Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Seaver · 12-03-2008, 09:32 PM

Weapons: Check
Warrior vs. Soldier Mentality: Check
Tactics: Rejected

The reason I'm rejecting the tactical discussion taken place so far is that a HUGE part of the battle is the way in which the military get to the location of the battle. The Norse would much rather pillage/burn an area where there is no standing army. The hoplite forces take ages to get from point A to B, and would never be able to keep up with the amphibious nature of the Norse. The Vikings would burn the fields, kill the kids, take the women/cows, and be on their merry way binge drinking at sea long before the first runner informed the Spartans of the attack.

THAT is how they took Normandy. The French King gave it to them not because it was valuable, but for the fact that there was nothing left of worth there and it would finally put a buffer between them and more viking raids in the interior of the country (including Paris itself).

In open combat it would seriously depend. Vikings liked to have small skirmishes of a couple hundred, however could amass 40K+ armies when the cache was big enough (for example: Constantinople and Paris). If the Vikings would be caught in a situation in which retreat was not an option, they would probably lose. Both use the shield-wall, however Vikings had a Warrior Mentality and Spartans had a Soldier Mentality... the later almost always defeats the former. However, one must also realize the Byzantines suffered numerous defeats against the Vikings, and even had their mighty city seiged by them (until the Emperor hired them as his personal guards as he was impressed with their skill).

Throw my hat into the ring for the Vikings, not because they were better fighters but many times more mobile (and Greece has LOTS of sea front in order to attack).

12-03-2008, 09:32 PM	#30 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Weapons: Check Warrior vs. Soldier Mentality: Check Tactics: Rejected The reason I'm rejecting the tactical discussion taken place so far is that a HUGE part of the battle is the way in which the military get to the location of the battle. The Norse would much rather pillage/burn an area where there is no standing army. The hoplite forces take ages to get from point A to B, and would never be able to keep up with the amphibious nature of the Norse. The Vikings would burn the fields, kill the kids, take the women/cows, and be on their merry way binge drinking at sea long before the first runner informed the Spartans of the attack. THAT is how they took Normandy. The French King gave it to them not because it was valuable, but for the fact that there was nothing left of worth there and it would finally put a buffer between them and more viking raids in the interior of the country (including Paris itself). In open combat it would seriously depend. Vikings liked to have small skirmishes of a couple hundred, however could amass 40K+ armies when the cache was big enough (for example: Constantinople and Paris). If the Vikings would be caught in a situation in which retreat was not an option, they would probably lose. Both use the shield-wall, however Vikings had a Warrior Mentality and Spartans had a Soldier Mentality... the later almost always defeats the former. However, one must also realize the Byzantines suffered numerous defeats against the Vikings, and even had their mighty city seiged by them (until the Emperor hired them as his personal guards as he was impressed with their skill). Throw my hat into the ring for the Vikings, not because they were better fighters but many times more mobile (and Greece has LOTS of sea front in order to attack). __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas Last edited by Seaver; 12-03-2008 at 09:34 PM..