|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:30 am
Quote: BULLSHIT First of all, they were not so much known for their boatmanship as they were known for their boats. Secondly, Scandinavia has always been known for skill in battle. The vikings not only had access to steel earlier than most European nations, but are also said to have developed an early kind of advanced shield-fighting in an era when most still concidered the shield to be almost entirely for defense. That's a load, and it's a ******** hype, especially due in part to their genetics as far as size making them larger than their European counterparts. So of course, this Norse pride about the giants who could defeat anyone came about. They may have had access to steel earlier, but what the hell does that mean? It means they had a better oppurtunity to have stronger standing armies. People wank off the idea of the Vikings as amazing warriors, but the truth of it is that they were ******** guerillas who were superior sailors, not some undefeatable military force.Quote: Add to this how they, despite not using the fleeing-tactics of the russians, never got occupied by a foreign power, only ever by other Scandinavians, until Hitler took Denmark and Norway in WWII. Why cite that? There are plenty of countries that were never occupied by foreign powers. What does that say about them? Jack s**t.Quote: The Swedes were world famous for their army in the years between the Lion of the North and Charles XII, their skills with the sword and unusual tactics (including being the first to move cannons around the battlefield and an unusally heavy reliance on cavalery) being feared across Europe. And where did it get Sweden? Especially during the reign of Charles XII? I rest my case.Quote: Of course, the berserkers never took up a very large portion of the population, but when a horde of farmers with pitchforks were able to drive off a danish army not only far superior in number, but also in equipment and training, not to mention experience in defeating several other European armies at the time, starting to build an Empire, back in the twelvehundreds, I would not be talking about a lack of skill in battle. If there is anyone lacking skill in battle, it's the rest of Europe. Cite me some historical context for that because it seems that all the Berzerker and Viking fanboys can ever give me are vague anecdotes. No one seems to be able to give me actual dates, or the reason for why this seemingly undefeatable force invades some Norse village or town or city and are pushed back in an exceedingly unprobable military victory by "superior" Norse warriors.
And uh, I never said there was a lack of skill in battle. What I did say, was that all the wanking off to these amazing Norse warriors is comparable to the Ninja fanboys who claim that one Ninja could take on armies on his own. The Norse were not BAD warriors by any stretch, but nor by any stretch were they these ******** GODS that fanboys like you would make them out to be. And uh, if you're going to start comparing the historical credibility and effectiveness of the european armies as compared to Scandanvian ones? I think you'd better start hitting the books.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 2:18 pm
Calling me a fanboy, are you? I was only attacking your claim that the Norse weren't known for their skills in battle, not your belief that they weren't amazing warriors.
Calm down, man.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 12:25 am
The Bull Of The North Quote: BULLSHIT First of all, they were not so much known for their boatmanship as they were known for their boats. Secondly, Scandinavia has always been known for skill in battle. The vikings not only had access to steel earlier than most European nations, but are also said to have developed an early kind of advanced shield-fighting in an era when most still concidered the shield to be almost entirely for defense. That's a load, and it's a ******** hype, especially due in part to their genetics as far as size making them larger than their European counterparts. So of course, this Norse pride about the giants who could defeat anyone came about. They may have had access to steel earlier, but what the hell does that mean? It means they had a better oppurtunity to have stronger standing armies. People wank off the idea of the Vikings as amazing warriors, but the truth of it is that they were ******** guerillas who were superior sailors, not some undefeatable military force.Quote: Add to this how they, despite not using the fleeing-tactics of the russians, never got occupied by a foreign power, only ever by other Scandinavians, until Hitler took Denmark and Norway in WWII. Why cite that? There are plenty of countries that were never occupied by foreign powers. What does that say about them? Jack s**t.Quote: The Swedes were world famous for their army in the years between the Lion of the North and Charles XII, their skills with the sword and unusual tactics (including being the first to move cannons around the battlefield and an unusally heavy reliance on cavalery) being feared across Europe. And where did it get Sweden? Especially during the reign of Charles XII? I rest my case.Quote: Of course, the berserkers never took up a very large portion of the population, but when a horde of farmers with pitchforks were able to drive off a danish army not only far superior in number, but also in equipment and training, not to mention experience in defeating several other European armies at the time, starting to build an Empire, back in the twelvehundreds, I would not be talking about a lack of skill in battle. If there is anyone lacking skill in battle, it's the rest of Europe. Cite me some historical context for that because it seems that all the Berzerker and Viking fanboys can ever give me are vague anecdotes. No one seems to be able to give me actual dates, or the reason for why this seemingly undefeatable force invades some Norse village or town or city and are pushed back in an exceedingly unprobable military victory by "superior" Norse warriors.
And uh, I never said there was a lack of skill in battle. What I did say, was that all the wanking off to these amazing Norse warriors is comparable to the Ninja fanboys who claim that one Ninja could take on armies on his own. The Norse were not BAD warriors by any stretch, but nor by any stretch were they these ******** GODS that fanboys like you would make them out to be. And uh, if you're going to start comparing the historical credibility and effectiveness of the european armies as compared to Scandanvian ones? I think you'd better start hitting the books.Nobody ever talked about Godly acts and such, we simply stated that they were very good at what they did. The trained for battle since they were young, and fighting was hard-grained into their culture. Anybody who is tought how to kill a man with a sword, axe, spear and bow from when they were toddlers would be able to take on a quickly conscripted army.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 5:34 am
Tveir Calling me a fanboy, are you? I was only attacking your claim that the Norse weren't known for their skills in battle, not your belief that they weren't amazing warriors. Calm down, man. Well, what I'm saying is that it's comparable to the ninja fanbase. I'm not saying they were bad warriors. What I am saying is that they weren't demi-Gods.
And sorry if I got a little hostile. A lot of historical debate in other forums with tards has kind of made me edgy.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 5:38 am
Quote: Nobody ever talked about Godly acts and such, we simply stated that they were very good at what they did. The trained for battle since they were young, and fighting was hard-grained into their culture. Anybody who is tought how to kill a man with a sword, axe, spear and bow from when they were toddlers would be able to take on a quickly conscripted army. I'm not bashing on them, but what I am looking to do is take away some of the more far-fetched ideas that they could defeat any army and were the best warriors, etc.
True. But then again, many European armies had experienced, professional soldiers (mercs) who were recruited. There was a special about mercenaries on the history channel a while back, it was really interesting, because it basically was making the claim that most of the time, "royal armies" were not actually used fully by European empires. They would hire professional soldiers from within their populace to fight their wars for them.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 9:22 am
The Bull Of The North Quote: Nobody ever talked about Godly acts and such, we simply stated that they were very good at what they did. The trained for battle since they were young, and fighting was hard-grained into their culture. Anybody who is tought how to kill a man with a sword, axe, spear and bow from when they were toddlers would be able to take on a quickly conscripted army. I'm not bashing on them, but what I am looking to do is take away some of the more far-fetched ideas that they could defeat any army and were the best warriors, etc.
True. But then again, many European armies had experienced, professional soldiers (mercs) who were recruited. There was a special about mercenaries on the history channel a while back, it was really interesting, because it basically was making the claim that most of the time, "royal armies" were not actually used fully by European empires. They would hire professional soldiers from within their populace to fight their wars for them.Yes, of course. In fact, correct me if I'm not mistaken, but the French horseman that took on Henry V's longbowman in the famous St. Crispin's day battle dramatised by William Shakespeare were not French, but in fact Italian mercinaries.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 6:35 am
The Bull Of The North Tveir Calling me a fanboy, are you? I was only attacking your claim that the Norse weren't known for their skills in battle, not your belief that they weren't amazing warriors. Calm down, man. Well, what I'm saying is that it's comparable to the ninja fanbase. I'm not saying they were bad warriors. What I am saying is that they weren't demi-Gods.
And sorry if I got a little hostile. A lot of historical debate in other forums with tards has kind of made me edgy.Reminds me of that sidebar I saw in a volume of One Piece. The author not only pointed out that the vikings were his favourite type of pirate (which I can easily accept, at least here he admits that they were, essentially, just pirates), but then goes on about their so called 'code of honour' and how they would prefer attacking a strong opponent to a weak one in their everpresent longing for Valhalla. He painted a picture of the viking as the salt and winter hardened romanticized samurai of piracy. Probably the worst viking-related fanboy rant I have ever read in my life. I didn't even read One Piece at the time, a friend showed it to me, but it most surely didn't add to my respect for the author. And I accept your apology. Still though, I stick by my claim that they were known for their skills in battle. It is debatable how skilled they were in reality, but I'm rather certain they were known for their skills in battle. After all, it was not uncommon for powerful people in the middleeast to hire vikings for their personal guard, primarily because of their reputation. As I pointed out in my first post in this thread - fear was always the viking's strongest weapon. The quick boats, the fury, the brutality, the lack of fear of death, the lack of respect for what others held sacred... While far from unskilled, I doubt the fear of the viking, which was held pretty much throughout the civilized world, was insignificant for their relative success. It was much the same with the ninja, wasn't it? If, indeed, they ever truly existed.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:50 am
Tveir The Bull Of The North Tveir Calling me a fanboy, are you? I was only attacking your claim that the Norse weren't known for their skills in battle, not your belief that they weren't amazing warriors. Calm down, man. Well, what I'm saying is that it's comparable to the ninja fanbase. I'm not saying they were bad warriors. What I am saying is that they weren't demi-Gods.
And sorry if I got a little hostile. A lot of historical debate in other forums with tards has kind of made me edgy.Reminds me of that sidebar I saw in a volume of One Piece. The author not only pointed out that the vikings were his favourite type of pirate (which I can easily accept, at least here he admits that they were, essentially, just pirates), but then goes on about their so called 'code of honour' and how they would prefer attacking a strong opponent to a weak one in their everpresent longing for Valhalla. He painted a picture of the viking as the salt and winter hardened romanticized samurai of piracy. Probably the worst viking-related fanboy rant I have ever read in my life. I didn't even read One Piece at the time, a friend showed it to me, but it most surely didn't add to my respect for the author. And I accept your apology. Still though, I stick by my claim that they were known for their skills in battle. It is debatable how skilled they were in reality, but I'm rather certain they were known for their skills in battle. After all, it was not uncommon for powerful people in the middleeast to hire vikings for their personal guard, primarily because of their reputation. As I pointed out in my first post in this thread - fear was always the viking's strongest weapon. The quick boats, the fury, the brutality, the lack of fear of death, the lack of respect for what others held sacred... While far from unskilled, I doubt the fear of the viking, which was held pretty much throughout the civilized world, was insignificant for their relative success. It was much the same with the ninja, wasn't it? If, indeed, they ever truly existed. It's the simple argument of experience over training. They might not have had a training system that's as clean an organised as many other cultures, but they did have experience. The Vikings lived on the front lines of battle constantly. They either killed or died at a very early age, and many Viking heroes were barely sixteen. If I had the choice to fight a trained soldier who's never seen battle, or a man who has lived his entire life fighting, I'd chose the soldier.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|