Tiberius Decimus Maximus said:
Nokia.
Mean that fish which explodes? And Saab,,,Well it's f'n a boat turned upsidedown on wheels. We invented something useful, xylitol.
Vikings vs. Mongols
- Thread starter Ruthven
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Nokia.
Mean that fish which explodes? And Saab,,,Well it's f'n a boat turned upsidedown on wheels. We invented something useful, xylitol.
Don Doggy said:
No, I mean the gummies, you dolt! Also, we have one of the most advanced militaries in the European North. Oh, and very attractive women. Can't leave that part out
Also, we have a population of more than a few herders and a few minor cities, and the beautiful city of Stockholm. Also, we conquered your ass.
Kasnar
Sergeant
I watched a biography on the mongols and read the book "The Mongols: A Military History" and they both agree that the mongols after they united, were 95% of the time outnumbered in combat and 99% of the time, had won....Think about it....the vikings were never really armies...there were a few...yes...but mostly they were boats of raiders that terrorized poor little english monks and hamlets full of peasents....Mongols were hords of warriors who had a specific duty and that was to follow the generals orders into battle and slaughter the enemy. The vikings were savage illiterate warriors who could make a sheild wall and could make a boat, thats it. The first Mongolian victorys in Europe were against Hungarian and polish armys and they were ABSOLUTLEY DECIMATED! The ones who survived were so ashamed that they came back telling stories that the mongols had hundreds of thousands of men and the help of posion breathing dragons....wich wasnt the case.
AND ON TOP OF THAT! Most Viking eqipment came from raided towns and stuff from fallen European soldiers..so there gear didnt really differ at all from anyone else in Europe...so to tell you the truth....the mongols would just be fighting more soldiers with the same gear as before...with fewer peaple...thus easier the quicker to defeat.....
THE - VIKINGS - DO - NOT - WIN
ACCEPT IT!
AND ON TOP OF THAT! Most Viking eqipment came from raided towns and stuff from fallen European soldiers..so there gear didnt really differ at all from anyone else in Europe...so to tell you the truth....the mongols would just be fighting more soldiers with the same gear as before...with fewer peaple...thus easier the quicker to defeat.....
THE - VIKINGS - DO - NOT - WIN
ACCEPT IT!
The Mercenary
Grandmaster Knight
Mongols win. It's bloody hard to hit a horse archers with throwing weapons.
The Mercenary said:
Yeah yeah yeah, that example was just for a mongol vs. viking battle in M&B. I did say it probably wouldn't work in the RL. But sense to maximise the effect of their arrow strom, they would more likely clump together... but still. Hard to hit someone 100 yards away with a throwing weapon
I say that in a heavily forested and very snowy place the Norsemen would win. Only an idiot would try to ride a large amount of horses through a forest where you can't see the ground. Also, most arrows would be wasted firing in thick forests too, and the vikings would win hand-to-hand in the end. (Depending on the number ratio and the amount of veterans.)The Mercenary said:
The Mercenary
Grandmaster Knight
Nah. You still lose, Ruthven. Mongols were masters of setting ambushes and skirmishing. As they are also in light armour, and had capable ground troops, they would ambush the Viking group over and over. In close quarters combat, the Mongols were assuredly lose. But this is assuming that the Mongols in question are silly enough to let the heavily armoured troops carrying large swords and axes get close enough to force them to draw their own sabres. Of course, more would be slain in such conditions; the Mongols would suffer more from Viking throwing and ranged weapons, and the slower Mongols would be caught and killed by the Vikings. But on the whole, the Mongols would be able to kill the Vikings by sheer attrition. It takes a lot of energy to run after someone in silks, leathers, and light armour, especially when you're in a heavy hauberk and carrying a large weapon, shield, and probably a spear or backup weapon. Also, with the ambush tactics, the Vikings would be taking arrows in the back and such. Really, by the time that the Mongols did run out of arrows, they would probably be able to overwhelm the few surviving Vikings by force of numbers. Also, a forest that thick is just another advantage. Harder to see the Mongols and harder to give chase.
No. Mongols never clumped together. That was the English, using foot archers. The Mongols rode in circles and fired arrows while moving sideways to their target. Since they were neither riding towards nor away from their targets, they were bloody hard to hit.
Tiberius Decimus Maximus said:Yeah yeah yeah, that example was just for a mongol vs. viking battle in M&B. I did say it probably wouldn't work in the RL. But sense to maximise the effect of their arrow strom, they would more likely clump together... but still. Hard to hit someone 100 yards away with a throwing weapon
No. Mongols never clumped together. That was the English, using foot archers. The Mongols rode in circles and fired arrows while moving sideways to their target. Since they were neither riding towards nor away from their targets, they were bloody hard to hit.
The Mercenary said:Nah. You still lose, Ruthven. Mongols were masters of setting ambushes and skirmishing. As they are also in light armour, and had capable ground troops, they would ambush the Viking group over and over. In close quarters combat, the Mongols were assuredly lose. But this is assuming that the Mongols in question are silly enough to let the heavily armoured troops carrying large swords and axes get close enough to force them to draw their own sabres. Of course, more would be slain in such conditions; the Mongols would suffer more from Viking throwing and ranged weapons, and the slower Mongols would be caught and killed by the Vikings. But on the whole, the Mongols would be able to kill the Vikings by sheer attrition. It takes a lot of energy to run after someone in silks, leathers, and light armour, especially when you're in a heavy hauberk and carrying a large weapon, shield, and probably a spear or backup weapon. Also, with the ambush tactics, the Vikings would be taking arrows in the back and such. Really, by the time that the Mongols did run out of arrows, they would probably be able to overwhelm the few surviving Vikings by force of numbers. Also, a forest that thick is just another advantage. Harder to see the Mongols and harder to give chase.
Tiberius Decimus Maximus said:Yeah yeah yeah, that example was just for a mongol vs. viking battle in M&B. I did say it probably wouldn't work in the RL. But sense to maximise the effect of their arrow strom, they would more likely clump together... but still. Hard to hit someone 100 yards away with a throwing weapon
No. Mongols never clumped together. That was the English, using foot archers. The Mongols rode in circles and fired arrows while moving sideways to their target. Since they were neither riding towards nor away from their targets, they were bloody hard to hit.
Well, at any given time, there might be around 20,000, maybe 30,000 mongols in a single battle. Now, If they are to be the least bit effective and be within firing range, they are going to need to clump together. Unless the vikings decided they would fight at the bottom of a steep, circled hole. Then they would be ****ed. But in any other situation, they would have to be in a formation at least 2 men deep. Besides, axes won't fling themselves away when they see the won't hit their intended target. Unless they are retarded. Or defective. Just like when you fire a bow into a massed formation, you don't necessarily have to pick out a single soldier. So unless your mongols have bows that can shoot arrows into infinity, that statement is a bit retarded. And a seperated, sparse firing of arrows isn't too effective on a shield wall. So yeah.
ChengYi
Regular
The Mercenary said:Nah. You still lose, Ruthven. Mongols were masters of setting ambushes and skirmishing. As they are also in light armour, and had capable ground troops, they would ambush the Viking group over and over. In close quarters combat, the Mongols were assuredly lose. But this is assuming that the Mongols in question are silly enough to let the heavily armoured troops carrying large swords and axes get close enough to force them to draw their own sabres. Of course, more would be slain in such conditions; the Mongols would suffer more from Viking throwing and ranged weapons, and the slower Mongols would be caught and killed by the Vikings. But on the whole, the Mongols would be able to kill the Vikings by sheer attrition. It takes a lot of energy to run after someone in silks, leathers, and light armour, especially when you're in a heavy hauberk and carrying a large weapon, shield, and probably a spear or backup weapon. Also, with the ambush tactics, the Vikings would be taking arrows in the back and such. Really, by the time that the Mongols did run out of arrows, they would probably be able to overwhelm the few surviving Vikings by force of numbers. Also, a forest that thick is just another advantage. Harder to see the Mongols and harder to give chase.
Tiberius Decimus Maximus said:Yeah yeah yeah, that example was just for a mongol vs. viking battle in M&B. I did say it probably wouldn't work in the RL. But sense to maximise the effect of their arrow strom, they would more likely clump together... but still. Hard to hit someone 100 yards away with a throwing weapon
No. Mongols never clumped together. That was the English, using foot archers. The Mongols rode in circles and fired arrows while moving sideways to their target. Since they were neither riding towards nor away from their targets, they were bloody hard to hit.
Merc, the mongols are very well capable of handling themselves in closequarter combat. just the fighting stye is different. like the Turks and Saracens their fighting style is based on agility. heavy armor and big weapons doesn't make you win. When viking raided moorish spain, the moors beat the vikings
Cuireach
Sergeant
ChengYi said:
The Mongol period was 300+ years after the Viking one, so that statement is a bit irrelevant. It`s like saying could the Mongols stand up to the massed cannon and musketry of a Napoleonic army.
For my part, sure the Mongols were one of the best armies, of their time. The Vikings lived many years before and, partly due to their geography and lack of numbers, fought in a much less organised way. Lack of horses and land suitable for horse breeding was another factor, meaning they were never going to be as mobile as the mongols.
If a battle was fought in open spaces, the Mongols would win hands down. If the battlefield was a lot more enclosed, the Vikings would make blood eagles with the enemy dead. Actually that would be, make blood eagles with the enemy prisoners, soon to be dead
