- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Romans versus Vikings. Who wins?
Posted on 8/7/22 at 12:55 pm
Posted on 8/7/22 at 12:55 pm
How would the Vikings fare against the Romans and their formations, armor, and weapons in battle?
36
Posted on 8/7/22 at 12:56 pm to prplhze2000
The Vikings would get wrecked.
Posted on 8/7/22 at 12:57 pm to prplhze2000
Really depends on a lot of factors. Are we talking land? Sea? Equal numbers?
Did they have time to set up their encampment? What territory.
Look at The Varian Tragedy at Teutoburg
Did they have time to set up their encampment? What territory.
Look at The Varian Tragedy at Teutoburg
This post was edited on 8/7/22 at 12:59 pm
Posted on 8/7/22 at 1:01 pm to prplhze2000
Vikings with or without Justin Jefferson?
Without, Romans by 100 chariots.
Without, Romans by 100 chariots.
Posted on 8/7/22 at 1:03 pm to fr33manator
quote:
The Varian Tragedy at Teutoburg
That was a planned ambush with help for setting it up coming from inside Rome.
Two similarly sized forces coming upon each other in the wild? I think the discipline and skill at working together of the Roman legions wins the day for them.
This post was edited on 8/7/22 at 1:04 pm
Posted on 8/7/22 at 1:04 pm to prplhze2000
Even though the Viking Raiders are new and vicious, the will acknowledge the tribal chief and the bloodline.
Posted on 8/7/22 at 1:04 pm to prplhze2000
quote:
their formations, armor, and weapons in battle?
Didn't work out too well for the British in the colonies. Guerilla warfare can be a bitch to defeat.
Posted on 8/7/22 at 1:05 pm to Bard
Yup. You think Caesar would've allowed that disaster to take place if he was in command?
Posted on 8/7/22 at 1:05 pm to prplhze2000
Romans would DESTROY the Vikings
Posted on 8/7/22 at 1:06 pm to Bard
quote:
That was a planned ambush with help for setting it up coming from inside Rome.
Of course, but I wouldn’t expect the Vikings to fight fair. Open field battle wasn’t exactly their strategy.
quote:
Two similarly sized forces coming upon each other in the wild? I think the discipline and skill at working together of the Roman legions wins the day for them.
I don’t disagree, but this doesn’t exactly jive with the Viking MO
I’d expect Viking raiding parties to harry the Roman column up and down with attacks via rivers.
This post was edited on 8/7/22 at 1:07 pm
Posted on 8/7/22 at 1:07 pm to fr33manator
quote:
Look at The Varian Tragedy at Teutoburg
This was a carefully planned ambush by German barbarians, not Vikings
Posted on 8/7/22 at 1:07 pm to prplhze2000
Coming up next on Deadliest Warrior…
Posted on 8/7/22 at 1:07 pm to prplhze2000
If we are talking about a land battle, with similar size armies in somewhat open fields (some trees)…I think the Romans, strictly because of their leadership and strategies. They had some amazing generals
Posted on 8/7/22 at 1:10 pm to Strannix
quote:
This was a carefully planned ambush by German barbarians, not Vikings
I didn’t say it was the Vikings, I was just using an example of the legions being defeated when not on their preferred terrain.
Although we can look at Cannae for an example of them having all the advantages and still losing.
Of course, Caesar’s Gallic campaign shows that the exact opposite can happen.
I think a lot depends on which generals are leading each army and who has the home field advantage
Posted on 8/7/22 at 1:12 pm to prplhze2000
Romans would absolutely wreck the Vikings.
Posted on 8/7/22 at 1:14 pm to prplhze2000
Romans
Posted on 8/7/22 at 1:35 pm to prplhze2000
I love me some vikings but they would be crushed by the Roman's most viking raid were only 2000 people. In an ambush I would say vikings but in a military battle Roman's all day.
Posted on 8/7/22 at 1:37 pm to prplhze2000
Vikings had the ships and element of surprise.
Rome, at its height, and before Alaric and the Visigoths, would have been far too powerful. Gold>>>>Passion.
Rome, at its height, and before Alaric and the Visigoths, would have been far too powerful. Gold>>>>Passion.
Posted on 8/7/22 at 1:40 pm to WhiteMandingo
Dan Carlin’s Celtic Holocaust podcast is maybe my favorite of his many great podcasts. Worth a listen.
Romans invaded, conquered and colonized Britain 800 years before the Vikings were on the scene. They built a wall across the neck of the island to regulate movement/assess tolls/keep out the unwashed masses. Romans were just amazing. My money is on the Romans turning Oslo into a salt field.
Romans invaded, conquered and colonized Britain 800 years before the Vikings were on the scene. They built a wall across the neck of the island to regulate movement/assess tolls/keep out the unwashed masses. Romans were just amazing. My money is on the Romans turning Oslo into a salt field.
Posted on 8/7/22 at 1:44 pm to ned nederlander
quote:
Dan Carlin’s Celtic Holocaust podcast is maybe my favorite of his many great podcasts. Worth a listen.
It’s a great one among many greats.
Well obviously the Roman’s had the overall wealth and numbers, but that’s not the scenario I think.
Open field, Romans absolutely dominate, no question.
But why would the Vikings fight that fight? That’s like sticking the mongols versus the Maori, but you stick the mongols in an archipelago.
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News