the battlefield does not have anything ashamed for the Celts. But it is not a normal behavior for the Gaisatoi, because in all the other battles they are equipped and their king carries even a sumptuous armor during the battle of Clastidium.

There is also another possibility. It is that Polybius were in the wrong. Polybius is not contemporary of this battle, he writes this battle during his exile in Rome which began in -167. It is Greek and not Romain. He don't know the Gallics, he writes simply on the base of the military reports. He confuses even the ritual of the sacrifice of the sword by believing that the Celtic sword twisted in full battle. He confuses this fact because he sees only the Celtic swords twisted in the Celtic sanctuaries. Certainly recovered after the conquest of Cisalpine and stored in Rome. And for the naked warriors, he could be inspired of the statues which it had seen in Greece before or other works of art residing at Rome. This Statues are naked because it is symbolic as much among Greeks that among Celts. However the Greeks didn't fight naked during the battle.

Thus in conclusion, the naked warriors were to be very rare. Half-Nude maybe for the skirmishers only.

A page of a French Comic Book showing a Celtic Battle between Bellovaci and Senones:
https://img259.imageshack.us/img259/7785/img019.jpg

[Macilrille]

Welcome to the forum.

[Prussian to the Iron]

Thank you Genava, we all know how accurat French Comic books are.

Anyway, can this please go back to the original topic, of fear rather than how easy it is to kill a naked person?

I think that the fear factor would be enormous, but perhaps if you trained or re-trained troops in 'barbarian' territory, then they should have somewhat of an immunity from naked unit fear, being used to it.

But, any unit that is less than a certain amount of chevrons would be very succeptible to the scare.
Don't know if it is possible, but it makes sense.

Also: In my opinion, I think naked units (berserkers, if you want to call them so) should go a bit faster than everyone else, but also have maybe 3/4 of normal unit size, and not be able to stand up in a fight. That would represent the fact that most warriors would use armor if they could, and they would only be able to be really effective in the first mayb e 10-15 seconds of an engagement due to low defense (but they can still block and dodge, so not 0, maybe 4-5?)

[Genava]

we all know how accurat French Comic books are.

This book was drawn with the collaboration of several historians, in particular Jean-Louis Brunaux and Christian Goudineau.
http://www.lecasquedagris.com/assets...jpg?1244617659

Anyway, can this please go back to the original topic, of fear rather than how easy it is to kill a naked person?

Yes, you're right.

[Julius Augustus]

To support a previous point by Macilrille, yeah, if the life expectancy was only one battle, do really think that anybody would have picked that career path. It would have simply been a glorified form of suicide, which while practiced quite often among jihadists(Think truck bomb), was not as common among hired soldiers.

On the other hand, berserker death rates were probably pretty high. Think about it. The berserker has no armor and fights off about 20 guys while probably being stabbed several times. No matter how berserk you are, a stab wound through your intestines is going to kill you eventually.

[Phalanx300]

To support a previous point by Macilrille, yeah, if the life expectancy was only one battle, do really think that anybody would have picked that career path. It would have simply been a glorified form of suicide, which while practiced quite often among jihadists(Think truck bomb), was not as common among hired soldiers.

On the other hand, berserker death rates were probably pretty high. Think about it. The berserker has no armor and fights off about 20 guys while probably being stabbed several times. No matter how berserk you are, a stab wound through your intestines is going to kill you eventually.

Exactly, to be a Berserker isn't a path you'll be following for very long.

[lobf]

To support a previous point by Macilrille, yeah, if the life expectancy was only one battle, do really think that anybody would have picked that career path. It would have simply been a glorified form of suicide, which while practiced quite often among jihadists(Think truck bomb), was not as common among hired soldiers.

On the other hand, berserker death rates were probably pretty high. Think about it. The berserker has no armor and fights off about 20 guys while probably being stabbed several times. No matter how berserk you are, a stab wound through your intestines is going to kill you eventually.

You understand everything you said here is baseless conjecture, right? And none of it can be taken seriously because you have presented no evidence? Or even pretended like you have evidence?

[Prussian to the Iron]

I hope you guys understand the difference between Berserker and Naked Berserker.

Remember: Berserkers do not necessarily have to run around with no armor. No matter how they are portrayed, there's no way eveysingle Berserker just ran around without armor. Especially in an army where they were hired.

[Prussian to the Iron]

I hope you guys understand the difference between Berserker and Naked Berserker.

Remember: Berserkers do not necessarily have to run around with no armor. No matter how they are portrayed, there's no way eveysingle Berserker just ran around without armor. Especially in an army where they were hired.

Nobody has responded to this: Berserkers don't have to be naked or unarmoured.

[Ludens]

I am going to repeat lobf's and macrille's requests for sources. For the benefit of the discussion, can the next person that makes a claim about berserkers (of any kind) back it up with references?

I mean, the existence of berserkers is hazy enough to start with.

[athanaric]

You understand everything you said here is baseless conjecture, right? And none of it can be taken seriously because you have presented no evidence? Or even pretended like you have evidence?

I cannot confirm what he said about berserkers, but the part about jihadists (or whatever you might call them) is absolutely correct, if that was the part you were pointing at. The "glorified suicide" is a well-known phenomenon of our days, though I know of no evidence for it happening in ancient times.

[lobf]

I cannot confirm what he said about berserkers, but the part about jihadists (or whatever you might call them) is absolutely correct, if that was the part you were pointing at. The "glorified suicide" is a well-known phenomenon of our days, though I know of no evidence for it happening in ancient times.

...So you just made a post that says "jihadists make truck bombs."

Thank you, Sherlock, but I know. Three guesses as to whether or not I come to ancient history discussion forums to debate the (absolutely provable, because it's documented by the media) practices of modern day religious nutjobs.

[Macilrille]

I think I shall quote myself, narcissist as it is,

Gallic naked dudes... I think would be in trouble against veterans, but might scare green troops. But again we know too little, and have too few actual sources to make a real analysis. And as with the Vikings, this leaves much room for fantasy to work its unenlightening ways...