Vikings are a meme

Why are vikings revered as fearsome and ruthless warriors?

>no Major battles involving over 100k men
>No marvelous architecture or structures
>basic farming and agriculture
>Killed and raped unarmed peasants or women/children
>Robbed and stole and left like niggers
>Never created anything noteworthy

If they were so fierce why did they always flee when a retinue was dispatched ?

Why were there very few sieges and high-stakes battles?

Honestly, the vikings are a meme
They run to their ships anytime a real force showed up. >Charlemagne

>meanwhile romans fought pitched battles involving hundreds of thousands of men, elephants and seiged the mightiest walls with feats of engineering mastery.

The vikings are a meme.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaugamela
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hastings
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>Varangian Guard
>Best seafarers of their time
>Harald Hardrada
>The Great Heathen Army
>Dane Law

Vikings were cool m8

>battles
faggotry
>artsy builds
faggotry
>basic farming and agriculture
if it's so basic, tell me what your home set-up looks like. self sufficiency is something most kids today wouldn't know where to even start at.
>murder and crime
yawn. some things don't change.
>nothing noteworthy
It's like you've never seen a swedish breast.

Whats more, they were too retarded to keep historical documents so any of the few battles we knew existed, are vastly gross overestimates of what were small skirmishes bewteen 2 warring chieftains.

I challenge you, find me a viking battle with over 100k men. Find me A "guagulmela", A Alesia, A "Zama", find me a famous noteworthy battle

>protip: you wont

>muh nordics
>muh superior whiteys

Vikings were as degenerate as the rest of the world in 800-1000. The western Romans were long dead by then (though the Eastern Romans turned Byzantine Empire was still around).

>he doesnt know about the varangian guard

You see, vikings didnt need armies of 100k to be fearsome, unlike other "men"

>my subjective opinion is more relevant than historical facts.

heres your (you)

Because there was no discpline in their ranks.
They couldnt even field an army of 50k

Their logitstics and supply should have been above par be that they are sea-farring people.

But nope. Which leads me to my next reason why they could hardly ever win a seige. They lacked supply if they strayed too far from their boats

Didnt know abos knew how to use a computer.

Vikings turned into Normans though.
Praise Christ.

Heres an example of a REAL battle.

Please, I wait your retort. Where are your so famous battles that we always here about, preaching viking courage and strength?

Mhhmm??

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaugamela

Dude, those are historical facts

>Varangian Guard
Elite group of Byzantine mercenaries, all Vikings looking for money
Feared and murderous, they were involved in famous conquests and battles
>Best Seafarers of their Time
They were, no doubt
The longship design was the best for that period, fast and nimble it could ride rivers and the high seas
They were masters at figuring out exactly where they were even with dark overcasts
>Harald Hardrada
Just search him up man
>Great Heathen Army
A viking army that SHATTERED the Anglo-Saxons of Britain
Except Wessex cause they were cool
>Danelaw
What is Viking control over a third of Britain?

They can't. I have a smartphone dum dum

>running from armies, raping, pillaging
Because they were raiders and bandits. They didn't come to conquer, they came to take from the weak and sate the human need to kill. They had a better understanding of human nature.

>The only good battle is a big one

I bet you make the "You mad whiteboi" threads, too.

This really means alot to you doesn't it?
You're right, the vikings wasn't THE deathmachine supersquad, do you feel gratified now?

>Battle of Fulford
Not a BIG battle, because armies of that time in Europe were small. But a battle nonetheless
>Battle of Beroia
Varangians beat the Pechenegs so hard they were never a major player in Europe again.
>All of the Heathen Armies' invasion of the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms

>conquest
I dont think you understand what that word means.

The varangian guard were mercenaries, sell swords and thus do not count, they are not a standing army but swords for hire.

>The battle of stamford bridge is the only battle you can name and they got fucking rekt and died in the battle.

>conquest
I dont think you understand what that word means.

The varangian guard were mercenaries, sell swords and thus do not count, they are not a standing army but swords for hire.

>The battle of stamford bridge is the only battle you can name and they got fucking rekt and died in the battle.

>they came to take from the weak
Does that make them strong?

>the only good battle is a big one
Nice strawman, Large battles usually meant the stakes were high, and it was life or death not only for the soldiers but the country they were fighting for. learn2history faggot

Why the fixation in Battles over 100 000 men?

Are Spartan hoplites Shit tier soldiers because There were never a 100 000 of Them at a battle?

>no Major battles involving over 100k men

Entire Scandinavian population at the time was at most 500k, also most of the numbers of men in ancient armies are exaggerated

>No marvelous architecture or structures

Small population for great buildings also the longships make up for that

>basic farming and agriculture

Eveyone was a farmer then

>Killed and raped unarmed peasants or women/children

Almost every power that could did that at the time

>Robbed and stole and left like niggers

Anyone who could did that at the time

>Never created anything noteworthy

Again the longships and their travels and adventures were unseen for their time

Im just saying they are overrated because of popculture.

>armies of that time in europe were small

Yet Darius was able to field an army of over Hundred thousand men in the desert...nearly 1 millennium before the vikings prominence.

Funny story about Stamford Bridge,

"The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle has it that a giant Norse axeman (possibly armed with a Dane Axe) blocked the narrow crossing and single-handedly held up the entire English army. The story is that this axeman cut down up to 40 Englishmen and was defeated only when an English soldier floated under the bridge in a half-barrel and thrust his spear through the planks in the bridge, mortally wounding the axeman." Wikipedia, sourcing page 198 of the Anglo Saxon Chronicles

>Thermopylae
Easily over 100k combatants

500k where are you getting that number? their population all together would be well over 1 million from 700+ A.D

>basic farming and agriculture
Yeah maby 1000 fucking years ago
I think your confusing BCE with AD lmao

>muh longships
You do realize they had no offensive capabilities and were laughable when you look at eastern ships built around or even earlier than that time.

>be level 20 barbarian
>completely BTFO of Saxon shits
>prepared to die in glorious battle so my bros can escape
>some clever Anglo cunt hops in a barrel and floats under the bridge
>stabs me in the ballsack

Why do you care if they're overrated in pop-culture? Are you autistic, user?
Niggermusic is also overrated, start a thread talking shit about rap when this one dies.
The thing is, Vikings had a badass warrior culture, and were aesthetic as fuck, ofcourse people look back at them and not some scrawny Roman legionere trapped in a bearucratic hell.
>but muh battles

>Varangian Guard
So, did they even fight in a real battle?
>Best seafarers of their time
Arguable, I wonder if they could have sailed from the middle east to China to trade, and I know for sure they couldn't beat the byzantines who had greek fire and most likely a much larger navy.
>Harald Hardrada
Best known for being defeated by the English.
>Dane Law
What about it?

>500k where are you getting that number? their population all together would be well over 1 million from 700+ A.D
Sorry, only population of Denmark had around 500k, all Scandinavia must have been more than a million, still very small considering their exploits

>no offensive capabilities

Who cares about offensive capabilities?

They were special for their sleek, fast design that was incredibly durable.
No other ship of that time in Europe could go as fast.
No other ship could so easily from river to sea
And no other ship had crews as experienced and talented

>scrawny roman legionaries
Thats a funny joke. You Nord cucks have no discipline. the vikings would shit themselves if they had to actually fight a legitimate battle on even ground.

>Yes
>Yeah you're right, but their ships and navigational skills were A1 shit
>But he did a lot before that, and it was rad
>I meant Danelaw sorry

>no discipline

Yeah mate you're right about that
As much as I am a viking fan I'd still suck Rome's dick any day

>Harald Hardrada

This dude gives me feels of masculine inadequacy.

Varangian Guards were very loyal outsiders (backstabbing in the bizantine empire was pretty common). And they were magnificent individuals of about 1.80, like fierce niggers. You have the idea.

The Nordics must be protected until their numbers stabilize, but they are certainly not known for their special abilities outside of their physical attributes (like beauty). Nor do they have supernatural powers.

Not trying to shit on them, Im just saying they are to a certain degree over-rated.

Will the eternal Anglo ever be stopped?

East Rome(the Byzantine Empire) would not have hired them as bodyguards of Emperors if they did that

Well everything is overrated in someway

Ancient Trireme max speed: 7.37 knots

Longboat: 10 knots give or take

Considering the size and displacement difference of the two, and the time frame (first known triremes built around 250 BCE)

I'd say the longboats were inferior design.
They Were fast, yes, and sleak perfect for raiding but...thats about it...and thats why the design was tossed away in favor of larger, and more powerful ships only 200 some years later with the brig and Cog.

>They run to their ships anytime a real force showed up. >Charlemagne
then why did they recruit and give land to them
aka normans normandy.

Just one reason really. Rape. No one even knows what "pillage" was.

Longboats were perfect for their time, and were amazing crafts with amazing crews

That's why they could sail to Iceland, Greenland, and Vinland (Most likely)

That's all I'm saying

>Robbed and stole and left like niggers
I wish niggers would leave desu

critical hit

If anything that was due to Norse seamen ship which was far superior to anything the world had seen, the same way the mongols were the most skilled horsemen, the norse were the most skilled in Seamanship

To replenish their forces.,...same reason any army recruited from the local population if disease or famine struck the ranks.
Even the Wehrmacht and SS did.

this isn't the first anti viking thread I'm seeing here
seems like a way for (((them))) to keep pushing the anti Russian narrative

>
>>Thermopylae
>Easily over 100k combatants

If you believe herodots numbers, which many historians do not.

Even then, no 100 000 spartan hoplites There, so does this make them shit Warriors?

>no architecture
Yeah the Normans really built nothing impressive. What were they thinking when they constructed this?

>what are myths

>Sup Forums thread
>All about arguing

Seems good so far

>Arguing about whether vikings are overrated or not

What the fuck even
This is the most invested I've ever been in a Sup Forums thread

Propaganda. Not even kidding.

>Actually calling the norse for "vikings"
Historial illiterate detected
The vikings fought like the Anglo-Saxons and every other northern European fighting force. The reason they never had battles above 100k men is because Scandinavia was barely populated.

The level of influence they achieved for such a small people was pretty amazing desu. But yes if you compare them to the modern portrayal they dont live up to the hype. But if you understand the context, the "vikings" where pretty awesome.

I agree vikings are overrated. Scandinavia have had much better times.

Dorians>Vikings

I think a lot of the fascination for them, aside from their aesthetic, is that we as Western men long to be strong, proud and feared again. Everything is so picked apart, ironic and post-modern that we long for something exotic and fierce but still "us". The European "noble savage" as it were.

I do agree that people do a lot of Varg tier larping and it's not always a good thing. I would much prefer fellow fashy huwites embrace traditional concepts like Mos Memoriam for honor instead of Jack Donovan's ideas on "strength" and simplistic values. In most cases it would have been better that many anons had never abandoned their Christian roots on their self improvement journey, but instead taken inspiration and tried to de-cuck their churches and communities from within. People need to actively work on things that bring value to western nationalism, and meet objective material and political ends. So apart from their inspiring ferocity and masculine qualities, I don't think the Vikings have much to offer, especially for non-Nordics (because it's Nordic culture, and theirs to do with as they please).

That information comes from a primary source
>I can quote it for you if you want

"Then was there one of the Norwegians who withstood the English folk--That they may not pass over the bridge nor obtain the victory. Then an Englishman shot with an arrow, but it availed naught; and then came another under the bridge and pierced him through in under the bryny." -Anglo-Saxon Chronicles

The goths = ancestors of vikings were the ones who conquered Rome.

You are trying to compare a group of warring tribes to vast urbanized empires. The Norse should be compared to the Dorians or the Parni, uncivilized barbarians who laid the basis of later development. Saging this retarded thread

simple google search of norse words in the english language
sheds light on how influential they were.
op hiding behind larping flag, probably a self hating swede or shitskin.

I'm convinced the speed of technological progress of a civilisation is inversely proportional to the attractiveness of their woman.

t. swede

>muh romans
>got destroyed by undisciplined pagans

Oh wow gee golickers, looks like discipline has fuck all to say 1on1 when ones a little Roman homosex and the other is a towering brute

That must be why the mighty nyugga and aboriginal qwangz conquered da hole werl

Harold wartooth, Battle of Brávellir, Gunnhild, Mother of Kings.

"In any case, the 4th-century army was probably much more dependent on barbarian recruitment than its 1st/2nd-century predecessor."
-Wikipedia with sources Lee (1997) 222–3, Zosimus books IV, V, Elton (1996) 144–5

>Maybe it was the barbarians in the armies that led to less discipline? Hmmm

You are forgetting the previous three battles where Roman armies of 20k, 50k, and 80k were completely wiped out by the same tribal group comprised mostly of women and children.

It OK they only killed christcucks.

>towering brute
lmao Strenght does not win battles.
Discpline, and Honor wins battles.

If a roman retreated, every 10th man was bludgeoned to death by his comrades.

Keep thinking they were towering brutes, when in reality they were theives, rapist, and murderers, honestly they were the first pirates.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hastings

>Battle of Hastings

Normans may be Norse descended, but they aren't "Vikings"

Desert? You clearly don't know what your even talking about.

Saged

>Replying to people who speak ill of mother Rome

>some guy makes a big army and takes advantage of a collapsing Persian empire to just make the Greeco-Persian empire and then fail to conquer India and then pretend like your work is done and nothing of your empire survives your death

>honor wins battles

>women and children
Oh I forgot women and children fought battle hardened legions that been fighting in hispania for years and lost. My bad

Yes I agree, But the problem is strenght leads to pride, and pride leads to violence. Christianity destroys your ego and rebuilds it, you fear god, you will always be below him, and That keeps your ego and decisions regulated and makes you second guess every action you make, Paganism is too primative.

>he looked at my wife
>I must crack his skull or im weak.

Also forgiveness is antithetical to paganism imo

>t.rational Belgian
/thread

Even if we argue about whether vikings were overrated or not

We can all agree on one thing

>Rome was fucking 10/10

God this fucking "muh personal guard" got old real quick, yes they hired them because they were skilled individual fighters, but you forget to mention they had to abandon their old habits and culture and be properly disciplined.

For a long time, yes.

Ikr

oh look a fucking retarded leaf
>pic related

Cowardice tends to loose battles, would my logic not be sound and for it safe to say that Honor and Valor can do the opposite, and win battles?

Well of course...it was the greatest empire to ever exist, any historian east, or west will agree.

This is not a Rome vs Norse or viking thread.

I been using examples of warriors from all creed.

>Oh I forgot women and children fought battle hardened legions that been fighting in hispania for years and lost
You cant even get your damn facts straight. Marius campaigned in Mauretania against the Numidian king Jugurtha, and was put in charge of the defense against the Cimbri after they had absolutely annihilated every single other consular army put into the field by Rome. The women and children were standing behind the men, and when the men were routed the women killed themselves and their children.

I forgot Romeaboos get their history from comic books and cartoons.

Normans were nords olny by blood (and even that barely) otherwise they were completely assimilated. Also this was constructed in the fucking high middle ages, long after the viking barbarians were gone.

Nah man I was just giving us all a sense of common ground

>And also to bait Anti-Rome people

The Normans were assimilated into Christianity the same way Turks were assimilated into Islam. They maintained their martial attitude and sense of elitism.

Fucking what? They spoke latin and french and fought in the style of franks, almost nothing remained of their original culture.

Rome was absolute shit. Couldn't establish a decent line of succession, profligate hedonists, could never figure out how to plan long term. Never figured out how to manage their borders, defense in depth, or divide and conquer. Every was given to them, literally in the case of the Kingdom of Pergamon.

Read my post again.

>vikings
>literally snow niggers
>the only memory they left behind was how primitive they were

Two pics on the bottom right aren't even in the Roman (aka Greek) architectural style. The August statute was a copy+pasted counterfeit of an earlier greek statue.

>>And also to bait Anti-Rome people

Rome was, and is, the most influential empire to ever exist on the face of the Earth.

How do I know?

>We're speaking with Latin letters
>The world uses a Latin calendar
>Western culture is based on Rome
>And we all know how the West did
>Monuments of Roman design still stand
>Romans were the fucking MASTERS of architecture
>Look at the Pantheon, Colosseum, Theodosian Walls, etc.

An empire that lasted over 1 and half millennium is not long term

okay kiddo

...

>I like Old English
>Viking Language
>REEEEEEEEEEE

I'll have you know English is in no way "Viking" or Norse
It is a shoot off of Germanic way before Norse formed
The first "English" was Anglo-Saxon
>Eala! hu gæþ hit þe?
Some Norse words were stolen by English
But English is NOT Norse

That is really bad art

My paternal ancestry is Norman and from what I've read, they did quite a bit of assimilation. This was common wherever the Nordics went, they adopted local customs and did their best to conform. But with all the Nordics, especially the Normans, their concepts about elitism and honor were so culturally ingrained that it took quite a long time for those trends to dissipate. It's my opinion that the religious views of their ancestors played a huge role in this, and oral tradition likely played a part, even after they adopted Christianity. I can see aesthetic patterns that are similar to their Nordic ancestors in things like pic related, this was centuries after the assimilation period I believe.

I don't know about martial attitude or anything like that. It sounds interesting, likely interwoven in their concepts of hierarchy and natural order., though this became progressively Christianized and faded. I wish it hadn't.

And you read mine ffs, they did not raid, pillage and steal, they fought organised like the frankish armies with heavy cavlary and all. The invasion of the British isles was not due to some sense of superiority it was a quest to destroy the pagan heathens.

Both norse and old english are shot offs of germanic...

Question for myself and everyone else
>How is this Politically Incorrect?

Oh well, I'm still having fun

>We're speaking with Latin letters
Latin letters were spread by the Christian Church, not Rome, and it was derived from the Cumae alphabet, a Greek alphabet which was in turn derived from Phoenician.
>The world uses a Latin calendar
The world uses the Gregorian calendar, invented in 1582, not the Julian (Roman) calendar.
>Western culture is based on Rome
Occidental culture is based on Greece, not Rome. Roman philosophy does not hold a fucking candle to Greek philosophy.
>And we all know how the West did
Ah yes those Germanic barbarian kingdoms who conquered the world.
>Romans were the fucking MASTERS of architecture
>What are latifundia
Everything that was shite has collapsed already, so you dont get to see it. The pic you posted is actually in the form of a MOSQUE, not a Greek temple, signifying the inward orientalization that was well underway in Rome at the turn of the millennium.
>Look at the Pantheon
temple style stolen from the Persians
>Colosseum
a fucking sportsbowl
>Theodosian Walls
Built by Greco Thracians.

Rome was able to succeed catastrophic defeats that would had destroyed other nations ipso facto. His strength, organization, and "vir", (virtue virile), is legendary. The sense of civic duty among Romans has not been surpassed in the whole history.

Vikangz mentality quickly warms up, but it's incapable of maintaining a lasting sense of cohesion. Much less to create something so enduring.

Swedish vikings besieged constantinople multiple times