I'm navally challenged. I really don't get naval warfare. However, to my untrained eyes, viking longships don't seem that combat effective. Byzantine dromons had far more rowers, marines on board, and even catapults and/or ballistras.
Longships seem to me like greatly overrated. They were no doubt superb transport ships, and could land infantry anywhere, even upstream through rivers, but as far as ship to ship combat, any mediterranean galley would probably beat the shit out of them.
So, what gives?
The North Sea.
Easy to maintain, low in resources to build, capable of navigating the roughest seas or the tightest rivers.
The Med galley would flounder and die long before the chance for closing with the longship comes.
Quote from: Siege on April 02, 2010, 07:03:05 AM
So, what gives?
As people have said, different combat environment.
Although a Byzantine Dromon does not have more marines - most of the rowers would not have been armed, whereas every single Viking would have been able to drop his oar and take up shield and axe or sword. An early example of the difference between tactics based around boarding and those based around ramming/sinking.
Yeah, but the vikings didn't limit themselves to the North Sea.
They raided the med in many occasions, and in the East, they followed the rivers from the Baltic to the Black Sea.
:huh:
I don't think the Vikings actually used their longships to fight naval battles, did they? I believe they were just used as transports, and the advantage as others have already stated had to do with their navigability and small draft.
QuoteI don't think the Vikings actually used their longships to fight naval battles, did they? I believe they were just used as transports, and the advantage as others have already stated had to do with their navigability and small draft.
Battle is too big a term, fights tended to be a handfull of ships at most but they certainly happened. Many made a living from pirating trade ships rather than just land raiding (though I suppose then they stop being vikings and become just pirates if we're getting into word meanings and all that)
Quote from: Siege on April 02, 2010, 07:20:01 AM
Yeah, but the vikings didn't limit themselves to the North Sea.
They raided the med in many occasions, and in the East, they followed the rivers from the Baltic to the Black Sea.
So you're suggesting as soon as they get into the open Black/Mediterranian they should stop for a year and build themselves a galley?
Let's ask grumber about his experiences with longships.
Quote from: Siege on April 02, 2010, 07:03:05 AM
I'm navally challenged. I really don't get naval warfare. However, to my untrained eyes, viking longships don't seem that combat effective. Byzantine dromons had far more rowers, marines on board, and even catapults and/or ballistras.
Longships seem to me like greatly overrated. They were no doubt superb transport ships, and could land infantry anywhere, even upstream through rivers, but as far as ship to ship combat, any mediterranean galley would probably beat the shit out of them.
So, what gives?
You are not completely wrong. God I can't believe I just said that.
It's been a looong time since I read about Vikings, but IIRC check out the Viking attempt on Constantinople in 860. But of course longships may not be the best word for the ships they used on the rivers in the East.
If you put a long ship vs a galley in a fishpond, the galley would sink the long ship.
Quote from: Caliga on April 02, 2010, 07:26:24 AM
:huh:
I don't think the Vikings actually used their longships to fight naval battles, did they? I believe they were just used as transports, and the advantage as others have already stated had to do with their navigability and small draft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svolder
Whoops, guess I stand corrected. So were they commonly used in that capacity?
Quote from: Lucidor on April 02, 2010, 09:03:58 AM
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.
Quote from: Caliga on April 02, 2010, 09:12:33 AM
Whoops, guess I stand corrected. So were they commonly used in that capacity?
No.
Quote from: Caliga on April 02, 2010, 09:12:33 AM
Whoops, guess I stand corrected. So were they commonly used in that capacity?
They were not common. The long ship was the ultimate multipurpose vessel of the age. They could strike anywhere without warning. If you can land in a shallow cove or travel up a river to attack there is no need to engage any defenders in a naval battle. But sometimes sea battles did occur.
IIRC another such battle was fought by either Rollo or a descendant shortly after Normandy was established to chase away Danish raiders from the Normandy coastline.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 02, 2010, 09:28:23 AM
Quote from: Lucidor on April 02, 2010, 09:03:58 AM
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.
"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.
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.
Quote from: Solmyr on April 02, 2010, 09:51:58 AM
"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.... :P
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? :P
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.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 02, 2010, 09:57:11 AM
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.
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.
QuoteVikings 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?
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2010, 09:48:07 AM
They conquered Palermo and expelled the Saracens from Sicily.
Normans?
QuoteThey 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.
QuoteThey 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.
QuoteThey 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.
QuoteThe 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
No, they would be taken out by Incan torpedo boats.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 02, 2010, 10:11:42 AM
QuoteVikings 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
That's why
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv69%2Fhyacynth%2Flolwhatomg.jpg&hash=5f1a16e705d6aaa4ef0ca26046dc0e57b590bbb0)
Quote from: Queequeg on April 02, 2010, 10:11:42 AM
QuoteVikings 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?
Quote from: Viking on April 02, 2010, 10:37:16 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 02, 2010, 10:11:42 AM
QuoteVikings 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?
:lmfao:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 02, 2010, 10:33:43 AM
That's why
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv69%2Fhyacynth%2Flolwhatomg.jpg&hash=5f1a16e705d6aaa4ef0ca26046dc0e57b590bbb0)
:bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi254.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh87%2Fvisualweasel%2FBizarroViking.jpg&hash=04710089fca77130c42ec0c3e4b21ddc0e669759)
Quote from: Queequeg on April 02, 2010, 10:08:28 AM
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.
I think his point is that they had ugly pale skin so weren't as cool as the olive skinned people. :P
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.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 02, 2010, 10:08:28 AM
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.
Anglo-Saxon England was hardly centralised...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cartoonstock.com%2Fnewscartoons%2Fcartoonists%2Fjgr%2Flowres%2Fjgrn1049l.jpg&hash=59f5e95ae13875fb8cf52a937e9bb5e4630e589b)
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 02, 2010, 11:21:03 AM
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote from: Agelastus on April 02, 2010, 12:21:43 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 02, 2010, 12:27:44 PM
I have some Norman, Viking and Saxon blood in me
You have issues.
Quote from: The Brain on April 02, 2010, 12:43:22 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 02, 2010, 12:27:44 PM
I have some Norman, Viking and Saxon blood in me
You have issues.
:huh:
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.
I too keep track of how much Saxon blood I have in me. I think it's a healthy pastime.
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.
Quote from: The Brain on April 02, 2010, 12:51:43 PM
I too keep track of how much Saxon blood I have in me. I think it's a healthy pastime.
:rolleyes:
Its partially a Mormon thing. My parents are obsessed with ancestry and family history.
I'm a bit confused as to what is weird here, though. I'm not claiming to be proud of it; frankly, if anything, my interest in non-Western European peoples should prove the opposite.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 02, 2010, 12:55:16 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 02, 2010, 12:51:43 PM
I too keep track of how much Saxon blood I have in me. I think it's a healthy pastime.
:rolleyes:
Its partially a Mormon thing. My parents are obsessed with ancestry and family history.
I'm a bit confused as to what is weird here, though. I'm not claiming to be proud of it; frankly, if anything, my interest in non-Western European peoples should prove the opposite.
Frankly too?
Quote from: Siege on April 02, 2010, 07:03:05 AMSo, what gives?
Once you've sailed a clinker built ship with dead silent cotton sails through the swedish archipelago on a sunny summers day with a steady onshore breeze you know that there is no greater means of transportation.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 02, 2010, 12:52:55 PM
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.
The Viking way of life outside of raids on non-viking areas naturally lent itself to maritime raiding and settlement. I don't think it lent itself to raw martial ability in the same way that steppe nomadism did. A Saxon Thane and a Viking were equipped very similarly, but I think a Byzantine or Arab army would have been far better trained and far more at home with more advanced military tactics, and perhaps more importantly were also far better at organization and supply.
I don't think it is fair at all to separate the cultural with the military; the cultural sophistication of the Byzantines, Chinese and Romans was, for the most part, a great asset in their wars against less-advanced peoples, at least until the first and third become over-dependent on barbarian mercenaries.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 02, 2010, 01:01:42 PM
I don't think it is fair at all to separate the cultural with the military; the cultural sophistication of the Byzantines, Chinese and Romans was, for the most part, a great asset in their wars against less-advanced peoples, at least until the first and third become over-dependent on barbarian mercenaries.
But by that argument, the sophisticated Arabs and Byzantines of southern Italy and Sicily should have been able to handle the Normans, regardless of whether you term them Vikings or not.
Not to mention the Chinese should have had no problem with the Mongols, the Romans with the Vandals, and the Byzantines with the Avars, Slavs, early Arabs, and so forth.
Spellus's snobbery is amusing. :)
:hmm:
I previously made exceptions for Steppe peoples, but it would appear that I had the relationship somewhat backwards.
I think a well organized, sufficiently powerful, functional state has little/no difficulty dealing with "barbarians". The Romans in the time of Augustine didn't, and generally speaking, the Macedonian-era Byzantines, the Ummayads, the Abbasids and the Tang Dynasty were all capable of dealing with barbarians.
The problem appears to be that success can lead to 'decadence'; monetarization of economy and shifts in culture of the conqueror result in complications and, frequently, the introduction of a foreign military class, either by invasion, migration, hiring or some combination of all three.
The Byzantines, Ummayads and Abbasids were all either at or near the peak of their respective martial prowess, and therefore I still suspect that the these three Empires had less problems with Vikings partially due to their well disciplined, organized forces; similarly, I think the Huns, early Turks, Arabs, Vandals, and other people had huge difficulty fighting the Byzantines and Sassanids before the plague and their near-World War destroyed their respective civilizations before the Arabs even came.
That said, I have to acknowledge that there are exceptions even to this. The Hittites fell to Barbarians at the height of their power, and the Mongols attacked and annihilated a lot of peoples at their peak.
His parentage changes every time he posts. Next he'll claim to be part African!!!
With so many exceptions being made, one is tempted to say that perhaps your rule does not hold water. :(
Generally speaking though, Steppe peoples have a lot of advantages the Vikings just didn't though.
1) Horses, and tons of them. Way more than sedentary peoples could ever hope to muster.
2) Knowledge of horses. The leap from spending your life on the saddle, organizing herds to living on the saddle, fighting armies isn't as big as the leap from fishing to mass invasion.
3) Organization. Steppe peoples, partially due to necessity of organizing flocks or the fact that most are highly militarized due to harsh nature of steppes, appear to naturally be far better organized than the armies of sedentary peoples.
4) Motive. The necessity of raiding (for flocks, women) is far more omnipresent on the Steppe. Big flocks meant you could pay bride price; raiding another village for a wife meant you could bypass that entirely. This was more or less true from the time of the Proto-Indo-Europeans till Stalin, and is once again true in parts of Central Asia.
Interestingly, I think Feudalism developed to in to a kind of Faux-Post-Steppe set up, with a lot in common with the various Turkic states and the Parthian Empire; a militarized aristocracy based on equestrian warriors, decentralized rule enforced through landed titles granted to smaller groups of warriors granted on the understanding that they fight for their King/Shah/Khan.
'zounds Queequeg............you are a mighty bullshitter :D
Looking forward to some raki-fuelled sessions in Constantinople in 4 weeks time :cheers:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 02, 2010, 02:24:56 PM
'zounds Queequeg............you are a mighty bullshitter :D
No joke. Parthians and Sassanians were Feudal in every sense of the word. Even had coats of arms and tournaments.
I'd prefer to not think of it as bullshitting so much as theory-formulizing. A lot of this stuff has been kicking around in my head for a while, just have not expressed it. I actually might have heard some similar theory on the Europa Barbarorum Forum, where there are a ton of people who know more about Persian and Steppe history than I ever will. Anna Comnena also draws on a lot of similarities between Turks and Franks.
Quote
Looking forward to some raki-fuelled sessions in Constantinople in 4 weeks time
Getting Lunch with Tuna next week. Hopefully we'll all be able to do something together. :beer:
Quote from: The Brain on April 02, 2010, 12:57:53 PM
Cotton sails? Very few Negroes in Sweden 1,000 years ago.
Shush...don't let Al Sharpton hear you. Negroes built the modern world on their sweat and blood. There is nothing in history that was accomplished without the hard work of black slaves.
Yeah, cool that Tuna will be there :cool:
I'm looking forward to discussions where people have actually heard of the Sassanids :D
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 02, 2010, 11:21:03 AM
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.
IIRC Alfreds navy in great part was made of longships, Viking, Norman, or simply hired?? I may be wrong thgouh :)
V
Quote from: Queequeg on April 02, 2010, 12:27:44 PM
QuoteThe 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.
Quote
The Rus are Vikings in the same sense the Normans are.. or are not, which is it? Can descendents be Viking or not?
Quote
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.
You refer to the tapestry of Bayeux, IF you'd care to look into it the Normans had only ONE significant difference in means of weaponry and tactics, the horse, and it wasn't THAT that won at Hasting. Same armour, same formationsd, same weapons. As to the rest, they were christened, so were a number of other vikings, including those in Denmark, Norway, and England, THAT is hardly a reliable argument for not being a viking. The Normans were to a great extend Vikings, not French at Hastings. The Swedish Vikings spoke Rus, Danish Vikings learned greek, they truly were multicultural, open to other cultures, easily adapting, and other ideas.. something you seem quite incapable of, and please, try to be civil next time.. this IS languish after all ;)
Quote
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?
Obviously not, we don't want to be too familiar with you :D, but also there is a tad of difference in centuries here. At Hastings the Normans had been Vikings at sea only a few generations before. And you DID argue they were named after Normandy, not their descendants.
Quote
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
QuoteThis 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.
Do you always start your arguments by spreading manure? :huh:
Ofc the Byzantine army could beat a Viking one in a set piece battle but they didn't and you fail the point as to WHY the Rus and the Byzantine allied, and Why they hired the Rus over the indegious Greeks.
And you also fail to adress the fact that they never managed to subdue the Vikings by force.. which was the point, not the sheer military might of the Byzantine
V
Quote from: Queequeg on April 02, 2010, 01:01:42 PM
The Viking way of life outside of raids on non-viking areas naturally lent itself to maritime raiding and settlement.
I REALLY hope you are trying to say something else, because this is so utterly wrong that it defies nature :D
I wouldn't dream of lecturing you on the Byzanteens way of life, past or present, but by far the majority of Vikings, as a people, not as a raiding army, were merchants or farmers. Only those unable to suport life any other way went "Viking" in the raid sense.
So NOTHING in a the home life of Scandinavia would suit you to become a born warrior anymore than a citizen of Byzans was born to be a stratego or cataract (sp?).
V
Quote from: Queequeg on April 02, 2010, 01:55:27 PM
Generally speaking though, Steppe peoples have a lot of advantages the Vikings just didn't though.
1) Horses, and tons of them. Way more than sedentary peoples could ever hope to muster.
2) Knowledge of horses. The leap from spending your life on the saddle, organizing herds to living on the saddle, fighting armies isn't as big as the leap from fishing to mass invasion.
3) Organization. Steppe peoples, partially due to necessity of organizing flocks or the fact that most are highly militarized due to harsh nature of steppes, appear to naturally be far better organized than the armies of sedentary peoples.
4) Motive. The necessity of raiding (for flocks, women) is far more omnipresent on the Steppe. Big flocks meant you could pay bride price; raiding another village for a wife meant you could bypass that entirely. This was more or less true from the time of the Proto-Indo-Europeans till Stalin, and is once again true in parts of Central Asia.
By that argument the Vikings held the advantage over the steppe with plenty of water, timber and able seamen.. Really those advantage are born of the environment, what would vikings need horses for, or steppe people need ships?
the last two goes just as well for vikings, the viking society of the English invasions were highly organised, some fleets counted up towards 1000 ships from a very diverse spread nation of semi dependents.
The drive to Vikings came just as much as a need to expend, spend surplus populace and go exploring as anything else, but it was well organised, as were the early state forms, try look up some facts of the Viking nation organisation like Roskilde, Trelleborg and few other facts :)
V
Quote from: Queequeg on April 02, 2010, 01:28:31 PM
I think a well organized, sufficiently powerful, functional state has little/no difficulty dealing with "barbarians". The Romans in the time of Augustine didn't, and generally speaking, the Macedonian-era Byzantines, the Ummayads, the Abbasids and the Tang Dynasty were all capable of dealing with barbarians.
Late 4th century Rome was a very well organized and powerful state. Even the strongest state beset by too many challenges is going to have problems.
Quote from: Vricklund on April 02, 2010, 12:56:44 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 02, 2010, 07:03:05 AMSo, what gives?
Once you've sailed a clinker built ship with dead silent cotton sails through the swedish archipelago on a sunny summers day with a steady onshore breeze you know that there is no greater means of transportation.
If that is your only experience with transportation, you are correct.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 02, 2010, 01:28:31 PM
The Byzantines, Ummayads and Abbasids were all either at or near the peak of their respective martial prowess, and therefore I still suspect that the these three Empires had less problems with Vikings partially due to their well disciplined, organized forces;
Well then you have to explain why the Byzantines could not stop the Normans from conquering their holdings in Southern Italy. Could it be that the Byzantines were far removed from the peak of their martial prowess?
And I think you are getting your time lines a bit mixed up. Are you suggesting that both the Ummayads and Abbasids were at their peak in the same time period?
The Vikings were more of a threat in their own geographical area. That is hardly surprising. Geography had more to do with the Muslims and Byzantines being spared Viking raiding then their superior arms. The Vikings could hit coastlines at will. An army cant be everywhere no matter how well organized it is.
The Byzantines could shoot fireballs out their arse.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 02, 2010, 03:51:15 PM
The Byzantines could shoot fireballs out their arse.
Thats why all their transport ships sank.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 02, 2010, 03:51:15 PM
The Byzantines could shoot fireballs out their arse.
I haven't had Indian food in a while. :mmm:
The Vikings also had little incentive to conquer Byzantium. They already held vast territories and received very lucrative concessions from the Byzantines. Why kill the golden goose?
Why kill any goose?
Quote from: The Brain on April 02, 2010, 04:43:54 PM
Why kill any goose?
Don't tell me you're a vegetarian. :bleeding:
Quote from: Valdemar on April 02, 2010, 02:49:55 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 02, 2010, 11:21:03 AM
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.
IIRC Alfreds navy in great part was made of longships, Viking, Norman, or simply hired?? I may be wrong thgouh :)
V
The English myth is that he studied Viking longships and built English ships on similar lines but twice as long.............and then kicked shit out of the Danes :D
So, he is known as the "father of the English navy"; how much of a myth this is I'm not really sure :hmm:
Alfred is 871-899 btw, pre-dating the Normans therefore.
This thread should be put into a time capsule, so that future generations will have the answer to the question "what was the archtypical Languish thread?"
Kudos to all.
I don't know if I really play as big a part on Languish as I do specifically on this thread. Also, there's no Martinus.
Good point, Spellus. This thread needs more faggotry.
Quote from: The Brain on April 02, 2010, 04:29:59 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 02, 2010, 03:51:15 PM
The Byzantines could shoot fireballs out their arse.
I haven't had Indian food in a while. :mmm:
I've ate Indian tacos a couple times.
I was extremely angry at some Indians today. :)
Quote from: Queequeg on April 02, 2010, 12:27:44 PM
Quote
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.
Well the 10th, 11th and 12th century vikings didn't pray (asatru vs christianity), eat (christianity meant more fish), fight (the organized armies of the 10th century raiders and the 11th century kings were not the same as the 9th century pirates) or rule like 9th century vikings (9th century local kings, 10th century sea kings, 11th century national kings). To the best of our knowledge they didn't really speak like them either. 9th century old norse is probably less similar to the west norse of the 13th century sagas than modern icelandic is to the west norse of the 13th century sagas. But we don't know.
What you are saying is that when Vikings settled (ie took land) they adapted the tactics which were used by their sea king predecessors and used the tactics best suited to fighting their local opponents from a fixed base. Is that correct?
Quote from: The Brain on April 02, 2010, 10:43:48 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 02, 2010, 10:33:43 AM
That's why
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv69%2Fhyacynth%2Flolwhatomg.jpg&hash=5f1a16e705d6aaa4ef0ca26046dc0e57b590bbb0)
:bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding:
They're attacking a besieged Frankish fortified town abutting an inland lake. They sailed up a river and are transporting their boats to the lake. The town is unfortified on that side so they're fucked.
Incredible!
Frankly, the example Jimmy has Pict is incorrect. What Olaf! I am surprised he even Daned to post it. The Angles are all wrong. The ships as drawn -- rather Slavenly I might add -- could never stand up to a Gael in open ocean. The Franks, who should be in terror, are making no attempt to seek Mercia. I could point out Moor errors, but I just Kent go on right now.
:lol:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 02, 2010, 10:55:51 PMThey're attacking a besieged Frankish fortified town abutting an inland lake. They sailed up a river and are transporting their boats to the lake. The town is unfortified on that side so they're fucked.
I think after carrying the boats that far that the Vikings will be fucked.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 02, 2010, 06:29:27 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 02, 2010, 04:29:59 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 02, 2010, 03:51:15 PM
The Byzantines could shoot fireballs out their arse.
I haven't had Indian food in a while. :mmm:
I've ate Indian tacos a couple times.
Do they shave? I always pictured Indian "tacos" to be extremely bushy.
Quote from: grumbler on April 02, 2010, 05:51:06 PM
This thread should be put into a time capsule, so that future generations will have the answer to the question "what was the archtypical Languish thread?"
Kudos to all.
needs moar American Civil War. :yes:
Quote from: Strix on April 03, 2010, 12:13:14 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 02, 2010, 10:55:51 PMThey're attacking a besieged Frankish fortified town abutting an inland lake. They sailed up a river and are transporting their boats to the lake. The town is unfortified on that side so they're fucked.
I think after carrying the boats that far that the Vikings will be fucked.
The boats were not lifted, they were dragged across land.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 03, 2010, 12:09:33 AM
Frankly, the example Jimmy has Pict is incorrect. What Olaf! I am surprised he even Daned to post it. The Angles are all wrong. The ships as drawn -- rather Slavenly I might add -- could never stand up to a Gael in open ocean. The Franks, who should be in terror, are making no attempt to seek Mercia. I could point out Moor errors, but I just Kent go on right now.
Nice spelling, Tim.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 03, 2010, 12:09:33 AM
Frankly, the example Jimmy has Pict is incorrect. What Olaf! I am surprised he even Daned to post it. The Angles are all wrong. The ships as drawn -- rather Slavenly I might add -- could never stand up to a Gael in open ocean. The Franks, who should be in terror, are making no attempt to seek Mercia. I could point out Moor errors, but I just Kent go on right now.
Get a Leif.
Quote from: sbr on April 03, 2010, 12:41:59 AM
needs moar American Civil War. :yes:
Or Stuart-Cromwell.
Hey Tim, link me to that cartoon.
Quote from: Siege on April 03, 2010, 07:01:46 PM
Hey Tim, link me to that cartoon.
The Manga the picture of the Vikings carrying longships is from is this one, I believe.
http://www.mangafox.com/manga/vinland_saga/
Tim'll have to give you the chapter reference.
Quote from: Warspite on April 03, 2010, 05:51:19 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 03, 2010, 12:09:33 AM
Frankly, the example Jimmy has Pict is incorrect. What Olaf! I am surprised he even Daned to post it. The Angles are all wrong. The ships as drawn -- rather Slavenly I might add -- could never stand up to a Gael in open ocean. The Franks, who should be in terror, are making no attempt to seek Mercia. I could point out Moor errors, but I just Kent go on right now.
Get a Leif.
Cuman, these jokes are just awful.
Quote from: Agelastus on April 03, 2010, 07:11:40 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 03, 2010, 07:01:46 PM
Hey Tim, link me to that cartoon.
The Manga the picture of the Vikings carrying longships is from is this one, I believe.
http://www.mangafox.com/manga/vinland_saga/
Tim'll have to give you the chapter reference.
It's from one of the first chapters, it's an awesome manga.
Quote from: Agelastus on April 03, 2010, 07:11:40 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 03, 2010, 07:01:46 PM
Hey Tim, link me to that cartoon.
The Manga the picture of the Vikings carrying longships is from is this one, I believe.
http://www.mangafox.com/manga/vinland_saga/
Tim'll have to give you the chapter reference.
Reading this makes me cringe with embarrassment. But then I remember how Manga depicts other non-japanese cultures.
Quote from: Viking on April 03, 2010, 11:32:01 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on April 03, 2010, 07:11:40 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 03, 2010, 07:01:46 PM
Hey Tim, link me to that cartoon.
The Manga the picture of the Vikings carrying longships is from is this one, I believe.
http://www.mangafox.com/manga/vinland_saga/
Tim'll have to give you the chapter reference.
Reading this makes me cringe with embarrassment. But then I remember how Manga depicts other non-japanese cultures.
-_- I think it's probably the most accurate manga about a pre-modern non-Japanese culture I've seen.
Quote from: Viking on April 03, 2010, 11:32:01 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on April 03, 2010, 07:11:40 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 03, 2010, 07:01:46 PM
Hey Tim, link me to that cartoon.
The Manga the picture of the Vikings carrying longships is from is this one, I believe.
http://www.mangafox.com/manga/vinland_saga/
Tim'll have to give you the chapter reference.
Reading this makes me cringe with embarrassment. But then I remember how Manga depicts other non-japanese cultures.
Yeah, basically how we depict Asian culture. Only crazier.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 03, 2010, 10:37:31 PM
Quote from: Warspite on April 03, 2010, 05:51:19 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 03, 2010, 12:09:33 AM
Frankly, the example Jimmy has Pict is incorrect. What Olaf! I am surprised he even Daned to post it. The Angles are all wrong. The ships as drawn -- rather Slavenly I might add -- could never stand up to a Gael in open ocean. The Franks, who should be in terror, are making no attempt to seek Mercia. I could point out Moor errors, but I just Kent go on right now.
Get a Leif.
Cuman, these jokes are just awful.
I Canute understand them.
Quote from: Viking on April 03, 2010, 11:32:01 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on April 03, 2010, 07:11:40 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 03, 2010, 07:01:46 PM
Hey Tim, link me to that cartoon.
The Manga the picture of the Vikings carrying longships is from is this one, I believe.
http://www.mangafox.com/manga/vinland_saga/
Tim'll have to give you the chapter reference.
Reading this makes me cringe with embarrassment. But then I remember how Manga depicts other non-japanese cultures.
I wouldn't know; I've read a few pages, and that is all. I didn't like it much. The art style is distinctive enough that I recognised it from Tim's post though.
Quote from: Solmyr on April 04, 2010, 04:53:53 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on April 03, 2010, 10:37:31 PM
Quote from: Warspite on April 03, 2010, 05:51:19 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 03, 2010, 12:09:33 AM
Frankly, the example Jimmy has Pict is incorrect. What Olaf! I am surprised he even Daned to post it. The Angles are all wrong. The ships as drawn -- rather Slavenly I might add -- could never stand up to a Gael in open ocean. The Franks, who should be in terror, are making no attempt to seek Mercia. I could point out Moor errors, but I just Kent go on right now.
Get a Leif.
Cuman, these jokes are just awful.
I Canute understand them.
Nor I. I think it is written in Norse Code.
Quote from: grumbler on April 04, 2010, 07:00:25 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on April 04, 2010, 04:53:53 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on April 03, 2010, 10:37:31 PM
Quote from: Warspite on April 03, 2010, 05:51:19 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 03, 2010, 12:09:33 AM
Frankly, the example Jimmy has Pict is incorrect. What Olaf! I am surprised he even Daned to post it. The Angles are all wrong. The ships as drawn -- rather Slavenly I might add -- could never stand up to a Gael in open ocean. The Franks, who should be in terror, are making no attempt to seek Mercia. I could point out Moor errors, but I just Kent go on right now.
Get a Leif.
Cuman, these jokes are just awful.
I Canute understand them.
Nor I. I think it is written in Norse Code.
They starting to Rune this thread.
Quote from: Warspite on April 04, 2010, 09:27:20 AM
They starting to Rune this thread.
Ugh, Norman should face this kind of abuse.
You guys are not funny.
Quote from: Siege on April 04, 2010, 11:28:22 AM
You guys are not funny.
Knight Time is the right time.
Ok, back on topic, my other question is why did the vikings fail at colonizing Vinland?
I read something about it sometime ago, and the argument was that viking technology was less developed than the spanish technology that allowed for the conquest of the new world. My problem with this argument, is that the vikings might not have gunpowder weapons, but at the same time they weren't going up against highly organized and populated empires like the Aztecs or the Incans.
So, how effectives chainmail and swords would have been against the natives of Labrador and New England? I assume the locals would have been armed with stone-headed arrows and spears.
What gives?
Quote from: Siege on April 04, 2010, 03:34:03 PM
Ok, back on topic, my other question is why did the vikings fail at colonizing Vinland?
I read something about it sometime ago, and the argument was that viking technology was less developed than the spanish technology that allowed for the conquest of the new world. My problem with this argument, is that the vikings might not have gunpowder weapons, but at the same time they weren't going up against highly organized and populated empires like the Aztecs or the Incans.
So, how effectives chainmail and swords would have been against the natives of Labrador and New England? I assume the locals would have been armed with stone-headed arrows and spears.
What gives?
Viking activity in America wasn't a state project. Spanish activity in America was.
Quote from: The Brain on April 04, 2010, 03:42:40 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 04, 2010, 03:34:03 PM
Ok, back on topic, my other question is why did the vikings fail at colonizing Vinland?
I read something about it sometime ago, and the argument was that viking technology was less developed than the spanish technology that allowed for the conquest of the new world. My problem with this argument, is that the vikings might not have gunpowder weapons, but at the same time they weren't going up against highly organized and populated empires like the Aztecs or the Incans.
So, how effectives chainmail and swords would have been against the natives of Labrador and New England? I assume the locals would have been armed with stone-headed arrows and spears.
What gives?
Viking activity in America wasn't a state project. Spanish activity in America was.
The "viking", i.e. Christian Norse speaking Greenland colonists were very few. The colonies they came from were not able to support any prolonged campaign against the natives of North America, due to very limited manpower. It was long sailing from Greenland to New Foundland, and took many weeks.
Quote from: Siege on April 04, 2010, 03:34:03 PM
What gives?
There was no gold in Newfoundland. The Spanish didnt conquer it either.
Also the boats were smaller and less reliable. Harder to carry lots of horses, pigs, cows, chickens and that stuff.
Quote from: The Brain on April 04, 2010, 03:42:40 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 04, 2010, 03:34:03 PM
Ok, back on topic, my other question is why did the vikings fail at colonizing Vinland?
I read something about it sometime ago, and the argument was that viking technology was less developed than the spanish technology that allowed for the conquest of the new world. My problem with this argument, is that the vikings might not have gunpowder weapons, but at the same time they weren't going up against highly organized and populated empires like the Aztecs or the Incans.
So, how effectives chainmail and swords would have been against the natives of Labrador and New England? I assume the locals would have been armed with stone-headed arrows and spears.
What gives?
Viking activity in America wasn't a state project. Spanish activity in America was.
Quite the contrary, the Vikings that had moved to Iceland and later Greenland did so to get away from the "state"...
In an essay I read a few months ago the idea was put forward that the settlements in America and Greenland were lost/reduced in size due to worsening climatic conditions, i.e. the weath worsening to the point that regular longship traffic wasn't possible anymore.
Quote from: Syt on April 05, 2010, 12:34:14 AM
In an essay I read a few months ago the idea was put forward that the settlements in America and Greenland were lost/reduced in size due to worsening climatic conditions, i.e. the weath worsening to the point that regular longship traffic wasn't possible anymore.
Lost due to: changing climate, fewer food sources, possible pirate raids from Portuguese whalers. Also possible the black death, if not directly, then indirectly by isolating Greenland from the rest of the European world...
btw: they didnt use longships in the north atlantic they relied on a type of merchant ship called a Knarr...
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on April 05, 2010, 12:30:00 AM
Quite the contrary, the Vikings that had moved to Iceland and later Greenland did so to get away from the "state"...
Erik The Red, the leader of the Greenland Colonists was condemned as an Outlaw, which in Iceland and Norway meant anybody could kill him without legal issues. Erik The Red managed this feat in both Norway and Iceland. He was running from the relatives of his victims. The other settlers were usually landless free men or free men owning marginal land. To the best of anybodies knowledge there were never more than 20-40 norsemen and women in Newfoundland. They only had two knörr (large seaworthy seagoing boats) to carry the entire party.
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on April 05, 2010, 12:51:40 AM
Quote from: Syt on April 05, 2010, 12:34:14 AM
In an essay I read a few months ago the idea was put forward that the settlements in America and Greenland were lost/reduced in size due to worsening climatic conditions, i.e. the weath worsening to the point that regular longship traffic wasn't possible anymore.
Lost due to: changing climate, fewer food sources, possible pirate raids from Portuguese whalers. Also possible the black death, if not directly, then indirectly by isolating Greenland from the rest of the European world...
btw: they didnt use longships in the north atlantic they relied on a type of merchant ship called a Knarr...
Possible pirate raids from Portuguese whalers? Any sources except Thor Heyerdahl?
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on April 05, 2010, 03:35:23 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on April 05, 2010, 12:51:40 AM
Quote from: Syt on April 05, 2010, 12:34:14 AM
In an essay I read a few months ago the idea was put forward that the settlements in America and Greenland were lost/reduced in size due to worsening climatic conditions, i.e. the weath worsening to the point that regular longship traffic wasn't possible anymore.
Lost due to: changing climate, fewer food sources, possible pirate raids from Portuguese whalers. Also possible the black death, if not directly, then indirectly by isolating Greenland from the rest of the European world...
btw: they didnt use longships in the north atlantic they relied on a type of merchant ship called a Knarr...
Possible pirate raids from Portuguese whalers? Any sources except Thor Heyerdahl?
Nope, just mentioned the popular theories...
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on April 05, 2010, 03:35:23 AM
Possible pirate raids from Portuguese whalers? Any sources except Thor Heyerdahl?
There are No sources blaming Portugese or Basque whalers for the exctinction of the colony. Most likely it was starvation due to agricultural failure. The reason why there is speculation about pirates is that Iceland during the same period 1300s-1400s was hit very hard by English Pirates (called by Icelandic sources Vikings). English was probably a common name for all fishermen/pirates operating in the area. The English did burn down quite a bit of farmsteads and kill alot of people (probably more than the entire norse population of greenland) in iceland itself. These fisheries wars were eventually ended when the Kalmar King actually sent ships.
I think the basic reasoning is as follows. English fishermen operated around Iceland and conducted pirate raids. Basque whalers operated around greenland and .....
I read an interesting book called The Frozen Echo about the Greenland colonies and their demise. Her thesis was I think one of two things: either the surviving Greenlanders were indeed captured by European pirates or that they attempted to emigrate en masse to Vinland but either died on the way or were massacred/enslaved by Native Americans once they arrived. I'm pretty sure she very strongly argued against their demise being related to starvation. I read this book about a decade ago, which is why I'm having trouble remembering details.
Quote from: Caliga on April 05, 2010, 08:03:05 AM
I read an interesting book called The Frozen Echo about the Greenland colonies and their demise. Her thesis was I think one of two things: either the surviving Greenlanders were indeed captured by European pirates or that they attempted to emigrate en masse to Vinland but either died on the way or were massacred/enslaved by Native Americans once they arrived. I'm pretty sure she very strongly argued against their demise being related to starvation. I read this book about a decade ago, which is why I'm having trouble remembering details.
Or they just gave up and tried to return to Iceland or Norway, maybe they succeed, maybe not. It may have been a slow and gradually return to Iceland/Norway, too few to really have been noticed, or maybe news of their return was lost in the aftermath of the plague...
[quoteMr.Penguin]
Or they just gave up and tried to return to Iceland or Norway, maybe they succeed, maybe not. It may have been a slow and gradually return to Iceland/Norway, too few to really have been noticed, or maybe news of their return was lost in the aftermath of the plague...
[/quote]
I do remember reading something about the Icelandic documents of the early XVth century, which note an increasing amount of Greenlanders settling in the Island. I always thought it was a certainty that the cooling weather was the main reason why the Greenlanders left - it's not like any kind of raid ever kept people from inhabiting a good place. And I think they said some lone guys stayed behind.
Besides, the settlers returned in the XVIIIth century, as the temperatures warmed up.
Also, with the recent climate changes we are approaching the warmth levels that existed in Greenland in the Middle Ages, so I suppose soon we'll see how hospitable it was before the climate cooled.
Conflict with Inuits led to lots of Greenlanders dying.
(Is it OK to mention Jared Diamond on this forum?)
Quote from: Lucidor on April 05, 2010, 02:37:06 PM
(Is it OK to mention Jared Diamond on this forum?)
<_<
Quote from: Martim Silva on April 05, 2010, 09:00:11 AM
Also, with the recent climate changes we are approaching the warmth levels that existed in Greenland in the Middle Ages, so I suppose soon we'll see how hospitable it was before the climate cooled.
IIRC weren't there also huge problems with soil erosion and over grazing though?
In fact I remember reading somewhere (god knows where) this was more of a factor than the cooling even.
Quote from: Lucidor on April 05, 2010, 02:37:06 PM
Conflict with Inuits led to lots of Greenlanders dying.
(Is it OK to mention Jared Diamond on this forum?)
No. I think the theory that they died out because they wouldn't eat fish has pretty much been discredited. The last recorded Greenlanders apparently immigrated back to Iceland.
I met Jared Diamond!!!
Regarding Greenlanders and ships. Comparing it to iceland itself. In the 13th century (two centuries before the death of the last norse greenlander) Iceland surrenders it's independence in exchange for ships. Iceland doesn't have ships as early as the 13th century. Naturally there is no timber to build them so the only ships the icelanders get are the ships that a private citizen without property went abroad, gained a ship (by fair means or foul) and then found a reason to return home. The little ice age meant that grain was no longer grown on iceland and had to be imported. (explaining the stranger bits of icelandic cuisine)
The greenlanders would have known that running out of ships meant death. So Greenlanders moving to Iceland makes sense, but that would mean crashing in social status from Lord and landowner to servant.
Quote from: Jaron on April 05, 2010, 03:12:51 PM
I met Jared Diamond!!!
He probably dismissed you as an idiot since you aren't from New Guinea.
Quote from: Lucidor on April 05, 2010, 02:37:06 PM
(Is it OK to mention Jared Diamond on this forum?)
I found that book of his to be one big borefest.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2010, 03:17:53 PM
Quote from: Jaron on April 05, 2010, 03:12:51 PM
I met Jared Diamond!!!
He probably dismissed you as an idiot since you aren't from New Guinea.
:hmm: Troll?
Quote from: Jaron on April 05, 2010, 03:12:51 PM
I met Jared Diamond!!!
Did you get him to sing the Five Dollar Foot Long song?
Whats wrong with Jared Diamond? :unsure:
Quote from: The Brain on April 02, 2010, 12:57:53 PM
Quote from: Vricklund on April 02, 2010, 12:56:44 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 02, 2010, 07:03:05 AMSo, what gives?
Once you've sailed a clinker built ship with dead silent cotton sails through the swedish archipelago on a sunny summers day with a steady onshore breeze you know that there is no greater means of transportation.
Cotton sails? Very few Negroes in Sweden 1,000 years ago.
Meh, pardon me for not sailing with authentic wool or linen sails then. The essence of my post still stands. :P
To get back on topic I might add that in Ingvar Vittfarnes (Far-Travelled?) saga there is a record of an encounter between the viking fleet and ships that shoots fire. Someone more knowledgable might be able to elaborate?