Vikings are the GOAT

Really good economy. The free wheelbarrow and hand cart are great. Wall > fast imp > archers + trebs.

They are the weakest land civ though. Definitely need a buff to their melee line.

Definitely a far weaker civ than Mongols. Even on water, the quick feudal time of Mongols can beat Viks occasionally.

I like to play as the Vikings against the Aztecs on island maps and act all hardass because I can beat them on the hardest AI. Either that or cheese the AI with the Huns and a Drush, kiting their villagers into nearby wolves.
 
lol at bringing up Hollywood movies and then using those stereotypes to make your argument.

1. No they weren't. And irrelevant.

2. The Persian army were not slaves. It was a real army with a massive advantage in numbers. On the other hand your Vikings are mostly famous for pillaging Christian monasteries and killing defenseless priests. How brave.

3. Movie stereotype. We've found Viking graves and their average height was 5'7. Via science and not movie magic they were manlets.

4. The Vikings were known for raiding defenseless farms and monasteries and then fleeing before actual warriors arrived. They were pussies. I mean it may be true that running away is the best defense, but they don't get props for that tactic.

5. Lol no, this ain't 300. They wore heavy armor. And if you're going to use iron vs bronze as an argument then Vikings get destroyed by all the more modern warriors.

6. Viking tactics were subterfuge and raiding. The Spartans were an actual military force.

7. Drug addicted retards that don't wear armor and use PEDs. This isn't helping your argument.

8. Complete bullshit. The Spartans were trained to kill since childhood. Vikings weren't even full time warriors. They were farmers most of the time.

9. The Vikings were trained and had experience in the same way pirates and thieves were. Attacking and raiding the weak, using their seafaring tactics to avoid any real conflict.

The Persians were a bunch of cans and got owned again and again by the Greeks.

Iron replaced bronze in Greece in the last thousand years before Christ.

Spartans were full time warriors but were owned again and again by Athenians.
 
GOAT at what?

Ditching their own culture and assimilating as fast as they could into the one of people they conquered. See: Normans, Rus, Italo-normans and the Danelaw.

All true. But he was still a full-blooded German. He understood the Roman's fatal weakness: on terrain that did not allow the Legions room to move in large, superbly disciplined groups that fought as a team, they were at a severe disadvantage. The Germans, much like the Celts, preferred to win glory in personal combat. In large scale warfare, they would always lose to the Romans, who used far more efficient tactics and fought as a team rather a group of individuals.

But in small scale, close quarter combat, the Germans and Celts had the advantage. The average Roman soldier was used to fighting in a huge shield wall, surrounded by his comrades and fighting as a unit. He was not trained to fight as an individual; he was a soldier, not a Gladiator. By contrast, the Germans and Celts were bigger, stronger and trained to fight one on one.

You're making my argument for me. Everything you describe above, Arminius was able to figure out because of his Roman education, not his Germanic blood.

It wasn't the Germans superior individual physicality that won the day on Teutoburg Forest... it was Arminius' use of that individual physicality in the only setting where it could be exploited that won the day.

And the strategic and tactical thinking that allowed him to do it was all Rome.
 
Last edited:
Average Mediterranean vs Average Germanic.

rocky-iv.jpg
 
Ever see The Expendables? Pretty much what The Varangian Guard were. Most sought after warrior for hires in the respective era. Tall, strong, powerful, fearless. Recruited by Byzantine Emperors to be their personal protectors. Not only guarded, but were on the frontlines, securing many crucial battles.

 
Khan was GOAT rape and pillager.
Vikings are the European seafaring version of the Mongols.

IMO the Mongols get overrated. They e-statted HARD. Conqeuored lots of D-League level land. Much harder to conqueror all of Europe than Central Asia. Eastern Asia was a quality grab though. Them Ming China Boys are tough.
 
great pirates, but far from greatest warriors

Romans, Mongols, Medieval/Renassaince knights are the ones in the GOAT debate

All true. But he was still a full-blooded German. He understood the Roman's fatal weakness: on terrain that did not allow the Legions room to move in large, superbly disciplined groups that fought as a team, they were at a severe disadvantage. The Germans, much like the Celts, preferred to win glory in personal combat. In large scale warfare, they would always lose to the Romans, who used far more efficient tactics and fought as a team rather a group of individuals.

But in small scale, close quarter combat, the Germans and Celts had the advantage. The average Roman soldier was used to fighting in a huge shield wall, surrounded by his comrades and fighting as a unit. He was not trained to fight as an individual; he was a soldier, not a Gladiator. By contrast, the Germans and Celts were bigger, stronger and trained to fight one on one.

Actually was none of that lol

It was a smart betrayal (Arminius was a "trusted advisor" of Varus), a well played ambush and a tactical brilliant orchestrated operation in successive days

Main and most decisive attack was the initial ambush against a thin marching 15-20km line (a line mixed of soldiers and civillians) in a muddy narrow track, starting with javelins rain and then continued with well organized tactical superior mass number maneuvers from both sides

Nothing wrong in an ambush on war, war is war.
Also, can't blame them to take any possible advantage

But the eroic barbarian honour shit of "they forced them to duel like men!" is actually never happened.
At least not until the romans were wounded, weakened and reduced after the first attack

The battle itself took a symbolic meaning, but the reality of things is that they used any possible "coward" tactic (no such thing exist) they could use to do it

The first and most important attack was a legit "duel" as a suckerpunching scum playing the knockout game :D

Source history lol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest
 
It was a smart betrayal (Arminius was a "trusted advisor" of Varus), a well played ambush and a tactical brilliant orchestrated operation in successive days

Main and most decisive attack was the initial ambush against a thin marching 15-20km line (a line mixed of soldiers and civillians) in a muddy narrow track, starting with javelins rain and then continued with well organized tactical superior mass number maneuvers from both sides


Source history lol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest

The History Channel had a series earlier this year called Barbarians Rising that did a good job depicting this initial attack. Basically the united German tribes built a rampart hidden in the tree line and attacked from there. Arminius convinced Varus he had to either march through deep swamplands or walk along this narrow path in the forest. Varus chose the Teutoburg path. Also was considered Romes greatest defeat, and although the Romans fought some revenge battles for this they pulled back from Germany and never again tried to occupy it.

 
Last edited:
Ditching their own culture and assimilating as fast as they could into the one of people they conquered. See: Normans, Rus, Italo-normans and the Danelaw.



You're making my argument for me. Everything you describe above, Arminius was able to figure out because of his Roman education, not his Germanic blood.

It wasn't the Germans superior individual physicality that won the day on Teutoburg Forest... it was Arminius' use of that individual physicality in the only setting where it could be exploited that won the day.

And the strategic and tactical thinking that allowed him to do it was all Rome.

Semantics. You could just as easily turn that on it's head: the only reason the weak, genetically-inferior Romans were able to defeat Germans, Celts etc was by fighting in groups like cowards. Once they were forced out of their comfort zone, they were no match for real men.:)
 
I'm going to go with the people who gave you this war machine...



My friends laugh at my abilities in ball sport and (fairly) state I would be more likely to kill one of my own in melee combat than the enemy. However, you'd still want me on your team. As I'm the guy who will design and build the trebuchet. I prefer the efficiency of killing twenty to thirty of the opposing side from a safe distance.


I like this war machine

 
lol at bringing up Hollmovies and then using those stereotypes to make your argument.

1. No they weren't. And irrelevant.

2. The Persian army were not slaves. It was a real army with a massive advantage in numbers. On the other hand your Vikings are mostly famous for pillaging Christian monasteries and killing defenseless priests. How brave.

3. Movie stereotype. We've found Viking graves and their average height was 5'7. Via science and not movie magic they were manlets.

4. The Vikings were known for raiding defenseless farms and monasteries and then fleeing before actual warriors arrived. They were pussies. I mean it may be true that running away is the best defense, but they don't get props for that tactic.

5. Lol no, this ain't 300. They wore heavy armor. And if you're going to use iron vs bronze as an argument then Vikings get destroyed by all the more modern warriors.

6. Viking tactics were subterfuge and raiding. The Spartans were an actual military force.

7. Drug addicted retards that don't wear armor and use PEDs. This isn't helping your argument.

8. Complete bullshit. The Spartans were trained to kill since childhood. Vikings weren't even full time warriors. They were farmers most of the time.

9. The Vikings were trained and had experience in the same way pirates and thieves were. Attacking and raiding the weak, using their seafaring tactics to avoid any real conflict.

1 yes they were, regardless or relevancy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_militaries_of_ancient_Greece

2 yes technically they were, all persians were slaves, owned by the God king. Not really relevant tho. They also relied heavily on archery, a sensible, pussies weapon. Vikings fought smart, that's not a negative.

3 Vikings were tall at 5'7" for the era, people were considerably shorter.

4 again fighting smart is not a negative, winning is what counts. They fought pitched battles, even sieges. They didn't have the numbers to waste.

5 I don't think armour/technology is relevant.

6 Vikings practiced warfare as well, they were at times a military. I think that individualism is more hardcore than formation fighting anyway.

7 reports of facing such warriors suggests otherwise.

8 that makes their accomplishments more impressive, natural badass vs science experiment.

9 the third time you've used the same arguement. Using tactics is not a sign of weakness.
 
lmao @ thinking tactics is a negative thing. same people who want fighters to JUST BLEED bro i guess
 
For me the hallmark of a great empire is not what you conquer but what you build in the wake. For that reason I cannot rate the Vikings or the Mongols that high.
Rome, on the other hand, put up more buildings than Trump.
 
For me the hallmark of a great empire is not what you conquer but what you build in the wake. For that reason I cannot rate the Vikings or the Mongols that high.
Rome, on the other hand, put up more buildings than Trump.

Mongols & Vikings are 1st date rapists. Rome was the schmuck who marries the class whore.
 
I'd say the Mongols were the GOAT ancient warriors.

Vikings were closer to pirates than warriors if you ask me.
 
BTW, if we are talking about the pre-hellenic period, the fiercest warriors according to original texts were not mentioned in this thread : the Thracians.

They lived in the mountainous areas of North-Eastern Greece. Herodotos mentions that they are the best warriors, but that they are disorganised.
 
Back
Top