re: Romans versus Vikings. Who wins?

quote:

---

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.

---

but this was the question asked:

quote:

---

How would the Vikings fare against the Romans and their formations, armor, and weapons in battle?

---

And you are talking about ambush type situations.

not at all the same as the question

quote:

---

How would the Vikings fare against the Romans and their formations, armor, and weapons in battle

---

Poorly, the Vikings were masters at marauding and a major part of that advantage was the art of blitzkrieg, if you will.

That said, they’re portrayed far too often as these giant oafish Norsemen, who were useless, unless they going a million miles an hour with their hair-on fire. They were master ship builders and Viking knorr’s were designed for virtually 0 drag in the water, because they were constantly navigating waterways, specifically rivers to engage in trade. They were the consummate middle-men and negotiators from the North Sea down the Volga through the Mediterranean and into Arabia.

The Vikings siege of Paris in 885 turned into a disastrous adventure for the Norsemen and provided the playbook for the Franks, Saxon’s, Goth’s, etc. to eventually repel the Norsemen from their lands.

quote:

---

The vikings would hit and move on Roman settlements. Rome would pay them off to leave. Much more likely. That, or hire them as mercenaries

---

Or find an ambitious Dane or Swede or Gaul that wanted to be king of the Norse and ally with them. Romans just have so much to offer aspiring or aggrieved neighbors and are too good at problem solving.

Equal numbers of Vikings vs Romans at their peak would have favored the Romans because of discipline and tactics, assuming the leadership was comparable.

The Vikings were more than just raiders. They held large portions of England for many generations and fought standup battles on numerous occasions. They won some and lost some. They were fierce, but not always disciplined or good at working together.

William the Conqueror and the Normans, were Vikings who had settled along the northern French coast.

Dunno, but the barbarians kicked their asses.

LINK

Vikings ….. with their dragons…. All day long!

The Vikings were far better on the sea than on the ground.

My money would be on the Romans.

Didn’t this actually happen?

The best argument stated thus far was the Roman political leaders just paying them off or to act as mercenaries. If they actually came to blows, the Romans would suffer some heavy initial casualties associated with fighting the type of battle style they hadn’t encountered before. Difference is that the Romans would study new tactics, invent new fighting styles, and ultimately make the Vikings work for them as carry mules after a short war.