Romans vs medievals

[Teddeh^]

Play it out in Rome Total War: Barbarian Invasion (Ok, you can't actually be the Vikings, but I'd settle for the Visigoths)

If we are considering Vikings versus Romans, then I believe that in a pitched battle, the Romans would be better organised ang equipped. The viking forces were generally better suited to raiding rather than conquering and the areas they did capture often resulted in them integrating into the local population as opposed to remining seperate and establishing an empire.

That said, the vikings as we see them were shaped by the circumstances of the time. If they had discovered in Britain not an abandoned populace, but a Roman-defended territory, the shape and nature of their armies may have changed.

Ye gods, I've taken this far too seriously as well...

 

[Magrathean]

rahvin: Well, my object was to use military strength but also tactics, geographical situation, politics, etc to figure out who would win.

Teddeh: Good point there with the raiding-rather-than-conquering.

 

[opacity]

@marduk1507

Silence! What is all this insolence? You will find yourself in gladiator school vewy quickly with wotten behaviour like that.




@UndoControl: where would you have the armies fight against each other?
and: you wouldn't let an entire roman legion (!) strike, would you? so how many would comprise your roman army?

 

[marduk1507]

I wiw not have my good fwiend be widiculed by a common sowdiewy!

 

[Magrathean]

It depends on whether the romans are conquering Scandinavia or the vikings are raiding some part of the roman empire. And i don't know, standard legion size? Whatever the caesar used to fight against any other enemy.

 

[opacity]

a legion was the biggest unit (consisting of cohorts and those were consiting of another subunit and so on), and it contained waaayyyy too many - some thousands, that's all i remember from latin at school.
you can easily google it...

... classical legion = 5.500 man (+ about 5.000 as auxiliary troop) [says wikipedia. interesting: the german and english versions are differing]


i can't recall how many cohorts or whatever unit an emperor sent to the woods for the average war

 

[Magrathean]

Doesn't Wikipedia say how many?

 

[Naku ist krig]

A black kvlt legion formed by Dark funeral, Immortal and Manowar would take the throphy - questions asked no more!

 

[RampageSword]

^Immortal haha. these guys look like amateur wrestlers : http://ruthlessreviews.com/pics4/bm/bm3a.jpg

 

[Siren]

^How dare you call them amateur!

 

[hyena]

oh, but enough already. raiders from northern europe did NOT smash the roman empire when it was at its peak, economic and military. the empire was smashed when it was fragmented already. it doesn't make any sense to compare the armies you have in mind, each of them was the product of its own historical period and the periods themselves were different for romans and scandinavians (for example, the latter didn't really exist as vikings, as remarked by opacity. but then again people believe that vikings exist today).

 

[Erik]

it doesn't make any sense to compare the armies you have in mind, each of them was the product of its own historical period and the periods themselves were different for romans and scandinavians

well it's rather the hypothetical thread wouldn't you say

so what if it doesn't make sense... i could just as easily create a thread saying WHO WOULD WIN -- THE MODERN SWEDISH ARMY WITH PANZERS AND JET FIGHTERS or the NOBLE ANCIENT ROMAN EMPIRE and it could generate some semi-interesting discussion

sad thing is, the romans would fucking kick our ass

 

[King Chaos]

I want to say Vikings would win, because my impression of the Romans is that they were snobs and incestual retards. Vikings were retarded, but were war machines. The reason the population was low, was because they all wanted to die so they could carry on in an eternal battle in the afterlife (Valhalla?), one where their wounds healed... So the ones that manage to survive to mid/late twenties must have been so good at fighting that even though they looked forward to death, they still couldn't lose their battles. The romans however didn't have to fight in the after life (Elicium or sommat like that?) They just ate grapes and recieved unending fellatio from their mothers. This isn't an intelligent argument, I just like to imagine a single viking with a war hammer crushing gimpy roman units by the hundred.

 

[BastardSonOfGod]

Correction... There are Vikings... Real descendents... Pure blood, as in Germany still exist a Pure Race... When you born the doctors take the measure of your bones and look for a few thinks more to see if you belong to that race...

 

[marduk1507]

Oh man, where is this heading?

 

[BastardSonOfGod]

I want to say Vikings would win, because my impression of the Romans is that they were snobs and incestual retards. Vikings were retarded, but were war machines. The reason the population was low, was because they all wanted to die so they could carry on in an eternal battle in the afterlife (Valhalla?), one where their wounds healed... So the ones that manage to survive to mid/late twenties must have been so good at fighting that even though they looked forward to death, they still couldn't lose their battles. The romans however didn't have to fight in the after life (Elicium or sommat like that?) They just ate grapes and recieved unending fellatio from their mothers. This isn't an intelligent argument, I just like to imagine a single viking with a war hammer crushing gimpy roman units by the hundred.

Vikings was retarded????... that's wrong... Vikings had an advanced society for that age... even more... they create the divorce and a lot of things more... in that old old times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking

Read first...

 

[Erik]

Correction... There are Vikings... Real descendents... Pure blood, as in Germany still exist a Pure Race... When you born the doctors take the measure of your bones and look for a few thinks more to see if you belong to that race...

you what?

no

what you have to realize is that "viking" is a very specific term given to norsemen around the years ~750-1100 that were seafarers and/or warriors. not every man was a "viking", even back then... and 92% (exact figure) of all the lore surrounding the mythical "viking" today was made up in the 18th century or so and has little to no relation to our real ancient past.

 

[BastardSonOfGod]

There are descendents... as in every race... have you heard if Vikings are an extinct race???? No... The difference is that now most of nordic people just don't care that!

 

[Erik]

There are descendents... as in every race... have you heard if Vikings are an extinct race???? No... The difference is that most of nordic people just don't care that!

you know, i agree with you to a point, in that i'm a pretty pure-blooded swede myself and certainly consider myself a descendent, in spirit and blood, of the "viking race", but i object to calling the whole folk "vikings" because in reality, a very small percentage of norsemen 1000 years ago were actual vikings by the true definition of the word.

 

[King Chaos]

Vikings was retarded????... that's wrong... Vikings had an advanced society for that age... even more... they create the divorce and a lot of things more... in that old old times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking

Read first...

well alright, It just seems like living to fight, by todays standards, and the funeral ceremonies and just the general viking law was ridiculous and based on nothing but sadition and violence. My post was all pretty much in jest anyway...