Vikings vs. Mongols

Users who are viewing this thread

jekelof said:
Tiberius Decimus Maximus said:
The bari-what? Look, I've held a quiverof 20-30 arrows. Not that heavy. If a mongol can have it slung across his back, a viking can have it on his shield  :smile:

You missed the fact that there would be much of a shield left after being hit 20 times with a mongolian bow.

Tiberius Decimus Maximus said:
Well, at the first armed contact between mongols and vikings, probably in the kievan rus, than yes, mongolians would win. But as the vikings have complete control of the sea, how do you suggest they get to the vikings then? See my post a page back. It'll explain.

That doesn't have a lot to do with who'd win does it? If somehow a mongolian force were to invade Scandinavia they probably would be able to gather some sort of ships, probably some sort of cog or other type of simple cargo ship.

Hm. Thought I recalled Vikings carrying two shields. Maybe I was mistaken. And of course it would have a lot to do with who would win. The vikings would obviously win in a naval battle, so the only other option is to go through the frozen northern peninsula. It would be like Napoleans march through Russia. It would decimate the mongol army, so they would be forced to turn back, and, if the vikings had a particularly brilliant commander,  they would be waiting for them at the other end of the peninsula, and cut them all down. Thus, viking victory. Of course, on a mongol vs. viking battle, with all the vikings on one side, and all the mongols on the other, of course the mongols would win. They had farking HUNDREDS of thousands of warriors. It wouldn't even be a battle. Be completely unfair. But yes, mongols would win.
 
First off, as you probably know the vikings existed between 800-1050 AD while the "mongol era" didn't start until 1206. This makes the whole Mongols VS Vikings thing very hard. You can't really compare them at all since the vikings weren't an organized nation like the mongol horde. The Vikings were split up in tons of different chiefdoms that raided, traded and warred with each other. If, somehow, the mongols invaded viking age scandinavia the would roll through it crushing the small viking warbands one by one. The vikings would never be able to field an army to match the mongols.

Second, If the mongols could travel through the frozen steppes of russia and mongolia they sure as hell could cross finland and invade Scandinavia through Norrland (which at that time was uninhabited by the vikings). And that is to say if they did it at winter. In the summer it's not very different from the rest of Scandinavia.

Third, the average viking probably carried more than two shields but this is not important since it would break up the shieldwall if they had to reach for new shields every other minute.



 
jekelof said:
First off, as you probably know the vikings existed between 800-1050 AD while the "mongol era" didn't start until 1206. This makes the whole Mongols VS Vikings thing very hard. You can't really compare them at all since the vikings weren't an organized nation like the mongol horde. The Vikings were split up in tons of different chiefdoms that raided, traded and warred with each other. If, somehow, the mongols invaded viking age scandinavia the would roll through it crushing the small viking warbands one by one. The vikings would never be able to field an army to match the mongols.

Second, If the mongols could travel through the frozen steppes of russia and mongolia they sure as hell could cross finland and invade Scandinavia through Norrland (which at that time was uninhabited by the vikings). And that is to say if they did it at winter. In the summer it's not very different from the rest of Scandinavia.

Third, the average viking probably carried more than two shields but this is not important since it would break up the shieldwall if they had to reach for new shields every other minute.

Oh, very well then. Nevermind that whole orginized invasion of England, or the siege of Paris, or any of that stuff! Vikings were completely unorginized! Of course! :roll: Come on, think a little bit buddy. You can't conquer a country through small scale raids. Cripple it, yes. Conquer? No. The steppes of Russia, and the arctic, ice covered peninsula connecting scandinavia and Europe/Asia are two completely different things. The mongols lived in steppes. This is a farking tundra. Good luck feeding your horses in that. Plus, you got quite a few mountains to contend with. Look, during the Great Northern War, there was a reason why even the Russians didn't go over that pass. You cannot bring a army over that and live. Sorry buddy.
 
horde  [hawrd, hohrd]
noun, verb, hord⋅ed, hord⋅ing.
1. a large group, multitude, number, etc.; a mass or crowd: a horde of tourists.
2. a tribe or troop of Asian nomads.
3. any nomadic group.
4. a moving pack or swarm of animals: A horde of mosquitoes invaded the camp.

–verb (used without object) 5. to gather in a horde: The prisoners horded together in the compound.

I don't see anything about disorganization, do you?

To me it basically sounds like thousands of Mongols riding at you with the ground rumbling and the sun blotted out by arrows. :wink:
 
jekelof said:
A battle between a viking warband and a mongolian one would result in a mongolian victory and scores of dead northmen. The vikings were pirates and merchants from the primitive ass end of northern europe while the mongols under Genghis Khan were a well trained, organized and mobile army that crushed any army it encountered.

It seems like a lot of people on this forum have bought the idea of vikings being huge superhuman warriors armed with gigantic swords and horned helmets. That's pretty far from the real vikings.
Forgot to mention this, but by "Vikings" I mean "Norsemen", I'm merely using the common term so as to be fully understood by even the people who lack education or intelligence altogether.
 
Still, the Norse people in general were not very prone to gathering into giant armies and fighting as one.

It wasn't just the cold that killed Napolean in Russia, it was the Russians slashing and burning all the resources while the retreated.  Vikings needed those resources-namely food-to bulge their bellies and fill out their asses that they would use to crush feeble English monks and woman during their pointless quests for loot.  They struck Europe when it was at it's weakest, and if met on the battlefield by a well-trained, well-equipped, and very large Mongol army, they'd **** in their pants and run.  Well, as far as they could run before they got perforated by arrows, spears, and sabres.
 
Pali Gap said:
Still, the Norse people in general were not very prone to gathering into giant armies and fighting as one.

It wasn't just the cold that killed Napolean in Russia, it was the Russians slashing and burning all the resources while the retreated.  Vikings needed those resources-namely food-to bulge their bellies and fill out their asses that they would use to crush feeble English monks and woman during their pointless quests for loot.  They struck Europe when it was at it's weakest, and if met on the battlefield by a well-trained, well-equipped, and very large Mongol army, they'd **** in their pants and run.  Well, as far as they could run before they got perforated by arrows, spears, and sabres.

You really don't like me do you? Or do you just make it your business to annoy me?
Anyways, more on topic. This is Finland we are talking about.
FIN. LAND. How much resources do you think they have over there? They barely have anything there now, let alone in the Viking- Mongolian age.
But how many times do I have to tell you: Yes, in a battle with all the vikings and all the mongols, yes, they would win. Mostly because the entire population of Scandinavia wouldn't equal the Mongol Horde. I won't let a petty dispute get in the way of an obvious fact. The main reason why they won is not so much their fighting ability as the fact that they just keep coming. The thing is ****ing rediculous. The most a viking army would be able to field is probably around 10,000 to maybe 20-30,000 troops, but thats if they got every and any man who could bear a weapon. A majority would just be untrained footmen. Meanwhile, the Mongol horde ranges around, what, 100,000? Maybe more? As you, good sir, are expert on the Mongol Horde, you could probably tell me the exact number, down to that little flippin infant with polio they carried around or whatever.
Also, on the Vikings supplies, they mainly relied on food from the sea, such as fish and the like, and some hunting, mostly because their own land is a ****hole for farming. So unless the Vikings or Mongol's managed to burn the fishies and bambies, Vikings are likely to be okay. So how do you suggest the vast Mongol Horde feed their army? The herd animals most armies carry around wouldn't last long. A few days at most. And if I recall, the great people of the steppes aren't too good at fishing. And the vikings would easily pop onto the shore, run up to the supply train, and burn it, then leave as fast as they came.
It's called logistics, my friend. A major part of campaigning. In many cases, it can be more important than any battle.
 
You make good points, and I must say I have yet to visit Finland. :smile:

To tell you the truth, sir, the first time I every took any interesting in Asian history was in mid-October of last year.  Before that, I was an arrogent bastard (Well, I haven't changed much, sadly enough), and I looked at modern China as an example of the continent's past, which is of course terribly wrong.

I guess all we can sum it up to is that Mongols were fierce warriors who had numbers, strength, strategy, and good training, and that Vikings were also fierce warriors who had little numbers, an advantage on the seas and a vast knowledge of raiding.
 
Pali Gap said:
You make good points, and I must say I have yet to visit Finland. :smile:

To tell you the truth, sir, the first time I every took any interesting in Asian history was in mid-October of last year.  Before that, I was an arrogent bastard (Well, I haven't changed much, sadly enough), and I looked at modern China as an example of the continent's past, which is of course terribly wrong.

I guess all we can sum it up to is that Mongols were fierce warriors who had numbers, strength, strategy, and good training, and that Vikings were also fierce warriors who had little numbers, an advantage on the seas and a vast knowledge of raiding.

And on that note, lets finish this up. *shakes hands with Pali Gap*
A fine verbal duel, don't you think?
We'll call it a draw...
 
Tiberius Decimus Maximus said:
Anyways, more on topic. This is Finland we are talking about.
FIN. LAND. How much resources do you think they have over there? They barely have anything there now, let alone in the Viking- Mongolian age.

It's quite obvious that you haven't been to Scandinavia.The northern part that connects Finland to Sweden and Norway is harsh terrain for a horse based army like the mongols, but it's not a frozen wasteland all year around and marching through it would have been possible but hard for an army like the mongols. The most realistic scenario for a mongol invasion of Scandinavia is still throuh boats though.

Tiberius Decimus Maximus said:
The main reason why they won is not so much their fighting ability as the fact that they just keep coming.

Wrong. Read up a bit on mongols before posting silly stuff like that. The mongols used very sophisticated tactics for their time and saying anything else is just lying.

Tiberius Decimus Maximus said:
The thing is ****ing rediculous. The most a viking army would be able to field is probably around 10,000 to maybe 20-30,000 troops, but thats if they got every and any man who could bear a weapon. A majority would just be untrained footmen. Meanwhile, the Mongol horde ranges around, what, 100,000? Maybe more? As you, good sir, are expert on the Mongol Horde, you could probably tell me the exact number, down to that little flippin infant with polio they carried around or whatever.

I doubt that any viking highking would be able to field more than 15 000 fighting men. Probably a lot less than that. And maintaining an army like that would be close to impossible for any viking high king.

Tiberius Decimus Maximus said:
Also, on the Vikings supplies, they mainly relied on food from the sea, such as fish and the like, and some hunting, mostly because their own land is a ****hole for farming. So unless the Vikings or Mongol's managed to burn the fishies and bambies, Vikings are likely to be okay. So how do you suggest the vast Mongol Horde feed their army?

A quick look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_military_tactics_and_organization reveals this:

The Mongol armies traveled very light, and were able to live largely off the land. Their equipment included fish hooks and other tools meant to make each warrior independent of any fixed supply source. The most common travel food of the Mongols was dried and ground meat "Borts", which is still common in the Mongolian cuisine today. Borts is light and easy to transport, and can be cooked with water similarly to a modern "instant soup".

To ensure they would always have fresh horses, each trooper usually had 3 or 4 mounts.[1] And since most of the Mongols' mounts were mares, they could live off their horses' milk or milk products when need arose. In dire straits, the Mongol warrior could drink blood from his string of remounts.

But if we ignore all the logistics and paint up a simple scenario where a force of say 5000 viking raiders ran into the equal number of mongols in some unspecified land in eastern europe, who do you think would win and why?

 
Okay jekelof, if you still want to be a *******, fine. We shall continue our duel. but you don't get any support from the good Pali Gap, okay?

Alright, how do you suppose you feed... what? 100,000 thousand soldiers, in a land fit to feed around a thousand at most? And if, as you said they had three to four mounts, even in the summer, the tundra would be wiped clean within the day. How do you feed your horses then? And you just said they mainly LIVED OFF THE LAND. You just negated your entire argumenet there you idiot. And yes, their fighting ability helped. But do you truly think that they could have beaten the world with 10,000 troops total? OF COURSE NOT. That why the Huns, the Magyars did not go down in history as the largest empire. Why? THEY DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH SOLDIERS.
Suck it up, good sir. You just got pwned.
And Don Doggy, its okay. No one believes in my homeland, Sweden either.
Though we do have Ikea though...
 
Tiberius Decimus Maximus said:
Okay jekelof, if you still want to be a *******, fine. We shall continue our duel. but you don't get any support from the good Pali Gap, okay?

Alright, how do you suppose you feed... what? 100,000 thousand soldiers, in a land fit to feed around a thousand at most? And if, as you said they had three to four mounts, even in the summer, the tundra would be wiped clean within the day. How do you feed your horses then? And you just said they mainly LIVED OFF THE LAND. You just negated your entire argumenet there you idiot. And yes, their fighting ability helped. But do you truly think that they could have beaten the world with 10,000 troops total? OF COURSE NOT. That why the Huns, the Magyars did not go down in history as the largest empire. Why? THEY DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH SOLDIERS.
Suck it up, good sir. You just got pwned.
And Don Doggy, its okay. No one believes in my homeland, Sweden either.
Though we do have Ikea though...

I don't recall saying anything about 100 000 soldiers, and if you might be right about that being impossible. I was thinking more of two or three tumens (20-30 000), which would be manageble in the summer months. But none of this really matters at all. It's just simple fact that the mongol fighting style simply is superior to the viking one. Your argument about the vikings being able to form a circular shield wall and forcing the mongols into hand to hand isn't very realistic. There would always be some arrows getting through and shields breaking due to the enourmus force in the mongol style bow. After a while this would wear down the shieldwall and open up for the mongol lancers to charge. If that charge failed the mongols would probably fake a retreat and ambush the pursuing vikings. If the vikings didn't follow they would just repeat the process until the vikings routed.

And no, I don't want to be an *******. I am simply enjoying a unrealistic discussion on the internet. If you don't like reading other peoples opinions I don't really understand why you engage in this type of discussion. 
 
jekelof said:
Tiberius Decimus Maximus said:
Okay jekelof, if you still want to be a *******, fine. We shall continue our duel. but you don't get any support from the good Pali Gap, okay?

Alright, how do you suppose you feed... what? 100,000 thousand soldiers, in a land fit to feed around a thousand at most? And if, as you said they had three to four mounts, even in the summer, the tundra would be wiped clean within the day. How do you feed your horses then? And you just said they mainly LIVED OFF THE LAND. You just negated your entire argumenet there you idiot. And yes, their fighting ability helped. But do you truly think that they could have beaten the world with 10,000 troops total? OF COURSE NOT. That why the Huns, the Magyars did not go down in history as the largest empire. Why? THEY DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH SOLDIERS.
Suck it up, good sir. You just got pwned.
And Don Doggy, its okay. No one believes in my homeland, Sweden either.
Though we do have Ikea though...

I don't recall saying anything about 100 000 soldiers, and if you might be right about that being impossible. I was thinking more of two or three tumens (20-30 000), which would be manageble in the summer months. But none of this really matters at all. It's just simple fact that the mongol fighting style simply is superior to the viking one. Your argument about the vikings being able to form a circular shield wall and forcing the mongols into hand to hand isn't very realistic. There would always be some arrows getting through and shields breaking due to the enourmus force in the mongol style bow. After a while this would wear down the shieldwall and open up for the mongol lancers to charge. If that charge failed the mongols would probably fake a retreat and ambush the pursuing vikings. If the vikings didn't follow they would just repeat the process until the vikings routed.

And no, I don't want to be an *******. I am simply enjoying a unrealistic discussion on the internet. If you don't like reading other peoples opinions I don't really understand why you engage in this type of discussion. 

Okay, okay, alright. The only thing I got against you is that you are completely unwilling to compromise and give the vikings any credit.
Heck, even Pali Gap, the creator of the Mongol mods, conceded even just a little bit.
Also, I thought the entire argument was centered around the entire Viking army and the entire Mongol army going at each other. Thus, the 100,000 soldiers. Hope that clarifies that little bit.
And alright, alright, yes, the Mongolian Parthian tactics might break the shield wall, yes, I concede to that. And yes the fake retreat would cause the vikings to break ranks, and walla! Mongolian victory. Happy now? Though that is assuming there is any mongolian lancers left  :twisted:

But anyways, can we have a truce, please? I grow weary of this argument.
In a mount and blade fight vikings would totally win though :cool: Just form into a a circular shield wall, get out the throwing axes, and dead Mongolian horses all around  :razz: Thus negating their advantage, and tada! a slaughter fest for the Vikings. But in teh Real Life, yes, they would win.
So there.
Ha!
 
The vikings deserve a LOT of credit as it's the most interesting culture of Europe at the time. At the same time as they were a remain of the germanic iron age tribes of ancient rome and at the same time way ahead of them in other ways. They sailed across the atlantic half a millenia before anyone else did. They served as an elite guard in the Byzantine Empire. The rest of Europe made prayers about protection from them. And they did a whole lot of other amazing things that I'm a bit too stoned to remember right now. But the fact is that the mongols of the 12th century would crush them. Genghis Khan turned a bunch of scattered tribes into a nation of soldiers and taught them to invade and conquer instead of raid their neighbours. 
 
jekelof said:
The vikings deserve a LOT of credit as it's the most interesting culture of Europe at the time. At the same time as they were a remain of the germanic iron age tribes of ancient rome and at the same time way ahead of them in other ways. They sailed across the atlantic half a millenia before anyone else did. They served as an elite guard in the Byzantine Empire. The rest of Europe made prayers about protection from them. And they did a whole lot of other amazing things that I'm a bit too stoned to remember right now. But the fact is that the mongols of the 12th century would crush them. Genghis Khan turned a bunch of scattered tribes into a nation of soldiers and taught them to invade and conquer instead of raid their neighbours. 

Okay then, we have reached a truce. But it probably helped that Genghis Khan had quite a few more soldiers under his belt than the Vikings  :smile: But the Vikings did manage to conquer nearly of all britain. Remember that part. Oh, and they established Russia as a actual, governed land. So yeah. But yes, 12th-13th century Mongols > 8th-11th century Vikings. Agreed.
 
Don Doggy said:
Tiberius Decimus Maximus said:
And Don Doggy, its okay. No one believes in my homeland, Sweden either.
Though we do have Ikea though...

You're swede? Burn in hell whit your not-so-easy-to-assembly-furniture and crappy movies about death!

Oh yeah? Tell me ONE major international Finnish company. ONE.
Oh yeah. We make car's too (saab). And Swedish Fish...
Mmmm... Swedish fish...
 
Back
Top Bottom