Viking longships, were they really that combat effective?

[Syt]

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

I don't understand this point - is the idea that the sheer brilliance of Greek and Arab culture so dazzled the Vikings they couldn't hold onto their axes?  The premise is that the Vikings couldn't handle conflict with well-organized states.  That premise is mistaken - the Vikings devastated both Anglo-Saxon England and Carolingian France.  The Vikings also beat the snot out of the Byzantines - they just were unable to take Constantinople itself.   I don't think that reflects too ill on their capabilities given that the city stood impregnable for nearly 1000 years and the Vikings were operating thousands of miles from their original core homeland.

[Eddie Teach]

I think his point is that they had ugly pale skin so weren't as cool as the olive skinned people. 

[Richard Hakluyt]

The cost of running a fleet comes into this question. The Byzantines wiped the floor with their opponents whenever they were running a full efficient fleet (which was only sometimes). Alfred the Great gave the Vikings a drubbing when he organised (and paid for) a significant fleet.

The Viking ships were cheap and maintanance costs were minimal (hope of booty, land).........complicated and expensive fleets to oppose them rather rare.

[Agelastus]

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.

I thought so. You are conflating the two concepts of "centralised state" and "technologically advanced" as if they were identical, which they are not. It is quite possible for Anglo-Saxon England to be more centralised than Umayyid Spain without being as advanced. If anything, centralisation without technological advancement proved to be a negative trait when dealing with the Vikings, as response times to the raids were too slow in the centralised states. There's a reason that the vikings are credited with encouraging the development of feudalism in France.

[Josquius]

Anglo-Saxon England was hardly centralised...

[Syt]

[Queequeg]

The cost of running a fleet comes into this question. The Byzantines wiped the floor with their opponents whenever they were running a full efficient fleet (which was only sometimes). Alfred the Great gave the Vikings a drubbing when he organised (and paid for) a significant fleet.

The Viking ships were cheap and maintanance costs were minimal (hope of booty, land).........complicated and expensive fleets to oppose them rather rare.

This.

The Vikings also beat the snot out of the Byzantines - they just were unable to take Constantinople itself.

They-and the Rus'-raided the Black Sea coast for some time.  I'd hardly call that "beating the snot out of", considering that once the military apparatus of the Byzantine state was arrayed against them they really didn't stand much of a chance.  No matter how ruthless or blonde they were, their ships burned.

That premise is mistaken - the Vikings devastated both Anglo-Saxon England and Carolingian France.

Really think Anglo-Saxon England, Carolingian France, the Ummayad-Abbasid Caliphate and the Byzantine Empire were at comparative levels of development?  I think the difference between the two would be comparable to the inverse relationship today-the Byzantines and Ummayads as Europeans and Americans against the level of Civilization seen in modern Syria and Egypt.  True, they both use guns, airplanes and have factories, but there's still a huge level of complexity and development between the two.

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 Normans didn't speak, pray, fight, rule, eat, or build buildings like 9th Century Scandinavians.  They might have used similar ships for a while (as seen in the Bayeux tapestry), but I think that is the extent of the relationship besides a few nautical terms and some genetic background.  In my mind they have about the same relationship with Vikings that the Mitanni did with Indo-Aryans, or the French do with the Franks.

I think there's a more convincing argument to be made that some of the early Rurikid Princedoms might fairly be considered hybridized Viking, but I think the Normans are largely unrecognizable, though, as mentioned, their nautical inclinations come from the Viking side of the family.

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?

I didn't argue that they weren't from descended, I argued *were*.  There's a key difference.  I have some Norman, Viking and Saxon blood in me-does that make me a Viking?

While there was  certainly a Viking component in the Norman identity, I fail to see how it was greater or more important than the Frankish contribution to the greater French identity.  They came, they mixed, and by the time of Hastings, they have family connections with the ruling dynasty and are effectively hybridized, if not largely assimilated, by the natives.

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

This is horse shit.  The brilliance of the Byzantine and later Ottoman forces was that in an age of dependence on a single military strength (infantry and archery for Arabs, super-heavy cavalry for Persians), they mastered combined arms tactics. If you look at the books on Byzantine strategy this is always apparent; there are different suggestions for fighting against Magyars, Vikings, Arabs and Slavs. 

The fact that the Byzantines used Varangians just proves that they thought that they were useful-in combination with other Byzantine forces.  As you might imagine, two-handed axemen with heavy chainmail would have a hell of a time fighting a Pecheneg on an open field. 

The Byzantine and later Ottoman armies were always just as/more ethnically diverse than the Empire was. In the early period many of the greatest miltary-oriented Emperors came from the Balkans or Assyria,  most of the greatest generals of the Middle Byzantine were Armenian, as was a disproportionate part of the army, and Christianized Turks were later on of great importance. 

[Queequeg]

I thought so. You are conflating the two concepts of "centralised state" and "technologically advanced" as if they were identical, which they are not. It is quite possible for Anglo-Saxon England to be more centralised than Umayyid Spain without being as advanced. If anything, centralisation without technological advancement proved to be a negative trait when dealing with the Vikings, as response times to the raids were too slow in the centralised states. There's a reason that the vikings are credited with encouraging the development of feudalism in France.

In retrospect, this is more than fair.  That said, it is still reasonably clear that the Ummayads and Byzantines were more technologically and socially advanced. 

[Richard Hakluyt]

I must support Agelastus on this. My understanding is that late Anglo-Saxon England was very centralised.......whilst also being not being very effective in the military sphere. This made them a tempting target for anyone wanting some Danegeld.

[The Brain]

I have some Norman, Viking and Saxon blood in me

You have issues.

[Queequeg]

I have some Norman, Viking and Saxon blood in me

You have issues.

My middle name is supposed to be Norman. 

Okay, how about this then; my last name is English, and I can pretty reasonably trace the vast majority of my family to certain places in England.  But I'm American rather than English, even though I speak English.  Identities change. 

In retrospect, my characterization of contemporary Byzantium as "centralized" was way off.  The strength of the Themata system was its decentralized nature; Arab/Pecheneg comes in, the Thematic army comes and plays whack-a-Raid.  One of the main reasons some of the Viking raids managed to raid Thrace and the Coast was because the Themes were not geared towards the defense of these areas.  Once the Tagmatic troops and Aegean maritime thematic forces showed up, the Vikings were gone or, if not, defeated.

[The Brain]

I have some Norman, Viking and Saxon blood in me

You have issues.

My middle name is supposed to be Norman. 

Good for you, Norman.

[The Brain]

I too keep track of how much Saxon blood I have in me. I think it's a healthy pastime.

[The Minsky Moment]

No medieval state was centralized in the sense that modern states are.  Comparatively speaking, Carolingian France and Anglo-Saxon England were pretty well organized by the standards of the time.  It is true that compared to the Arabs and Byzantines those states were culturally lacking in attributes like literacy and sewage systems, but I don't see the relevance of that to the question.  It wasn't access to good copies of the workds of Aristotle that kept the Vikings at bay.