Viking longships, were they really that combat effective?

[crazy canuck]

If you put a long ship vs a galley in a fishpond, the galley would sink the long ship.

Every fight I can think of between the Byzantine Navy and the Rus' or other Vikings resulted in Byzantine victory.  I don't think the Vikings generally did very well at all against centralized states with developed navies; there weren't that many raids on Islamic Spain, either.  They were probably fair fighters, and highly militarized, but I don't think they had the same kind of success against semi-professional armies that the Normans or Turks later would.

They conquered Palermo and expelled the Saracens from Sicily.  They forced Nomandy to be ceded to them. They  conquered large areas around York and came close to conquering England - one of the most centralized and wealthy states of the age.  They effectively fought against the Holy Roman Empire prior to becoming christians themselves etc.

The fact that they could not defeat a civilization that had stood since the Romans conquered Asia Minor does not mean they didnt do well against centralized states.  It means they didnt do well against the Byzantines.  But they did well against everyone else. 

[Solmyr]

"They" in your example were Normans, who are related to, but not the same as, Vikings. Not to mention that post-Charlemagne France and Saracen Sicily can hardly be called centralized states.

[Queequeg]

Especially odd as I specifically drew a distinction between Normans, who did well against centralized states, and Vikings. 

England was centralized in comparison to the rest of the west.  It was still not nearly as advanced as Ummayad Spain or the Byzantine Empire, nor as densely populated. 

[crazy canuck]

"They" in your example were Normans, who are related to, but not the same as, Vikings. Not to mention that post-Charlemagne France and Saracen Sicily can hardly be called centralized states.

The they are the vikings who forced the ceding of Normandy to them because of their successful raids on Paris and their successful occupation of Normandy.  It was after they occupied Normandy that they began to be called Normans....

So yes, Normans does equal Vikings.  A relative of the family who occupied Normandy then used the same tactics to conquer Sicily.

I am not sure why you dont think the Muslims in Sicily "could hardly be called a centralized state".  They had effective control of southern Italy and when one of the Emperors (cant remember which one now) marched an army down to clear them out his army was wiped out and he barely escaped with his life.

So, would it be your contention that a centralized state did not do well against a disorganized Muslim Sicily? 


Further, you generalize too much when you say post-Charlemane France was not centralized.  Parts were not (mainly the south) but the parts under the control of Paris was highly centralized and that was the area the Vikings had the most success....

Also, you didnt address England - perhaps the most centralized state at the time.

I think you need to revisit your thesis that Vikings didnt do well against "organized" States.

[crazy canuck]

Especially odd as I specifically drew a distinction between Normans, who did well against centralized states, and Vikings. 

England was centralized in comparison to the rest of the west.  It was still not nearly as advanced as Ummayad Spain or the Byzantine Empire, nor as densely populated.

Ok, so to make your theory work we have to remove Vikings who were successful -  who were later called the Normans and we have to ignore the successes against the most centralized western European state because they were not as centalized as Ummayad Spain (which is very much debatable btw) or an Empire that had already existed for over a thousand years?

Your theory dear Sir has so many holes it does not hold much water.

[Queequeg]

Same tactics?  I don't remember the Vikings being big on heavily armed cavalry.  The Normans who fought in the Mediterranean certainly were.  I also don't remember the Vikings speaking French. Or being Catholic.  Or building Churches in a specific style that takes a lot from contemporary French styles. 

And again; England just wasn't as advanced as the East.  How many Anglo-Saxons even knew Greek?  They were advanced in comparison with other Western states, that doesn't mean that they could have held a candle to the brilliant flame of the Arabs during this period, or the Byzantines. 

[Queequeg]

Vikings who were successful

You mean the ones who settled in France, spoke French, built French buildings, were Catholic and fought in a way that was totally un-Viking?  Those Vikings?

[Viking]

First of all, Vikings did adapt tactics and methods depending on opponent. What are considered Viking tactics and strategies are the ones which worked in the main areas of viking raiding (british isles, northern france, frisia, pommerania and russia. That said, I don't know of any viking or viking related ram equipped galley fleet. But then again wargalleys were not common and were of no use other than fighting. In the 9th, 10th and 11th centuries opponents with Wargalleys were far and few between, and most definitively not in the north or baltic seas.

Viking naval battle tactics were usually as follows. The two fleets would approach cautiously shooting arrows and throwing javelins, rocks, feces and whatever else was to hand. The two sides would then tie their ships together forming fighting platforms. The two sides would then meet and one side (the attacking side) would then storm the first ship and tie the two sides together. The two shield walls would form and those would then battle it out. Basically this meant that there was no escape for the losing side since a naval battle was effectively a land battle on a hastily assembled raft far out at sea.

The great advantage of the long ship was that it worked perfectly well for trade and other civilian activities. It was efficient to sail and row, it had a shallow draught allowing it far up rivers and across shallow sand banks meaning that it could basically land heavy infantry anywhere. 

[Valdemar]

They conquered Palermo and expelled the Saracens from Sicily.

Normans?

They forced Nomandy to be ceded to them.

Danish and Norwegian Vikings, becoming Normans after they were granted Normandy to keep them from raising as far down as Paris.

They  conquered large areas around York and came close to conquering England - one of the most centralized and wealthy states of the age.

Danish and to some extend Norwegian Vikings. Canute was Viking King of both.

They effectively fought against the Holy Roman Empire prior to becoming christians themselves etc.

Danish Vikings, to the extend of building a wall similar, but smaller to Hadrian's (Dannevirke) to keep the HRE out.

The fact that they could not defeat a civilization that had stood since the Romans conquered Asia Minor does not mean they didnt do well against centralized states.  It means they didnt do well against the Byzantines.  But they did well against everyone else.

Kiev Rus, essentially localised Swedish Vikings did fairly well against Byzantine before uniting with them, a great deal of Vikings as late as after the fall of England to Wilhelm went to become the Byzintine Væringer, they might not have beaten or conquored Byzants, but certainly Byzants learned that they were better as ired armies than fighting them

As to the ships, there were long ships and then there were longships, they were never built with sea battle in mind, but wither as fast, durable and seaworthy rading vessels, or as trading vessels, wider and with better cargo capacity.

However, why fight at sea when you are a raider nation? Skirt the enemy, land in his harbour, sack it, burn his ships at dock then retreat before a massed army is gathered and strike a different place

V

[garbon]

No, they would be taken out by Incan torpedo boats.

[Valdemar]

Vikings who were successful

You mean the ones who settled in France, spoke French, built French buildings, were Catholic and fought in a way that was totally un-Viking?  Those Vikings?

I'm sorry, but CC is right.

Normans are called Normans, not after Normandy, but after Nord Man, Nothern Man, and yes they adapted tactics for horses, built different churches, where christened, does that make them NOT Viking descendent?

The ruling families of Normandy descended from the Vikings who where granted the fief, ofc they intermarried with the locals, the Swedish Vikings did the same in Kiev Rus.

As to England, Vikings conqured, centralised and held a good deal of England BEFORE Wilhelm, another Viking descendant brought the horse to Hastings.

V

[jimmy olsen]

That's why

[Viking]

Vikings who were successful

You mean the ones who settled in France, spoke French, built French buildings, were Catholic and fought in a way that was totally un-Viking?  Those Vikings?

Definitions of Vikings

1) An annoying Languish Poster

2) A kind of pirate mainly and by tradition originating the scandinvia in the 8th, 9th and 10th centuries.

3) Pagan and Chrstian warriors from northern europe conducting piracy, large raids, invasions and conquest  in the 8th, 9th,10th, 11th and 12th centuries.

4) Political sovereignties descended from land ceded to northern european viking style warriors bands.


Which one are you referring to? But more importantly did the Vikings stop being Vikings? Was it when they stopped bathing and started eating goose livers?

[Valdemar]

Vikings who were successful

You mean the ones who settled in France, spoke French, built French buildings, were Catholic and fought in a way that was totally un-Viking?  Those Vikings?

Definitions of Vikings

1) An annoying Languish Poster

2) A kind of pirate mainly and by tradition originating the scandinvia in the 8th, 9th and 10th centuries.

3) Pagan and Chrstian warriors from northern europe conducting piracy, large raids, invasions and conquest  in the 8th, 9th,10th, 11th and 12th centuries.

4) Political sovereignties descended from land ceded to northern european viking style warriors bands.


Which one are you referring to? But more importantly did the Vikings stop being Vikings? Was it when they stopped bathing and started eating goose livers?

[The Brain]

That's why