Viking VS Legionary
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- Link to teespring for the t shirt :D
teespring.com/...
Link to Roland's channel
/ warzechas
Vikings were Norse seafarers, mainly speaking the Old Norse language, who raided and traded from their Northern European homelands across wide areas of northern, central, eastern and western Europe, during the late 8th to late 11th centuries.
Facilitated by advanced sailing and navigational skills, and characterised by the longship, Viking activities at times also extended into the Mediterranean littoral, North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. Following extended phases of exploration, expansion and settlement, Viking (Norse) communities were established in diverse areas of north-western Europe, European Russia, the North Atlantic islands and as far as the north-eastern coast of North America.
Popular, modern conceptions of the Vikings often strongly differ from the complex picture that emerges from archaeology and historical sources.
A Roman legion was the largest unit of the Roman army, consisting of centuries as the basic units.
For most of the Roman Imperial period, the legions formed the Roman army's elite heavy infantry, recruited exclusively from Roman citizens, while the remainder of the army consisted of auxiliaries, who provided additional infantry and the vast majority of the Roman army's cavalry.
A legion consisted of several cohorts of heavy infantry known as legionaries. It was almost always accompanied by one or more attached units of auxiliaries, who were not Roman citizens and provided cavalry, ranged troops and skirmishers to complement the legion's heavy infantry.
From the time of Gaius Marius onwards, legionaries received 225 denarii a year; this basic rate remained unchanged until Domitian, who increased it to 300 denarii. The soldiers did not receive all the money in cash, as the state deducted a clothing and food tax from their pay. To this wage, a legionary on active campaign would hope to add the booty of war. Slaves could also be claimed from the prisoners of war and divided amongst the legion for later sale, which would bring in a sizeable supplement to their regular pay.
All legionary soldiers would also receive a praemia on the completion of their term of service: a sizeable sum of money and/or a plot of good farmland; farmland given to veterans often helped in establishing control of the frontier regions and over rebellious provinces.
Follow me on my social networks:
/ themetatron
/ metatron_youtube
www.facebook.c...
/ puremetatron
/ realmetatron
Royalty free music by Epidemic Sound:
intro ES_Knights Templar 1 - Johannes Bornlöf
intro 2 ES_Medieval Adventure 01 - Johannes Bornlöf
outro ES_Knights Templar 2 - Johannes Bornlöf
Check out the facebook page of the photographer who works with me, he has lots of fantastic pictures
www.facebook.c...
and his instagram
www.facebook.c...
Check out my friend Salvo's channel
/ @littlesalvo000
My opinion is that the Imperials and Stormcloaks shouldn't be fighting each other and should instead prepare for war against the Aldmeri Dominion.
Yep. Not to mention the fact that an independent Skyrim would just be immediately invaded by the Aldmeri Dominion. A united Empire is the only thing that makes sense.
Men of culture, sirs.
@@Xerrand but no, look at a map of Tamriel, the Dominion will have an extremely hard time invading Skyrim all the way from the south.
@@Xerrand except a united empire didnt win the first time
@@skylertremblay3395 If Skyrim leaves then there's zero hope of ever winning the next one. Independent Skyrim will only ever benefit the Thalmor
@@Xerrand then theirs only one option
CANCEL THE ALTMER
theres no way they can come back from that
"Let's see them march onto the water!"
"Let's see them sail their ships over land!"
And then they both realized it was easier to beat up the anglo-saxons.
LOL.........I can't capitalize that enough. LOL
Where is this reference from???
Funny and humorous yes. But technically viking ships could traverse land.
Not really
@@cheemscat4062 they could
Romans were professionals, but also trained to fight in groups.Totally different tactics one on one. I think the Viking has a bit of an advantage in man to man.
Lol viking is like twice the height of a Roman soldier
When he said “You know what a Viking is, But he doesn’t”
I had a Thor poster behind me so he pointed at Thor and said he doesn’t know what a Viking is.
Lmao 😂
Lmao, however as Viking means Raid would Thor actually do such a thing, I mean if we are talking about the Thor from the movies then I believe he’s rich enough and doesn’t need to... but I see your point 😂👍🏼
Like Marvel Thor or actual norse thunder god Thor? The former has no clue about what a viking is.
Was it Marvel thor or Legit Tor? 😂
2:57 "Wow a barbarian lets kill him!" This needs merchandise.
In traditional or formation style warfare the Ronans because if their discipline and advanced technology were hard to beat.I liken the Vikinga more to Guerilla style; raids and quick strikes etc......
@@stephanreichelt2700 Vikings love traps and they observe enemies weaknesses rather than attack it directly. Testudo would be a easy to defeat for Vikings.
It's what you do while playing Civilization.
@@someguyfromarcticfreezer6854 what is this? A siege? You do know that testudo is meant to protect your head as people throw shit at you right? Its kind of shitty in the field as the sides are bloody vulnerables.
@@vondantalingting Vikings love the dirty fight, they will never face them directly or in the field, they would use the forrest where roman formations are irrelevant.
"Viking" is a job. Norseman is the culture
I'm aware of that, infact I name him "the Viking" as if I said "the raider" not "the Scandinavian".
Metatron oh I know lol that comment was not directed towards you haha
@Johan Ofinlohigh but not all Norse were Vikings, therefore many of you who claim them as ancestors very likely have none in your family trees and are just the descendants of pig farmers who never left their home village, much less went out on successful raids.
"Norsemen" was just a title. Germanic is the culture (/Genetic)
@Johan Ofinlohigh Ah, no. Only by people with no knowldge about the late Iron Age in Scandinavia.
When you said ''some sort of padding'' I imagined Shadiversity shouting ''BUT WHAT ABOUT GAMBESON!?''
Planken
Haha I thought the same thing!
Oh my fucking god that guy and GAMBESON
A gladius would stab through gambeson well enough
@@weekendyaytime5481 But barely leave a bruise through mail and gambeson. Unfortunately for the legionary, viking raiders weren't the happy amateurs Metatron imagines. Only the best warriors with the best equipment got a spot on a viking ship; those ships were the cutting edge of military technology at the time, and that was reflected in the price tag. There was no such thing as a viking raider without armor. As for the legionary, with only thin padding under his armor, he would be in for a lot of pain, before merciful death.
Erik Jarandson legionaries in general are more trained and disciplined in Formation warfare
Vikings never fought Formations
So they would have a trouble some time fighting Romans on flat terrain
If the Vikings got Romans in a Teutoberg like situation
The yes
But I’n general
Vikings really aren’t amazing like Romans
In my opinion at least
Also
Formations were mainly a Pike
Or Phanalx Type
With Roman sword infantry being an exception
I’m very sure
The people Vikings fought
Were not soldiers
Nor in formation
Let’s escalate it to a Whole Roman Legion vs a Viking Raiding Party.
The discipline of the Roman Legion would decimate the Viking's party, assuming factors such as terrain were even.
Legion - five to six thousand legionaries
Party - a couple to several dozen Vikings
Viking parties were tens to hundreds of times smaller than legions, most having one to three ships, with a hundred men at most, the Great Heathen Army had no more than a few thousand men at most.
The legions were professional armies well trained and equiped. They beat most of the barbarians of their time, including some distant relatives of the vikings who would fight similarly: fiercely, but mostly disorganized and very irregular regarding equipament and skill/experience. Also, when we think about the time difference between both we tend to think the norsemen would have the upper hand in terms of technology, specially metalurgy. Where it is true that middle ages steel was harder and overall better than the iron used in roman times, the vikings ere actually very poor and primitive compared to their contemporaries, so it's unlikely that they would benefit at all from any advancements over the legionaires. Even if we consider equal numbers, the odds would favor the legionaires.
Let's bring logistics and cost into it.
Legionaries are expensive and quite fast on land
Vikings are cheap and even faster on water, you could get a lot of them for the same price, and they are raised in a fanatic warrior culture, they see warfare and dying thereof as their highest goal, you do not think the ones that go for warfare have an advanced training system? It is a thousand years later.
A Roman Century would be more balanced, no Viking force could ever defeat a full Roman legion.
"We're all nerds; shut up." You didn't need to call me out like that...
Own it, namesake🙂
I think the best match up would be a housecarl, a Viking who was a professional soldier. They had good training, armor and weapons. Also many Vikings, even normal freemen, were skilled in wrestling as it was a common sport. However Viking wrestling, Glima, was brutal and useful in battle
I see Viking. I like. You don't like? Watch for the longships in the spring!
Lolll
Best comment here.
it was two springs ago were waiting come to our walls!
Lmao, bruh the glory of the empire will sink those tubs with a fleet of quinqeremes
Sooo....
Skallagrim VS Metatron?
but the Centurion would have ordered a punishment on Metatron for having long hair.
Vault Dweller
Do want to be ended rightly?
Vault Dweller
Nothing will stop the almighty pommel.
Vault Dweller
Oh, c'mon.
How is his personality bad?
Totally
"viking is hugely misunderstood"
you earned my sub with this.
The Byzantines (East Romans) Had a Varangian Guard members included Harold Hadrada
@@JDubzDrumz yeah, and also, his point about not being that well equipee doesn't apply to the varangians i think, because the emperor equips them i believe
Harald, thank you.
I recommend reading the Snorre saga for those who want to learn more about the viking era. It's an interesting time filled with conflicts both home and abroad.
Lindybeige armed with a KATANA-FIRING SPANDAU versus Legionary
with fiery arrow attachments
Maybe a Cromwell tank would be a better match
Oh no, RUclips memes.
Haha best RUclips Joke ever.
What if the Legionary is armed with sword-pommels and a slingshot-channel means of firing them?
"Seax" is pronounced "Sax" :) I give the edge to the viking due to the versatility of the center grip shield. Romans were outfitted mainly for fighting in tightly packed mobs, not duels. A Viking, I feel, would have better geared for 1v1 combat.
Dakota Warren Wasn't that also how the saxons got their name?
edi I believe so!
You forget that the Romans were used to fighting people like Celts and various Germanic tribes who probably would have fought in a similar manner to a Viking. It's also worth mentioning that I believe that Vikings/Norsemen didn't just fight one on one in a duel but in a shield wall like most other cultures of their time and earlier.
Dakota Warren I completely agree. And I have actually experience in training for Viking Martial Arts and your statement is entirely true.
Riceball01
Holmgång was a common thing.
There were professional soldiers among the vikings - carls and huscarls. Viking equipment varied a lot, but the professional warriors of the vikings commonly had swords and often wore maille. Their primary weapon would be a spear or axe, possibly a 2-handed axe. Viking warriors traditionally trained at throwing spears. A viking wouldn't even be considered a carl-warrior until he was able to perform certain combat feats. Vikings were noted among their enemies for being well-organized. They were especially proficient at forming a shield wall and advancing in formation. Their stature would be physiologically significantly larger and stronger than a "Roman" on average, and they'd most likely be much more practiced at fighting one-on-one. Roman soldiers were well equipped, but the common soldier was a soldier of an empire, not a warrior who went on yearly raids in unfamiliar territory. Most Roman soldiers experienced a lot of down time. More important to Roman soldiers than individual fighting skill was the discipline to fight as a unit and the stamina required to be a legionaire.
If you were to propose this fight, the smaller the scale of the battle, the more it would favor the viking. The larger the scale of the battle, the more it would favor the Roman. The Roman only prevails individually against a viking if you present a scenario in which the viking must be a poor warrior of his people and the Roman is especially skilled for a legionaire. Otherwise, the viking wins 9/10 times. 10/10 if we identify the viking as a huscarl. But if we're going to make it a huscarl on the viking side, the Roman soldier should be a Scholae Palatinae, in which case if the fight is on foot your guess would be as good as mine, but 10/10 if the Roman is mounted, regardless if the viking is mounted.
I'd say that how much down time the average Roman legionary had would depend on what time period and where he was stationed. During the late Republican period he could have spent almost his entire career on campaign. If he wasn't out on campaign on the frontier fighting Gauls or Germanic tribes he was fighting his fellow Romans in one civil war after another. In the span of 27 years you had a war against the Gauls, a war vs. the Parthians, and (depending on how you count them) 3 - 4 civil wars. I would say that all of that kept most legionaries quite busy and in between all of those wars they would have continued to train, as opposed to the Vikings who (mostly) went back to their "day jobs". Also, during those periods in between wars in addition to training the legionaries would have also been manning various forts and outposts all along the frontiers where they would have most likely skirmished with hostile tribes quite regularly.
It really wasn't until fairly late in Rome's history that they stopped constantly campaigning and expanding Rome's borders and spent most of their time doing nothing but manning frontier forts. A legionary from that time would almost certainly be different than one from the height of the Empire but even then, I wouldn't think that they would be all that soft. I'd argue that it wasn't until near the end of at least the Western Empire did the legions start getting soft and even that's probably debatable.
ok but i think you, with all due respect, are missing a condition, initial proportion. So let' s say, viking huscarl vs veteran caesarian legionary. huscarl makes yearly raids, roman makes yearly campaign. in the spare time huscarl rows on the boat, the legionary carrys 30 kg for 32 miles a day and dig his trench every day. Tall man vs shorter man BUT long-range smaller shield vs short sword bigger shield tactics. For me the fight is higly interesting and not such certain as you depicted it
Size is indeed a big factor.. i agree.. on a duel, common roman soldier is at disadvantages. But on a batalion scale or bigger, roman would had advantages..
uh i was reading this comment and i thoght it was almost over and then i taped show more
Weren't huscarl......Anglo-Saxon?
In a one on one duel, I give the edge to the Viking.
Roman soldiers were trained to fight in formation as part of a unit within an army.
They had less experience of individual encounters than Norsemen who frequently raided settlements.
Someone already mentioned something similar in the comments but I think it's a case of:
small scale engagement (e.g. a raid) -> Viking
large scale engagement (e.g. a battle or siege) -> Roman
You use "The Roman adapts with his mistakes" as argument to give the Roman a victory, but any fighter wouldn't keep doing what's not working.
Years long stalemate in the Great War says otherwise...
He has room to make an error was his argument due to protection. Also this isn't a movie the fight wouldn't be 3 minutes but 3 seconds
You do know that's the way the Romans fought against the Punic war right? Or how much more, the Byzantines against the Normans.
I dont know where I heard it, but wasn't there supposed to be some Romans quote to the effect of:
In a fight
10 Romans vs 10 Germans, the Germans will always win.
100 Romans vs 100 Germans could go either way.
But 1000 Romans vs 1000 Germans the Romans will always win.
The idea being that the wild nature, greater height, round shields, spears, axes, and longer swords of the Germanic warriors were more suited skirmishes. While the discipline, short Spanish style swords, and large Celtic style scutums, of the Romans soldiers was more suited to battles.
Every red blooded male in an iron age or other tribal society practices with typical weapons and sparing with blunts well past the point of diminishing returns, when there is no TV or internet what else are you going to do? The advantage of the legionaries training comes with keeping orderly formations and manuevers in large scale battles, that is what wins period wars.
This is what had me scratch my head a bit extra on this one as well. Vikings WERE skilled fighters. Most make them out to be pure, innocent traders and farmers that hopped into boats with a spear, axe and shield on their side, all giddy to trade a little. They DID do this, yes, but they have proven quite a few times, that they were great fighters and even strategists. Romans were among the finest soldiers the world has likely ever seen, but that was during their own time, against their enemies at that time as well.
I can't help but feel the Roman would be at a disadvantage instead, seeing how he is not prepared for an opponent that fights the way a viking would. How could he be? Because of "Roman Training"? Because he is simply Roman? It had me at a bias, despite Metatron making plenty of good points. But Vikings weren't all pesky and without skill in battle. They knew how to put up a fight. Knew how to perform a damn good siege as well.
The Legionaries would spend a lot of time doing things other than training also, building roads, bridges, fortifications, and other public works.
"Fight like a viking would", "Were skilled fighters", "even strategists"
Every country, every tribe that has ever existed had great fighters. Vikings are not special in that regard, the only ones that would have a real advantage are full time warriors like the Huscarls. Otherwise its just good old Sven taking a break from farmwork with a couple days worth of actual training with his buddies at the Mead hall. They having good strategist is expected, i mean they are sentient aren't they? Viking were skilled fighters but so was everyone else at the time, but as armies they have one hell of a long losing list.
And what's with the mentality that the Dark ages vikings are either "ooga booga greatest warriors evah" or "smartest around"?
All in all a typical legionary would better than a typical viking warrior, given that he is actually trained and seasoned.
The norsemen did not fight in a wild nature though. They were actually pretty damn organised and this knowledge was passed on from their ancestors, who learnt this from the Romans.
Your typical freeman has about half a year between plantings and harvests when there is little farm work to be done. What does a typical man do with such free time when there is no TV or internet? Practice fighting of course, while a soldier on a salary may be given constant busy work like a slave to get as much useful labour out of him as you can. There is only so much training you can to till further training has little benefit. The Roman Legions did not win wars because they were super awesome duellists, they won wars because their logistics was well organised and their formations were well drilled.
A "Viking" is specifically a warrior on a raid. Not all Norse men, Danes, and Swedes participated in being "Vikings".
It's actually anyone leaving by sea, stemming from the term "Vik", which is basically a natural harbor or the coastline.
So even traders, by definition, would belong in the category
Fun fact; Danish, Swedes and Norwegians were all referred to as 'Danes' at the time.
I thought that in England they were referred to often as Danes because in England they were mostly from Denmark.
Merl Ball So were Norwegians, coastal German-Fryian's and Dutch-Frysian's. Viking isn't a race it's a profession of sorts not exclusively Swedish or Däne.
Thank the norse gods someone knows that to go a Viking is a VERB....and I am not buying that a Legionar
would out fight a Norse Viking.
I would like to share this bit of history my teacher in her infinite knowledge decided to offer our class. We were on our high school philosophy class a few weeks ago when suddenly the topic of the fall of Rome came into discussion (we were talking about Saint Agustin and somehow came to that topic) The teacher was saying that the barbarians came and destroyed the empire when suddenly someone asked if they were the vikings, the discussion went on a little bit more when the teacher asked “Who were the vikings” I answered that they were a culture that lived on Scandinavia on the north, when suddenly my teacher decided to bestow upon is this magnificent piece of historical knowledge
“(To the class) Yes ok so they were a people that lived on the north, what kind of weather is around on the north? Cold right? And what type of clothing did the Romans wear? Togas right (insert brief simplified explanation of what togas are that actually describes the short tunic thingy whose name I don’t know) So the Romans weren’t able to conquer the vikings because of how they were dressed, because of the winter, just as it happened to the French when they invaded Russia during world war 2”
and Russia when they invaded Finland (Russia use winter but Finland was born in the winter)
@@kmeanxneth yes, but the problem was that she put the Romana and vikings on the same time frame, and Napoleon on ww2
@@tyrannicfool2503 yes
Bruh moment
I think individually the Viking stands a good chance, the Roman legionary although not completely undertrained in individual combat, is designed to be as a component of a larger group, that’s were most of his training went, learning drill and how to function as one cohesive unit, I think a Viking could bring down a single legionary as they have more experience in duels and one on one fighting, not only that but the Vikings kit allows him to be more malleable whereas the Romans shield isn’t really designed for one on one fighting, but like you said the legionaries armour is his advantage and therefore is more forgiving for him if he makes a mistake, so I think an individual fight between a Viking and a Roman legionary could go either way, but if you had an entire legionary century vs a raiding party of Vikings, then my money would be on the legionaries every time
no I disagree, as pointed out in the video, Romans were extremely adaptable versatile professional soldiers with extremely good equipment so some raider would not win, if we are talking same level of combat experience. Also what do you mean shield not good for one on one? That shield is good for any situation, because it's huge and covers a large area, and you can't expect the viking to dance around him to get past the shield, the roman can block from any direction. And not to mention the armor.
I know you like vikings, or the idea of vikings, who doesn't, especially the way they're portrayed in the Northman, but they're still not professionals like Romans were.
@@creed22solar123 if you would consider the early germanics and vikings to be similar you could say they were very effective. Ceasar his germanic horsemen helped win him a few battles both on foot and horse against roman soldiers.
A farmer would lose, a well trained viking would win.
@@creed22solar123 you shouldn't overplay adaptability, in the context of the Roman Legions their ARMED FORCES were adaptable and capable of reorganizing to deal with an issue, the individual soldier toddling through the mud isn't particularly adaptable, as it would be his death and defeat that made the Roman war machine start turning its gears, as was seen during the Punic, Germanic and Dacian Wars, where the Romans were repeatedly matched or even defeated several times before being able to develop an effective counter measure to the problem at hand.
Weren't Arminius' Germanic tribes that fought the Romans at Teutoborg forest basically proto-vikings?
They were, some of them at least. Even the Cimbri came originally from Jutland
People often bring up that battle as proof the germans were superior to the romans, but they never mention that Arminius was a roman citizen who got to know the ways of the romans, which allowed him to deceive and ambush the legions.
@@MaxHohenstaufen agree, and some years later the roman has its revenge by burning many germanic tribes past the rhine and even capture arminius’ wife
That's an interesting thought because no history teacher I had ever called the VIKINGS actually GERMANS.
The thing here is - would you call an Italian living from 600 a.d. to 1000 a.d. a Roman?
Even saying proto-vikings are putting it very mildly. Sure, they were of the same stock, worshipped similar gods and spoke a similar language, but is that enough? The defining characteristic of the Vikings is that they are seafaring. Without that, they're not Vikings. The barbarians of Teutoburg and that area of Germania had likely never seen a sea faring vessel larger than a small pram.
Jean-Claude Van Damme vs Steven Seagal
Lol good one. Two ancient warriors indeed. Jean Claude kicks Steven in the stomach, Steven grabs Jean Claude’s leg & snaps it with two fingers, they both go down.
Steven Seagal is a fraud
The muscles from Brussels vs the Michigan martial artist....
@@NichtNameee Steven Seagal isnt a fraud, his martial art is a fraud.
@@NichtNameee I'd rather say that he is a grand master of bullshit.
Hi Metatron! Could you do a video on medieval currency and how much most people made and the cost of common items? Thanks :)
I'm working on that actually ;)
Nathan Bryant, that is a great idea!
Metatron
I would advise looking at Spufford's "Money and it's use in Medieval Europe" for the topic of Medieval economy, a favorite source of mine a lifetime ago(ok, 16 years or so, methinks).. If you have any excellent sources (particularly with a beautiful cover like this) I would love to know..
Metatron did you ever finish?
The Viking of course would stab the roman with his horned helmet!
eh ... no. There were no horned helmets 😂🤣
@@yesyesyesyes1600 I am praying that his comment was sarcasm….
The Scandinavians and Danes in particular were actually pretty adaptable as well and were generally good at picking their battles well. Turns out when you’re skilled sailors on the North Sea you get really good at sensing where the wind is blowing and changing course as necessary. ;)
Forever and ever:
*ROMA INVICTA!*
If you think about it, the entire time that the Roman republic and the Roman Empire existed, the city of Rome was never conquered by another army. However it was sacked by the barbarians, but not conquered by an organized army. Thus making Roma Invicta a true statement
@@gart5379 yes and by Germanic peoples too
ASSASINO
@@gart5379 Do guerrillas always win? The French of Napoleon lost in Spain because of guerrillas.
@@pedrosabino8751 hmm. The U.S gave up and lost Vietnam to guerilla fighters...
I am happy my favorite RUclipsr talks about my ancestors 😊
As a swedish archaeologist that have specialized in Viking age I approve this! That said I have some points, we have only found one! Viking helmet that's the gjermundbu helmet in Norway. So helmets were probably rare. I would say that it's only the really rich that can afford one. The same with armour. Mail are a bit more common but still rare. The most common archaeological finds of protections are shields. Usually we only find weapons.
Im not sure I share your view on this. In Scandinavia you trained to be a fighter even as a common farmer because you had to fight for your local Jarl or king, and fights among local Jarls were common. The ordinary farmer was allowed to bear arms and they HAD to use them by law. Some historians say training started as early as 3 years old even for a farmers son, with the sword and more importantly with the spears. Naturally as you say only the rich had real swords but the seax or an axe could be used when the spear was broken or lost. Wrestling was a very important sport that you started to practise young which further brings skills for duel type combat. Fighting was an integrated part of the culture, not only for the ones going on a viking.
Furthermore the type of Shield the viking used as you say was good and it was more adapted for fast hand to hand combat like in a duel and could be used as an effective weapon for striking aswell. While I have no doubt that a Roman legionary army would absolutely destroy a Norseman army Im not so sure the common legionary by default would have the upper hand in a duel especially not when most of his battle experience would be from doing battle in formation.
Battles could be won or lost, but Rome succeeded long-term through developing practices that the Norse didn't. Road-building, literate officers, and record keeping (logistics) was much of what made Rome's conquest machine.
@@oneproudbrowncoat I fully agree, sir.
@@guseks8413 thank you, it's a point I find often overlooked.
Makes sense. Of course, a scenario like that never happened and we are limited to conjectures and, tbh, it could have gone either way. Before firearms were invented, there's just no way to say with 100% accuracy that a fight with swords and spears would HAVE to end with this or that victorious. But, as I said, you make good arguments.
Actually the Vikings did meet up with the roman legionaries. It was during the Byzantine era. What happened was that, instead of fighting, the Vikings hired on to fight for the Emperor alongside the legionaries. From what I've heard, the Vikings were considered an elite troop. This would mean to me that, when properly equipped, the two groups were considered equally matched.
I'm glad that viking seamen are now being considered.
Ave! Nice video, and "sax" is usually how I've heard the long-knife called... Hope you're doing well during this crazy plague, Metatron!
That was a fun presentation, and I love your enthusiasm for your "home team" in this kind of theoretical thought experiment. Seeing it from the other side, my thought is "History already addresses this issue, and the situation was perhaps unfair for various reasons (including diet & religion), but it was an outcome that happened consistently." When the empire met people like this, they learned to stop trying to conquer and start trying to trade with or hire them instead. In such cases, the empire cast down their own bridge, or built a marker wall, and went home with their pride. Sometimes bravado must bow to wisdom, and when you find yourself facing a Bear-cloak, it's a good time to exercise that judgement.
I don't understand why this guy doesn't have more subs! Best channel on YT IMO.
2:50 prediction: The Viking sells his three slaves to the Roman and they part ways.
Do a video on a fight between a Drunken Roman citizen versus a Drunken Japanese farmer. They can only use the bottle of their most common drink container as a weapon
Correct me if I'm wrong, didn't the Gaelic speaking people hold roman soldiers and their tactics in very high reguard and try to emulate them in many ways? I mean the vikings formed a testudo in France... And many Vikings would trade and raid in the same voyage abroad and many had very quality equipment for their time period. I wouldn't write the northman off so easily, in the sagas they tend to show a tactical prowess when fighting for foreign lords that the locals usually did not match and I think it is because of their understanding of roman military strategy and their worldliness compared to other societies of their time. Pretty much my opinion is that the Roman Legionary would be using tactics long studied and analyzed by the vikings forefathers putting him at a serious disadvantage
Roman Soldiers trained themselves carrying full armor and weapons with the triple of the weight and becaming quick and reactive with them. After it they passed to real equipment to became efficient machines of death. A roman soldier was used to march 60 km a day with full equipment on his shoulders and after it build the Castrum camp. Roman soldiers subdue the vast majority of ancient world conquering the most different civilizations for centuries. A single roman soldier, like a veteran of Caesar legions, would take a viking and make a quite nice carpet with his skin.
No, in this video we are talking about a Viking who apparently raided places all by himself. He was a one man army. So, he would have a decent chance against the professional Roman soldier.
Roman soldiers were pussies!
Don't talk, you were defeated by the Franks, Imperial Rome could have crush you like an insect, vikings were aiming innocent civilians and monks, then to quickly run to their drakkar to not face the enemy garrison, such pussy norsemen
@@saguntum-iberian-greekkons7014 i mean i wouldn't call the guys who conquered england, sack paris, discovered america, and whose descendants will conquer england again pussy but eh each to their own oh and one more point the reason that the Vikings Targeted monastery is because picture this the monastery are a pretty much a piggy bank guarded by a bunch of monks that can't fight to save their own lives they're easy target if the romans have the choice to raided monastery they would've done so no questions ask
They never manage to conquer the Germanic, but they tried.
This is about a duel not a battle.
I think it depends on which epoch the legionnaire comes from. Also what type of legionnaire. It also depends on what type of "Viking" the legionnaire meets. If he meets a poor robber or a member of the military upper class who where also proffessional skilled and trained warriors. I think it is difficult to say who stays at the end of the duel, as there can be so many factors in combat that can determine victory and defeat, but one thing is certain: in an open battle a formed Roman legion is almost near invincible.
I'd like to see a total revisitation of this covering what exactly each person has for equipment.
Now i'm curious what Skallagrims opinion is about this topic
before or after he goes on a tangent about tangents?
I wanna know too
marius schoenmaker i have a feeling skall will make a video on this
he'd say we dont know enogh about either so who knows he said that about weaburi vs knight.
@@jkosch Vikings came from a varrior culture where they were taught martial arts from a very young age. They would have trained for at least 10 years before going on their first raids. Romans did not learn martial arts before they were drafted to the legions. If they did, they were usually highborne folks that became officers. Vikings felled forrests, worked hard on their farms, hunted, practiced martial arts and rowed their own ships. I think they were far stronger and fitter than most of us can imagine. Have you ever met a farmer that competes in rowing? That farmer would break any of us in 2, including a legionaire.
The Vikings also used great axes...one blow from could crush bones regardless of armor and there’s distance....the Roman would have to try to get close to deliver a good blow
"Nothing makes me disseminate faster than a Roman soldier stabbing me" ;D
Duel is won by viking hands down. Because dueling was a central part of the Old Norse legal system. The legionary is made for formation fighting. And the Romans did not duel, at all. The mail hauberk is useless in a duel because most attacks are directed at the hands and lower arms and face.
And in a duel a viking would use an axe or a sword.
Legionary.
I think the fight would be more even, raider vikings were also good att adapting to their opponents and many of them were very skilled in using their gear. You also have to account for that there were band's of "Viking Mercenaries", one such band were even maid knights. So maybe, just maybe, the Legionary and the Viking would be more evenly matched. ☺
I love how you forgot to mention a few key factors. Firstly, physicality. The average 8th century Scandinavian was nearly a foot taller than the average legionary. Then you're assuming that the Viking was a noon, based on his equipment and tactics. Any Viking who'd been on a few raids would have invested in a proper hauberk. And they knew how to disable shields, it was part of their shelling tradition, odds are the Viking would try to imbed his spear into the Romans scutum then switch to his seax, which wasn't much smaller than a Gladius. Just a few things you missed.
" The average 8th century Scandinavian was nearly a foot taller than the average legionary."
Oh? where did you get that number from? I find that to be VERY hard to believe. A present day Dane is about 5'11, a present day Italian is about 5'9 1/2 to 5"10 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_human_height_by_country
People in general would have been shorter then but I see no reason why the differential would be greater now than it was then especially by such a large number. Further, it seems to me that the diet of a Roman would probably have been better and more consistent in childhood than a Viking, and further still it's possible that while being shorter a Roman would have been more powerfully built by musculature.
Amen dude
@@emintey There are numerous accounts by both Roman and Arab historians about the size of Scandinavian people in both time periods. Nearly everyone was in agreement that they were larger than most Roman and Arab people.
The problem is, a Roman Legionary is a soldier, trained to fight as part of a unit. The viking is a warrior, used to less-organized combat, including single combat. Without a formation to back it up, the scutum, being so large, could be grabbed and wrenched around from his left side, since he has no one protecting his flank.
Poul Anderson wrote a historical fantasy series titled "The King of Ys". In the first novel, a Roman centurion had to fight a duel with a Celtic chieftain. The centurion nearly lost. The author made the point that Roman gear and training was specialized for organized group fighting, not single combat. But the habitual training makes a big difference.
Bear in mind that as a rich guy, the Celt had armor and good weapons, and confidence.
i think in a one on one fight you have to look at the size difference, this can't be underestimated as most accounts of Saxon's always reference the sheer size of the Norse Raiders. As a sports fan i can tell you size is extremely important in combat. Also Vikings don't have a history of trained soldiers but they do have a history of weight and strength training. Of the attacks the Norseman is able to land you'd have to assume more force would be generated weather with his shield or weapon. I ain't saying this would change the result but it has to effect its difficulty. If any of this is wrong please don't debunk too hard.
@SaxonViolence the Saxon chronicles document how big the Vikings were
@SaxonViolence true. i think the Vikings trained lifting rocks and things so the Saxons may have meant big and in muscular
Honestly? It depends on the Era of the legionary. Later ones would lose, but the "classical" troops are too well drilled and disciplined for the Viking.
Drilling and discipline will not always save you. They would be up against a foe fighting unalike they have ever seen before (Probably) and that might just be enough for them to fall. I love Metatron's content, but on this one, I feel he holds too high of a regard to the Romans, like many, many people do. They were among the worlds finest armies, yes, but far too many over exaggerate them. Vikings WERE good fighters. Some, even saw fighting and battle as a way of religion. To die in battle, means to come to Valhalla, where you would drink, boast of your glorious fights and then go out and fight infinitely. It was a religion to some vikings. They were known to be good strategists as well as having their shield and weapon style that the Romans likely have not seen before, nor knows how to fight against.
To me, it would be a very tight fight. Close for either one, but in the end, I give it to the viking, due to his unpredictability.
+L0LHei i think more probably a viking has never seen something even close to a classical legionary .-. While on the other hand romans fought for centuries against nordic tribes with a cult for war
Vikings are good warriors, but are barely trained nor disciplined. Just because they view death in the battlefield as an honor doesn't mean they are eager to embrace it. They are mostly raiders and pillagers, not hardcore "to the death" warriors.
LoLHei - Romans were professional soldiers, with a superior training, superior armor and well fed. They were used to kill everything they faced. The Vikings were more or less hobby fighters which no standardized training and lacked about everything the Romans excelled in.
The Vikings had far superior arms and armor.
People forgot that the Dacians handed the Romans ass the first time due to their armor and weapons (e.g falx)
I've been watching quite a few of these kinds of videos lately. Lots of love to the content creators!
But does the comment section always have to devolve into a nationalist pissing contest?
What about navies comparison ? Were Greeks / Vikings / Roman 's military ships designed for sea battle or just for transport ?
Viking ships where built for sailing, be it stormy seas or shallow rivers, they where not built for Naval warfare as such.
Greek had heavier transport ships for troops, and lighter triremes for ramming., i would assume the romans had similar ships
A carving from a stone in Skåne, (Tulltorpsstenen) shows a viking ship. With a back and front ram. In the battle of Svolder a special made ship, with an 'iron beard' was used i.e a ram. They also boarded ships on sea and fought on the decks. Read the battle of Svolder and Olaf Tryggvason. They tied some ships together in that battle for better defense capabilities. And to make the 'ground' more stable.
Thing is Gustavo, the vikings would have won this bu using the elements against the romans, as theis ships would be faster, shallower and over all better in the ocean. remember, while the roman ships might have been bigger, they would not crawl up a river, and they would break in open sea as they would be to large and rigide
your mentions of the seefaring of roman ships follows routes that are close to land, witch was the common rule, the norsemen sailed across the the Atlantic and west, without a coastal guideline. also, it is true that the Missconseptios word longboat were more versatile than the gallei, but it was still a specialised ship. Tha Lasgboat as you called it is called a Drakkar, a Dragonship, a higli manuvreable warvessal, both fast and manuvreable, but it was flecible as well in the ocean, so it bent instead of breaking, ot did not stich deep into the water either, and were build in a way (thats still in use in scandinavia today) that gave more lift in the water as well as stability (stephulls). this made it possible to both reach Vinland, Iceland, Greeenland, the British isles, France, whats now Italy, North Africa and Egypt, through the Mediterranian sea, and all the way to the Black sea through rivers through Gardariket (Norse for Russia) the peoples that the bysanians calles Rus, were in fact Scandinavians.
Im sorry for the digression, thing is, this was a specialised warship, and were not the ship used for traiding, the trais ships, were of a type called Knarr, a form of ship that still are made today.
In daylight the gallei would anahilate the Drakkar, if it could geti t in range of the balista, thats why I said to lure them out into the open ocean, where its size nd stiffness would break it.
Gustavo Larancia don't get me wrong......but I'm pretty sure that after roughly 100 AD romans never had much of a war fleet, because there was no need for it, the Mediterranean Sea was basicly a roman lake and there was no other maritime power neighbouring them.....
I'd like to see equally skilled fighters on each side. A Norseman who has been on many raids, an experienced legionnaire who has either been on a long campaign or several. A Norseman in full mail armor with padding with a bow, spear, shield, Axe, Seax. A fully kitted legionnaire. If we take away ranged attack methods and its down to axe and shield vs. Gladius and shield, in my humble opinion the Norseman has the advantage. Both are reasonably quick but with his shield I believe the Norseman is more mobile and it's said their shields were meant to catch axes and swords to control and move their opponent. I see a few traded blows blows until the Norseman gets a good parry and strikes down with his axe on the neck, shoulder, shield or sword arm. After that strike lands, even if it doesn't necessarily kill the legionnaire he will be extremely dazed or near incapacitated. From there all the Norseman has to do is land another blow. Just my opinion.
Agreed. There's a fair amount left out of this video. Small Roman enthusiasts - with less reach and arm length than the average northman - are adorable.
Vikings did train for combat both land and water battles. They were not just Bjorn the farmer that just pick up a spear one day and decided to plunder monasteries.
well it depends, if we are talking lowest ranking infantry and the equivilant in viking society we have an armed farmer, if we move further up in ranks we are talking jomsvikings, housecarls and varengian guard
"I know I know, you know, right... but he doesn't"
Niente dopo questa devo iscrivermi
The Norseman would win. He's used to fighting one on one and doesn't have to rely on his buddies as much as the Roman. He probably bigger, stronger and more courageous than the Roman as well so more than likely the Roman would just run away. LOL And don't forget he has Odin and the other Gods and Goddesses on his side. :)
Based
In a 1v1 the Viking would most definitely win, especially since they had a high emphasis on single combat. And the Viking's warrior culture and beliefs were nothing to mess around with. But in a large scale open-field battle, the Vikings would be facing EXTREME numerical superiority. Plus ballistas, catapults, war elephants, pilums, it would ultimately overpower the Norsemen. They wouldn't surrender, but Valhalla would recieve some fine guests.
Now that's what would happen in an open field. In a forest or city, I'd give the Norsemen the upper hand. In a forest, they'd be harder to spot than the Romans with their shiny armor. And with the way vikings used archers as marksmen, they could do some serious damage to the Romans. Any formations started would be small, and Norsemen definitely have advantages when fighting in smaller numbers. In cities and buildings, it would come down to chaotic house-to-house fighting which vikings were used to because of their raids. Not only that, but I predict that the nature of that kinda fight would come down to lots of 1v1 encounters, which we both know gives the Norsemen another advantage. The biggest issue they face is the Roman's numbers, discipline, strategy and technology. Vikings on the other hand were "ballsier" on average due to their culture, usually stronger, and had decent enough strategy and technology and I bet they could face the Romans in multiple situations. But a large open-field battle wouldn't go well for the Norsemen, that's for sure.
@@ericolsen5592 Agreed!
When People talk about the Fact that Viking Raid and kill Un-Armed monk for thievery. They ignore that fact That Christianity did the same thing (only on a much larger scale) centuries ago.
No they don’t, it’s obvious that it happened but it’s not necessary to talk about it so why talk about it if you were talking about Vikings?
Not all Norsemen were raiders, but Vikings were people that had gone Viking - which mean out raiding. So a Norse seafarer is only a Viking if they are actively on a raiding mission.
I think the point right at the end is key. We are talking about a fully equipped Roman with the best gear of his day. The fully equipped Viking raider with the best gear of his day had a pretty badass steel sword that was actually the best in Europe at the time, good helmet, very formidable mail, excellent shield, and lots of fighting experience as well. Not as well trained as the Roman, certainly, but not necessarily a pushover. Yes, putting a fully equipped pro soldier against a Norse farmer with a spear is suicide for the Norseman.
just watched skallagrims video about for honor and how inaccurate it was. would like to see a video about if the armor of a Viking could hold up against the bow and arrows of Japanese samurai to finally disprove/prove if what game theorist had a point or not. personally I would not know. good video Metatron keep up the good work.
Bryan Regalado
Well, is quite easy to answer; viking at best worn rivited bloomery iron mail armor over a gambeson. Mail is not the best type of armor against arrows, and piercing attacks too.
The Japanese used high energy/ high draw weight bow specialized in armor piercing, with heavy and long arrows fitted with hardened steel arrow heads designed to pierce armor, they could even just slip through the rings and tear apart the gambeson.
It's highly probable that Japanese bow will pierce the mail and achieve a dead shot.
Here is an article on the Japanese bow; there is also a section dedicated to armor vs bow:
gunbai-militaryhistory.blogspot.it/2017/07/yumi-japanese-bow.html?m=1
Bryan Regalado I believe that it could hold up. I could be wrong. Also keep this in mind... the Long Bows that Vikings used were equally and sometimes even more powerful (draw weight) than the Samurai bows. So to be fair... if Samurai arrows could penetrate through something like riveted chainmail... than so could a Viking's arrows to an Samurai's armor.... this could be a really cool video topic though.
Bryan Regalado I believe the vikings themselves came across this problem when fighting other people, so they made arrows with skinnier arrows heads, if the Japanese arrows are similar to these arrows then I suppose yes it could, but this is just a calculated guess and should not be taken as fact until actually testing. For now I'm just gonna say that it's likely but since I have never seen a longbow shot at a target wit 800ad or 1000ad armor on.
just after doing some research and I have seen images of very skinny looking arrows head which I believe could penetrate. But I believe more research is still needed because they had a large variety of arrow heads and I don't know what purpose they all served or what situation they would be used in, which were preferred or more handier and so on.
Luca Nic I think that gambeson and chainmail can still hold up to a Samurai's bow. Sometimes not though. It's all technical I understand.... It's also important to point out that Vikings almost always used a shield (if they weren't using a two handed weapon). So a nice shield -which covers the entire torso-could soften a blow of an arrow too. Lastly, Viking long bows have an equal draw weight and sometimes higher draw weight than that of a Samurai's and I think it's fair to say that they're pretty much still equal with the whole bow and armpit piercing comparison. I'd maybe even give a slight edge to the Vikings due to the use of a shield.
Im pretty sure we have no data on the draw weight of 9th century danish longbows. I don't think we can assume that they were as good as, better or worse than japanese longbows.
Overall I don't think viking armor would be able to stop their arrows, unless we're talking about something like a wealthy lord or huscarl. And even then the arrow would most likely still pierce it, just not inflicting a fatal wound.
don't forget that the Norse controlled about half of England at one point as well as Dublin and the Orkney islands
And rome controlled half the world
Not even near half the world
The Danes controlled half of England, the Norse had the hebrides and Dublin
I will have to disagree with your opinion, respectfully of course.
Giving the roman good equipment and the viking a single helmet is unfair. Vikings were wearing armor as well, it's a huge misconception that they weren't wearing any armor. Even if it is just a gambeson, even that was designed to protect against bladed weapons like axes, swords and daggers. But in many cases viking raiders were wearing chainmail, to my knowledge better and more advanced chainmail then a roman legionary's, due to the time gap of course.
I know you love the roman legions for their devotion to their empire but vikings, I think were even more willing to die for a cause.
A bit of religious note: where would you rather go after you die in battle? To Pluto and the Underworld or to Odin Valhalla? I think the anwser is quite clear.
So as you said on your other videos in this series itwould very largely depend on individual skill. But I do think the viking has a very, very good chance.
I really think People overestimate the Vikings Religion. Everybody wants to go Home tho there families in the end. And why is it always the viking Religion that get this treatment ? The Roman could be Cristian and thinks he is going to Heaven for defending monks so why would he have more fear of dead ?
@@fabianmiron2782 heaven is more of a thing you are happy to go to when you are at peace, not in battle. war itself is frigthening everyone so knowing you will dine with your gods, brawl and celebrate with your sworn mates is imo a better view then going to heaven and finding eternal peace. the viking would look forward to the battle more then the christian would imo.
for the comparison we need to use two fighters who are professional warriors not a raiding farmer and a soldier. so i choose a house soldier, someone who serves a jarl. they had helmets, shields, good mail, sax and either axe or sword, rarely both. they would fight every day against the others to train when there was no fight to be had.
so if we take the roman from a period of constant campaigning and a house soldier from the invasion of britain times we are as close as we can get.
i would only give the roman a advantage for his gladius (as its better for stabbing through mail then a regular sword) and a better helmet. mail with wool underneath is equal i guess to romans better armour but only thin tunik. dont know how well the roman shield holds up against axes so wont go that route.
we can agree on the viking most likely being bigger then the roman with a lighter shield. i dont like the point that the roman would walk every day with 30kg of stuff and had to carry everything. the viking did too and his stuff was as heavy with more wool, boots with metalplates or strings in them and long pants.
the disciplin to fight in formation doesnt help the roman in a 1v1, same goes for his tactical knowledge. for romans fighting was a team thing, vikings thought for themselfs and their own pride, which may not help in this fight but it changes the reason to fight and train, which could change the starting points in terms of skill or willingness to duel.
the viking would most likely be a very small bit drunk to resist the fear of battle better. so what does the viking see? a smaller guy then him with a bigger shield and a short sword. either shaved or at least with his hair and beard held short. the roman on the other hand would see a guy bigger then him with a longer sword or an axe which also outreaches him with a wild look (long beard and hair, maybe bones in the beard) eager to fight while not having the known and trusted support of his guys with him.
confidence goes a long way in those situations as long as you dont get cocky, so with all that in mind i would give the edge to the viking as the equipment is more or less same quality, he outreaches the roman in his weapons and his height and imo more importantly he has the psychological advantage (bigger and probably wilder looking). he does fights for his own pride, wealth and glory every day. he does it because he likes fighting and he is a house soldier because he is good at it. the viking looks also forward to the afterlife where he does what he does and likes already (fighting, drinking, fucking).
I believe the problem with putting a "Viking" raider against any military grade historical warriors is you're basically putting a civilian against a soldier. Granted it's a hardened asf civilian raider, but they aren't highly trained soldiers backed by a government budget.
I think the better and more interesting and worthwhile thing to do, if you want to discuss a "Viking" Scandinavian against another warrior is to compare with the Scandinavian mercenaries that found themselves in other militaries services.
Replace the viking with a Varagnian Guard or even a Norman (A stretch ik), then this is a totally different story.
It's interesting to note that in Njals Saga the term "viking" *only* refers to raiders. As to the proposed combat, I think experience counts for a lot. The experience of the miles gregarius is mainly geared towards large scale battle, operating in large, coordinated units, following orders and holding ranks, not single combat. The saga's (particularly Njals saga) imply this was more the norsemans comfort zone. The two might be more evenly matched than you think, IMHO.
A Roman soldier couldn’t handle a Vandal. What makes you think a Roman Soldier could handle a Norse Warrior?
I believe the viking would win. The viking shield would excel on the legionary in reach, making it both safer and easier to disarm the legionary by injuring his exposed limbs.
I just don't think the roman would be capable of covering enough of his exposed areas vs a viking if you compare their shields.
Shields are attached to articulate arms you know, they can move it around. And a legionary worth his salt would never expose a limb unintentionally. Reach would only factor in if they are using a long weapon, even so they are always at a striking distance.
I agree but for different reasons. In a duel, assuming equal skill, the viking wins because he is likely physically larger by several inches and most likely carrying a spear which has a far longer reach than a gladius. Or he has an axe which can hack a scutum apart. Both are very experienced fighting enemies with shields and using their own to defend. The roman would have a defense advantage with the Lorica segmentata but its very, very, very hard to get around the sheer reach advantage of a spear in a duel. Is nowhere as easy as you think to just bat a spear aside and charge in because a spear wielder can very, very quickly choke up on the haft and use it at shorter ranges, faster than a man can advance on him. A double handed longsword loses most duels to a spear in HEMA practice so I can't imagine a short gladius with 1/3rd the reach could manage it. Army on army the roman's vastly more organized, better equipped, and disciplined legions would curb-stomp viking armies. Not to mention it would be astonishing if an alliance of multiple Jarls could even bring up as many housecarls and seasoned raiders as there were men in even a single Roman legion.
Metatron, im sure you have some Roman ancestry, haha you very interested in Latin/Roman culture. Quoque amo cultura Romana!
Im sure many geeks and uncultured people would say that the viking wins, because they are the hero in tv shows.
The Vikings would win a naval battle. More swords/axes have been found in this period in Scandinavia than spears
This is a situation where a viking and a roman soldier would be magically and unexpectedly put together to fight each other.
Because if the hypothesis was about a situation where these two being potential enemies, then the roman army would adapt (as they always did) and equip their soldiers to have armor that can piece through mail armor.
It's obvious that a Roman would easily win. Vikings can not be considered neither soldiers nor warriors, they were simple raiders, accustomed to facing helpless civilians. If a Viking had faced a professional soldier, like a legionary soldier, he would surely have lost both by armament and by combat tactics. A combat ax can do nothing against a sharp sword and at the moment the opponent had struck from above, the legionary would have saved the shot and immediately hit the enemy in the abdomen, knocking him out ...
"Vikings can not be considered neither soldiers nor warriors" byzantine empire disagrees
didnt the vikings faced professional english and frank soldiers?
@@rpavangchhia8953 English (I would say anglo-saxons) and Franks were german like the Vikings, they didn't have professional soldiers like legionaries
@@rpavangchhia8953 depends on the definition of viking
in modern english the one word has many definitions
one being all norse people of the viking age
second being a norse raider of the viking age
third being norse warriors and raiders of the viking age
thats really the most common meanngs
in the viking age however "vikingr" means a norse raider
lets just assume here that you are asking if the norse peoples in the viking age had soldiers, yes absolutely, they had housecarls (basically a less formal knight position where you are in the reserve of a lord or king) a varengian guard (which was a position held by norse and kieven rus people as the personal retinue and mercenaries of the byzantine emperor) or the jomsvikings (a sort of mercenary guild/mostly independent army stationed out of wendland who would get up to all sort of shananigans even having their own saga just about them)
then we also have thing like wars between norse king fighting over land, the great heathen army that invaded england, harald hadrads army that tried to take england and even the multiple times norse warrior forces took paris
none of these parallel the soldiers of modern times or the roman armies but if you look at armies and soldiers of medieval times then the norse fit just the description
@@magnusorn7313 For me the definition of viking is: pirate scandinavians.
I believe it's pronounced like "Sax".
I'm talking the Seax by the way.
I think seax is pronounced like sax
I think it's Seeks
It's even spelled as Sax in old norse lol.
Michael VPS Maybe though I've never heard it said like that before.
Óðinn I guess there's my answer then!
Always practice safe Seax! It's pronounced as 'Sax'. We still call scissors 'Sax' here. One blade of a scissor has the same shape as a seax.
If you think about it....the Norse and Danish warriors were just advanced versions of the Germanic trines the Romans fought. Nah, Im sure there is nothing to worry about. Its not like Rome got merked at Tutenberg (I know I spelled that wrong) or anything.......oh, wait......
Have you heard about that time the vikings almost took bysantiium? they lost only because of numbers. After that attack the byzantine emperor wanted them to be he's personal mercenarys "The Varangian Guard"
" almost took bysantiium" didnt even reach the walls
I think the viking would end up offering the legionary a spare shield, and the two would come to a mutually acceptable agreement.
The viking shield has the center grip and the center metal boss so it can also be used as a weapon. The shield edge is another weapon. Can kill you with either. Enormous roman shield is only good for hiding behind.
You do realize the scutum has a center boss grip too, right? Legionaries would carry their shields like a briefcase. Also guess what? You could bash with the edge of the scutum as well.
Not all vikings
You cannot judge all vikings for the actions of a few!
This has nothing to do with Odin!
#notall
With equal numbers on both sides, and in pitched battle front-to-front, I'm pretty sure the legionnaires would eventually win. I'm sad to say this, because I'm Norwegian myself.
You may be surprised to hear that it is in fact _not_ due to stuff like throwing the pilum, the main reason being that the vikings were in actually very proficient with spears themselves. Also it isn't entirely true that the vikings were poorly armed. They had good helmets, they made _very_ good use of their shields, and many if not most of them wore chainmail both in war and when raiding. And if it didn't fit, they had smiths that could fix it. That does not make for an easy target!
However here ends the similarity. Vikings put a lot of emphasis on personal glory in battle, and thus they would be more likely to act on their own and without orders during a fight. This is a huge problem when facing an highly organised enemy, but a tremendous advantage when fighting in a one-on-one battle. Every young viking would regularly if not daily spar with their fathers, brothers and friends with both wooden and sharp swords (and other weapons). Being able to defend yourself was of vital importance to the vikings, and receiving a training cuts and wound was seen as a matter of honour.
However the vikings were used to fight at a numerical disadvantage, and they would thus avoid meeting the enemy front-to-front if at all possible. Instead they would make use of taunting and ruses to present a "weakness" to lure the enemy into an ambush, or indeed to sneak into the enemy camp at night and thus ambush them that way.
All in all, I'd say the legionnaires would have a slight advantage in a pitched battle, but the vikings would still be a highly dangerous foe in any other situation - even if they hid behind a walled encampment. For instance the famous Norse crusader king Sigurd Jorsallfar (the All-World-Traveller) would use such tactics as putting tar on small birds flying in and out of walled cities, and then putting the tar on fire to make fires inside the city (most houses were wooden, though the wall was made out of rock).
Btw. just say *sword,* man! It's the correct word for what the vikings used. Only a foreigner would use such a thing as a seax, and if a viking was able to either buy or "liberate" one from a Saxon, then the viking would still call it a sword, or rather "sverd" or perhaps "swearthe". It's a pretty old word stemming from Proto-Germanic. Although the Saxons are also of Germanic descent, it's kind of like comparing Italians to Spaniards at this point; similar but not the same.
tl;dr: The viking would of course win on a one-on-one situation. They would lose in a front-to-front pitched battle, however, but they'd make sure to never get into something like that in the first place.
Speaking on the Romans ability to adapt is great but you failed to consider the gorilla style tactics implored by the Norse. Their whole combat tactic is based on adaptability. The Romans were taught a specific set of tactics and having been a soldier myself I can tell you that variations are minor from what you were taught. The tactics are drilled into you until they become involuntary, but that is also a weakness for you become predictable. The Norse did not have this handicap as they had no uniformed training making them far more versatile. As far as the armor goes the Norse would already be used to fighting against armored opponents.
Semenship
🙄
It has to be a weaboo right
ᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
........I admit, I did look down here specifically to see if someone was gonna comment about this. And you did not disappoint lol
Hate to be a contrarian here, but I do personally believe that a raider from Scandinavia in the time period mentioned would definitely have the upper hand here. He would have trained in martial skills most likely from as young as 3 or 4 years of age. Granted most of that would have been in the form of Glima, but he would be well versed in hand to hand combat. He may very well have been participating in cattle raids and the like since the age of 12. By the age of 14 or so he may even have engaged in his first Holmgang or been part of a blood feud... Even the ones engaged "trade" were known to have been deadly opponents if their ideas and beliefs in honor were crossed or violated. Another possible weapon combination for the viking is axe and shield, a far more versatile combo than many give credit... Can't hook anything all that effectively with a gladius. A technique that would have been fairly effective in a duel.
Your view of the Vikings are bit idealized there.
chocoman45 - I disagree. Mr Price has a point. The Scandinavians did not make their mark on the world just by building better boats and seamanship alone. And Vikings didn't just wake up one morning and think it would be fun to go out and raid a monastery. This technology and way of life developed over many centuries within the scandinavian heartlands.
The warriors going on raids were experienced fighters (they had survived thus far), who knew how to effectively use the equipment and weapons available to them. They were tough fighters. And raiding being opportunistic in nature, successful vikings would have learned to recognize, gauge and seize opportunities as they presented themselves
As to who would win a duell, I really couldn't say. I don't believe it to be a foregone conclusion that the roman legionnaire would come out on top, even in full plate armor, with shield, sword and javelins equipped.
They were competent fighters but most were adventurous, and were just there to loot then go home there were experienced fighters and there were those that had experience with fighting, the latter was the majority. The did not live for battle, they glorified it, they took to war just as much as any people at the time, but for those who went raiding, the MO was steal, loot and flee before any actual resistance comes, but that does not mean they were bad warriors, but fighting wasn't the goal and there are also skilled warriors on the other side.
Vikings should be praised more as crafty tradesmen, shrewd statesmen, and brave explorers. Because in terms of their records of actual conquest and fighting pitched battles it leaves much to be desired.
chocoman45 the cult of Odin would disagree, as would the majority of "Vikings". Seeing as they believed the only way to attain Valhalla was to die in combat. Their "empire" more of sphere of influence was from N America to Russia and south into Africa, much of that was through trade, but they took Greenland Iceland, Russia, Ireland, parts of Scotland and england, france, They served as personal guards to the Byzantine Emperors and Empresses. They were used by others as shock troops. You Sir are mistaken in so much.
Romans lost to saxons. Saxons lost to Vikings, but megatron thinks romans will win....ah ok 👌🏻 Optimus prime may disagree.
I can't fault your conclusion, but a more "fair" match, since as you say the ordinary "viking" wasn't a professional soldier, would be a Roman Legionary vs a Jomsviking or a Huskarl, both of which were professional soldiers of the Nordic lands.
Le1fur - No a Jomsviking is not. A legionary has up to 20 years of training as a professional soldier and he is surrounded by professionals. The Vikings in any way shape or form are amateurs compared to the Roman war machine. The success of the Vikings depended on their less trained surrounding.
I am not sure about a number of your points. This is a hypothetical so there is no reason to preclude a well equipped veteran Viking. If the sagas are to be believed at all, some Vikings did indeed see a great deal of organised combat against organised armies in England, Ireland, France and the Iberian Peninsula. That does not account for the many Viking who worked as mercenaries in the Byzantine (Roman) empire ad elsewhere. If we were to take an experienced and wealthy ex Varangian guard from AD1000 and pit him against a roman Legionary with the best available legionary armour of AD100, my odds would be on the Viking for the following reasons. 1. The Viking has equipment that is designed for individual combat. Although Vikings used shield walls, their equipment is far more flexible than that of the legionnaire. He has a more adaptable and manoeuvrable shield and significantly greater reach with any of the preferred Viking weapons; spear, sword or axe. 2. as an extension of point one the Roman has equipment designed for teamwork and cooperative defence. Additionally the pilum is the greatest advantage the roman has and you deprived him of that option. In this fantasy, the Viking is able to control the engagement, his shield is quite sufficient to protect against the limited reach and range of attacks provided by a gladius and he can weary his opponent while easily keeping distance until the roman makes an error which leaves him open to attack. 3. Viking swords are hugely superior to roman swords and armour. Metallurgy as you yourself have pointed out on this channel advanced a great deal on the 500 years since the collapse of the western empire. The Viking could well be wearing the best Byzantine armour money could buy and be armed with a very good quality crucible steel sword. I think it is reasonable to say that ten Romans beat ten Vikings but one Viking beats one roman.
Bjorn Ironside a viking who sailed thru the Mediterranean. Obviously this legionary vs viking would never happen because vikings were a good 100 years after the roman empire
I heard that Vikings discoverd America a while before Columbus ,and called it Vinland.
And made it to Boston. Maybe Minnesota
1 on 1 Viking win
army vs army Roman win
Exactly! With the Roman is was group efficiency. With the Viking it was individual combat prowess. The Romans must have known they could not win against the northern barbarian in his style of fighting. The Germanic warriors were just bigger and taller than the Romans. The Romans adopted a modified Greek style of fighting that gave them a huge advantage.
Steven Leslie agree also i think the physique of the Norse Viking could possibly not always be more imposing (height strength) plus it is known that Vikings where good at wrestling people to the ground it’s was quite a loved sport back then for Norse people and still is.
@@strengthisabsolutestrength8215 your talking about Glima there's two different forms regular Glima which is the wrestling part and everyone learned this even the women. Then there's combat Glima which is like a martial arts it's more of a grappling form tho but they also trained with sword,axe's,shields,spears, and fist and they normally started this practice around 7 for the men. He doesn't understand Vikings trained how to fight at young ages. I think a viking would win just because his just has brute strength and speed he would come so fast and hard the Roman should be shocked. And I'm sure they'll make a circle or a square so all the Vikings can watch in entertainment they would obviously make the fight fair both would have the same weapons.
I would put my bets on a Viking, because those who joined the raids were the best and strongest available, whereas the dire need for soldiers in the Roman empire had to lower the standards for a casual Roman legionnaire. Even in our time, we could argue the quality of cops would also drop (to a more of fat and low moral type) if we had to hire vast amounts of them fast, as we cant just slice the best of the top anymore.
Also, as the Roman's had to train alot of soldiers, this must have its effect on the quality of the training. Consider a team of Spec Ops, 10-12 people with one-on-one -training for a couple of years, versus a recruit who gets trained along hundreds of others and thrown to a formation straight outta the assembly line.
These are the greatest differences, in my opinion.
So this a fight between vikings at their strongest vs the Romans at the end of their era
I wasn't thinking in terms of a "one-on-one" encounter, but more on terms of a formation of legiones versus an equal number or so of Vikings. That would have been something to see and study. From a safe distance. From inside a Warrior IFV. Or a Dardo :P
A soldier, yes, but in your example he is alone. The strength of soldiers is cooperation. No one to guard his left, weakness. And what about the Viking's Axe, hard on that big shield of the Legionary.
Haven't the Vikings proved over and over again that the Romans couldn't conquer them?
Yup, and the Romans seized conquest of the north for a millennia, both ended up being trading partners at the end.
Vikings didn't have contact with Romans really. I think you mean Germans.
@@Joleyn-Joy yea i believe you are correct
The legionaries didn’t do that well in the Teutoburg forest in one on one combat. Nor did they do that well against the Iceni one on one. So historical facts does not support the conjecture.
The problem at Teutoburg was not one on one combat. Having to march, the Romans were deployed in a long thin line, while the Germans could group unseen and attack having a STRONG local numerical superiority.
The Iceni one on one? When?
When did the Eastern Roman Empire stop calling them Legions? Couldn't conceivably a Byzantine and a Dane be having this duel
In that case Varangian guard vs viking
Braden Vande Plasse 8th century, 700 to 799. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Basil II form the guard in the 10th century? I'm no expert but this would be during the early to height of the Themata system with many native if not Greek soldiers in The Eastern Roman armies.
It was a joke... you know, Norse mercenary vs another Norseman
Pater familias , The Viking Era is generally agreed on to be roughly from the 9th through the 11th centuries. The Emperors first started taking north men in to form a special military force in the late 9th century. Basil II just made it official in 988 A.D.
I think the east lost the legions when they implemented the Themata system.
The later roman empire (The Byzantines) hired the best Norse fighters as the Varangian guard.
Just something worth pointing out is that the viking society was highly militarized, the viking warrior would most likely be quite capable with his weapons as he had been trained it their use since childhood
You are forgetting the battle of Tetuburg forest where the Germanic tribes - basically viking people - slaughtered 3 Roman legions within 3 days time.
At Teutoburg the Romans were basically led by the enemy commander, an unicum in history. Other times the Romans won while being inferior in numbers.