Ok, I feel like sharing a little knowledge.
For a start, I feel robbed that you're using Vikings and not the medieval 'feudal' armies, which is what jumped to my mind.
As for the Vikings... yes, a lot of the warfare they did was raiding. Of course, as a grand war this could be devestating in terms of economic warfare but they never practiced it this sense. Multiple boatloads of Vikings striking at random/gathering horses and setting out into the interior could tie a fuck of a lot of soldiers down.
However, they would also group together and do some serious warfare. Dublin, Caithness, the Danelaw of Guthrum, Normandy, Novgorod, Cnut's Empire, the Varangian Guard... the Vikings fucked up a lot of shit. The Picts were a functioning, vicious lot who looked set to dispose with those Irish turds until the Vikings double-teamed them and behold - Scotland! Nevertheless, they weren't awesome either. Strong states like Charlemagne's Empire or Alfred's Wessex held off the Vikings and made gains against them. In short, they were little better than the other troops of the day.
I'd bet on the Romans who have a better fortification system (theres very little evidence of Vikings mounting succesful siege actions if any), better armoured, better organised, better disciplined, better logistics. The truth of any action between Vikings and the Romans as popular imagined would go:
a) Vikings show up. Kill some villagers, nick some loot.
b) Rome place garrisons.
c) Vikings show up again and get their arse handed to them. Vikings decide its not worth the bother.
If it were the actual medieval armies, this would be a different proposition.
And needless to say - the Mongols would have made any of these groups their bitch (we'd have had nice slanty eyes to a man if their Khans hadn't died at very, very fortunate times). Possibly all three at once. All things considered, the Mongol army probably represents the finest history has ever seen as balanced against their times.
The end.
For a start, I feel robbed that you're using Vikings and not the medieval 'feudal' armies, which is what jumped to my mind.
As for the Vikings... yes, a lot of the warfare they did was raiding. Of course, as a grand war this could be devestating in terms of economic warfare but they never practiced it this sense. Multiple boatloads of Vikings striking at random/gathering horses and setting out into the interior could tie a fuck of a lot of soldiers down.
However, they would also group together and do some serious warfare. Dublin, Caithness, the Danelaw of Guthrum, Normandy, Novgorod, Cnut's Empire, the Varangian Guard... the Vikings fucked up a lot of shit. The Picts were a functioning, vicious lot who looked set to dispose with those Irish turds until the Vikings double-teamed them and behold - Scotland! Nevertheless, they weren't awesome either. Strong states like Charlemagne's Empire or Alfred's Wessex held off the Vikings and made gains against them. In short, they were little better than the other troops of the day.
I'd bet on the Romans who have a better fortification system (theres very little evidence of Vikings mounting succesful siege actions if any), better armoured, better organised, better disciplined, better logistics. The truth of any action between Vikings and the Romans as popular imagined would go:
a) Vikings show up. Kill some villagers, nick some loot.
b) Rome place garrisons.
c) Vikings show up again and get their arse handed to them. Vikings decide its not worth the bother.
If it were the actual medieval armies, this would be a different proposition.
And needless to say - the Mongols would have made any of these groups their bitch (we'd have had nice slanty eyes to a man if their Khans hadn't died at very, very fortunate times). Possibly all three at once. All things considered, the Mongol army probably represents the finest history has ever seen as balanced against their times.
The end.
