re: Romans versus Vikings. Who wins?

Ehhhh Ceaser would have built a wall around their encampment. Then build a wall around his forces to prevent attack from any allies coming to help. Then he would starve them and then kill them.

Rome played a long game. If on the water, depending on the time, Rome could overwhelm their opponents with sheer numbers....the whole quantity becomes quality thing.

Romans were more strategic and more advanced tactically than the Vikings

quote:

---

Dan Carlin’s Celtic Holocaust podcast is maybe my favorite of his many great podcasts. Worth a listen.

---

#minetoo

It’s actually one of my least favorites of his. I think because I came off of blue print for Armageddon, kings of kings, wrath of the khans, and ghosts of the ostfront, it was just underwhelming to me.

Boudica tried, was on the offensive, outnumbered the romans and looked what happened to her.

100k+ vs. 10k Romans.

They lost 400, she lost 80,000. Professional military was king in those days.

As an aside, She probably only exists in historical record today because the romans (esp Tacitus) thought she was cool. Kinda like how the nordic religion as we know it today is mostly because those darn christians thought it was cool and elected to write it down and preserve it.

In the open the Romans would win hands down but in cover where archers and calvary would be negated, I'd give the nod to the Vikings. Straight up hand to hand combat the Vikings would overpower the Romans.

The vikings would hit and move on Roman settlements.

Rome would pay them off to leave.

quote:

---

jive with the Viking MO

---

Vikings were primarily good at taking ill-defended villages and monasteries. Yes, they were viscious and strong, but I don't think they ever came up against a Roman Legion prepared for conflict.

Comparing the Roman debacle in the Tuetonbary Forest is not indicative of Roman action. First, they were extremely poorly led in that battle, and were the victim of betrayal from within their ranks to lead them into the ambush.

Take the 1066 era for example = Romans been gone for 500 years, and Vikings were at their highest level of warfare. England was under attack from 3 powers, Norman from the East, internal rebellion from within, and the Vikings from the north (having been settled in northern Britain for over 100 years).

King Harold(?) marched his forces 200 miles in less than a week and whipped the Vikings on their prepared ground. He had just put down the internal rebellion and his troops were worn out. But they still whipped the Vikings.

Yes - as they finished that battle, the Normans landed at Hastings, so they had to turn around and march back to the English Channel to face King William - and lost.

Have to wonder - how would Western Civilization have turned out without at least one of the THREE battles the English king had to fight within that two week period. Won first 2, but lost the empire in the 3rd.

But - the point is, the Vikings - well prepared in their plan to defeat the English kind - could not - even with home field advantage - defeat a tired enemy that had just marched 200 miles non stop.

Atilla versus Ceasar is the ultimate battle, imo.