Viking sword fighting techniques in RL and in-game

[Ludial]

So basically, I found this nice vid of a couple of museum guys demonstrating how vikings used to fight, based on documentation and manuals they had. What struck me was the vast difference between what they showed and the way most of the Nord players around here claim to fight. Apparently, the RL sea raiders were pretty cunning and cautious fighters, who tended to put an accent on outmaneuvering and outwitting their opponent instead of simply overpowering them, smashing them to pieces, hacking them up wildly or whatever other bollocks most other Nord fanboys here brag about doing in the game. As a matter of fact, what was demonstrated seems to be closer to my own `dancing` with added shield and with less running around(as the demonstrators mentioned many times, the vikings were human after all and would try to make their combat encounters less exhausting).

Please watch the whole series before commenting, it`s only under 15 minutes long; I`m posting a link to the first part, the rest(total of seven) can be found from there:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj-u3J8x598&feature=related

 

[Night Ninja]

I didn't see any fighting in that video, just a whole lot of yapping and some walking.

 

[Kalnia]

The Huskalrly present at the battles before and around the time of the battle of Hastings (I dont mewan at Hastings, just that time period) were noted for using two handed great axes and holding them left handed each. This meant that they always countered and went around the block of their opponent who would hold the sword in his right hand. The only beserkers or actual thigns close to Nord fanboys as you so put it, were Saxons or Angles who worked themselves up to a frenzy and charged, but that was about the time the Saxons were invading and just after the Romans had left Britain.

And not all Nords charge like berserkers, I take pride in holding a steady shieldwall until the last minute. If shield bash were properly implemented I would love it, although I still dont see how this can be called a dance. A fencing or caporeira fight is a dance, or a staged kendo. These fights do have some grace, but the manuels they had at the time and how they actualy fought when these young men who had come down from the north to earn a name and some wealth were pumped on adrenaline or mead would have been slightly more brutal.

 

[stygN]

Yet another time the word berserk are badly used.

Berserk comes from Bearsekr, a clothing made of bear skin. Bearserker: A man wearing a bearserk to combat. Bearserkergang: The march/charge of a man wearing a bearserk to combat. Bearserkergang = "To go berserk!!!"

It is true that some Vikings used mushrooms, but sure not all of them, and sure not all the time.

So, back to the subject.

Elements that makes swordfighting in M&B different from RL: Shieldbash/advanced shield movements, kicking, advanced sword movement.

I'd say that M&B swordplay consist of footwork, blocking and striking. Rather simple, and really hard (at least I find it hard).

EDIT: However, I do accept the modern term "berserk". Just thought I'd tell about its origin.

 

[Ludial]

The Huskalrly present at the battles before and around the time of the battle of Hastings (I dont mewan at Hastings, just that time period) were noted for using two handed great axes and holding them left handed each. This meant that they always countered and went around the block of their opponent who would hold the sword in his right hand. The only beserkers or actual thigns close to Nord fanboys as you so put it, were Saxons or Angles who worked themselves up to a frenzy and charged, but that was about the time the Saxons were invading and just after the Romans had left Britain.

And not all Nords charge like berserkers, I take pride in holding a steady shieldwall until the last minute. If shield bash were properly implemented I would love it, although I still dont see how this can be called a dance. A fencing or caporeira fight is a dance, or a staged kendo. These fights do have some grace, but the manuels they had at the time and how they actualy fought when these young men who had come down from the north to earn a name and some wealth were pumped on adrenaline or mead would have been slightly more brutal.

in Wikipedia(where apparently you, as I, found the info on the huscarls), it says that the shieldwall was their last resort when outnumbered. Additionally, their axes are too short in the game, and they rarely actually have great axes.

But what I`m talking about are all the Nord players on these forums who claim that they rely on brute momentum and force(like you, with your shieldbreaker ). Maybe they should first learn a bit more about vikings(such as the fact they used bows a lot; for every oar on a ship in the leidang in certain eras there was required to be a bow with a quiver of arrows), and try to mimic it more, instead of boasting how powerful and manly they are because of how they smash into the enemy and fight for an hour until there are no enemies left(again discrepancy - vikings actually sought to preserve their energy in a fight, which lead to their cautious approach). Considering all of these aspects, I can tell you that the viking way of fighting was much closer to capoeira then you, and the rest of the Nord fanboys around here imagine.

I didn't see any fighting in that video, just a whole lot of yapping and some walking.

actually, it`s all in what they explain. If you can`t produce an intelligent comment on the topic, please stay away from this thread.

 

[stygN]

The Vikings did not use Archery much at land at least.. At sea, more probably. But as said, they had no Archer regiments. The odd bow and arrow would probably occur on the battlefield, but not in formations, not used properly..

 

[Ludial]

The Vikings did not use Archery much at land at least.. At sea, more probably. But as said, they had no Archer regiments. The odd bow and arrow would probably occur on the battlefield, but not in formations, not used properly..

thing is, after the battle of Hastings, the huscarls and melee-only armies declined and everybody started using archers more.

 

[Danath]

Don't like to act like a troll, but the thread is quite stupid because of the serious talk about silly things.
-This is a game. Combat system is nice, but far for reality
-There is no stamina here. So stop talking about make their combat encounters less exhausting
-Most nord players use 2 handed axes, powerful, yet hard to use. That's the base of the "overpowering them, smashing them to pieces, hacking them up wildly". The topic of this thread says SWORDS 
-Do they claim to act like REAL nords or just M&B nords?

 

[stygN]

True, and the battle at Hastings was the turningpoint of (at least Norwegian) Vikings, after that they did not raid the British isles.. they did not venture far into old soviet so much anymore. It became a rather peacefull country as far as I know, then came the Black plague in 1349, Norway laid in ruins, the Danish came and ruled us for "The 4 Century Night", then came the Swedish and ruled us for about 100 years (a bit less), then came ww1, then ww2, and here I am. I'm rather sure that the Viking army in Norway pre Hastings could take out our current army... We have the smallest army in Europe 

Norway have never had a good military.. The 5 years the Germans was here in ww2 was the time Norway had the best defence of all time.. To bad it was an occupying force that defended the country though... 

 

[Kalnia]

We Nords don't claim to rush in and fight for an hour. We just fight in melee and we do it beter and for longer then most other factions due to the melee emphasis on our god damn faction. Stamina is a problem yes, but I doupt even the most able English Longbowmen or Vaegir Marksmen could draw, hold and fire the whole compliment of 32 or so arrows and still be able to fight in the end, not to mention whilst wearing heavy mail like some of them do or wield voulges in such a manner. Vikings are raiders, not soldiers who formed cohesive regiments or sought out battle with other warbands. They came down to get some wealth and then buger off, they weren't interested in a serious fight.

And during the few centruries after the departure of the Romans, the shieldwall became the main form of combat between the Angles and the invading Saxons.

Oh, and we are friggin' Nords! We are not based on a truely historic faction, but a collection of methods of warfare and equipment from a loose northern European area other a wide timespan. So we have the leeway to play how we want, as the Nords are only based loosely on the Vikings as well as the Danes, Norwegians and other kingdoms of Northern Europe. So we dont have to be pinned down to one specific way fo fighting, we can invent our own if so we choose.

And a great axe is not a easy weapon to use ingame or out. It is difficult to block quicker opponents and once swung it can not be stopped to counter atack or reverse the momentum. It makes up for that as being a bloody destructive weapon. That is why I use a warhammer as well as a great axe. The warhammer is designed to break shields, as is the axe ingame, but the warhammer is more reaslitic for breaking down shields. And please enlighten me as to what you mean with the comment about me and my shieldbreaker.

 

[Mabons]

We Nords don't claim to rush in and fight for an hour. We just fight in melee and we do it beter and for longer then most other factions due to the melee emphasis on our god damn faction. Stamina is a problem yes, but I doupt even the most able English Longbowmen or Vaegir Marksmen could draw, hold and fire the whole compliment of 32 or so arrows and still be able to fight in the end, not to mention whilst wearing heavy mail like some of them do or wield voulges in such a manner. Vikings are raiders, not soldiers who formed cohesive regiments or sought out battle with other warbands. They came down to get some wealth and then buger off, they weren't interested in a serious fight.

And during the few centruries after the departure of the Romans, the shieldwall became the main form of combat between the Angles and the invading Saxons.

Oh, and we are friggin' Nords! We are not based on a truely historic faction, but a collection of methods of warfare and equipment from a loose northern European area other a wide timespan. So we have the leeway to play how we want, as the Nords are only based loosely on the Vikings as well as the Danes, Norwegians and other kingdoms of Northern Europe. So we dont have to be pinned down to one specific way fo fighting, we can invent our own if so we choose.

And a great axe is not a easy weapon to use ingame or out. It is difficult to block quicker opponents and once swung it can not be stopped to counter atack or reverse the momentum. It makes up for that as being a bloody destructive weapon. That is why I use a warhammer as well as a great axe. The warhammer is designed to break shields, as is the axe ingame, but the warhammer is more reaslitic for breaking down shields. And please enlighten me as to what you mean with the comment about me and my shieldbreaker.

Well said.

P.S. Every time I edit a post, the page won't stay still, but jumps up and down.

 

[Hietala]

Eh, the "caveman giant berserker viking" is another stereotype. Most vikings were agile warriors because they wore light armour like hauberks and studded leather thingies...

the point is: the vikings were able to combine their brute force with tactical intellect and agility, and THAT made vikings a difficult opponent on the battlefield for +/- 400 years, they are like if Ludial would go Nords  with shields to protect them and ballet to outmanouvre the enemy, whilst still carrying deadly one handed battle axes...



and btw, i'm quasi a nord fan, but i use my huscarls as a flexible force and get minimal losses, instead of packing them together waiting for the enemy to get caught by brute force while i suffer medium losses

 

[Kalnia]

I never saw how Huskarls could be used as a movable force. I always saw them as perfect soldiers to take advantage of the terrain and then form up behind huge shields. Having edited the great axes out of the Huskarls in my games, I find the shield wall near imperviuous to missile fire and the closed ranks are enough to catch cavarly right if you recieve them well enough and then charge.  How do you use you're Huskarls as a mobile force?

 

[Mabons]

I never saw how Huskarls could be used as a movable force. I always saw them as perfect soldiers to take advantage of the terrain and then form up behind huge shields. Having edited the great axes out of the Huskarls in my games, I find the shield wall near imperviuous to missile fire and the closed ranks are enough to catch cavarly right if you recieve them well enough and then charge.  How do you use you're Huskarls as a mobile force?

Have them do that, then follow you.

 

[Ludial]

Kal,  `perfect soldiers`  and `form up behind huge shields` doesn`t go well together you know. Someone stupid enough to hide behind a huge dinner plate and allow someone more mobile and shooty get behind their back is far from a perfect soldier. And you can use them as a more mobile force, that`s what you`ve done with your editing of Path-finding(see, even you rely on mobility ).

 

[Merentha]

Kal,  `perfect soldiers`  and `form up behind huge shields` doesn`t go well together you know. Someone stupid enough to hide behind a huge dinner plate and allow someone more mobile and shooty get behind their back is far from a perfect soldier. And you can use them as a more mobile force, that`s what you`ve done with your editing of Path-finding(see, even you rely on mobility ).

Oh for ****'s sake.  You have no idea how mobile and easy a shield is, do you?  How, exactly, do you plan on getting behind me when I can pivot on the spot?  Shields are light, simple to use, and remained the predominant form of protection on the field until the advent of full plate for a reason. 

 

[Ludial]

Kal,  `perfect soldiers`  and `form up behind huge shields` doesn`t go well together you know. Someone stupid enough to hide behind a huge dinner plate and allow someone more mobile and shooty get behind their back is far from a perfect soldier. And you can use them as a more mobile force, that`s what you`ve done with your editing of Path-finding(see, even you rely on mobility ).

Oh for ****'s sake.  You have no idea how mobile and easy a shield is, do you?  How, exactly, do you plan on getting behind me when I can pivot on the spot?  Shields are light, simple to use, and remained the predominant form of protection on the field until the advent of full plate for a reason.

and how are you going to pivot a shield wall on the spot against somebody who either moves faster than the shieldmen or is not seen by them?

 

[stygN]

Gah.. Just wait for warband instead of saying "I'm best" to eachother.

 

[Ruthven]

We Nords know our fair share of viking tactics, my friend.

See, what you're missing is that in M&B, we can't use the techniques of our ancestors. So we trace our roots even farther back and just BEAT **** DOWN!

 

[Kalnia]

I use mobility to get across the map, this is a thread on actual face to face combat.

Vikings is a term used to desribe god knows how many northern men coming from seperate kingdoms over a huge period of time, so we Nord players can pick, choose and meld any damn tactics we want or even come up with out own given the troops allow it. Most Nords who say they charge in are brave and either can see arrows coming and dodge easily or are playing low damage settings which is more then fine, they bought the game.

And a Huskarl isnt a perfect soldier, hes a heavy infantry man for a reason. They stand their ground and kill what they engage with good efficiency while withstanding a good deal of damage from arrows behind their shields or whatever else some ponce on the sending end fires at us. There is no such thing as a perfect soldier, simply for the fact they can always be beaten by another factor or a combination of other factors.

Like Ruthven said (And I dare you to get into an arguement on Viking tactics with him...) we can't pivot or shieldbash or fight under our shields. We use brute force because, surprisingly, we are the friggin' Nord players! It is what our faction is designed to do, heavy infantry in tight formation or heavy infantry smashing through lighter infantry and archers after breaking from a shieldwall.

I have never, in all the 3 years I've been studying history in or out of my college, ever have I heard of an all archer army. Infantry yes. Cavarly yes. All archers? No! That tells you something! That an entire army of skirmishers, no matter how well you can prance around in this game, was a bad choice in whatever hisotrical period we have! The only thing that made a large group of skirmishers viable was the invention of the Baker Rifle, and even then they needed the support of large troops of either supporting cavarly or volley fire from the Fusiliers.


So I'll summarise this down for y'all. Lets cut the crap with the whole debate thing. Save it for warband. I'll be the first to prove heavy infantry beat archers.

EDIT: Yay, all this ranting debating made me a Veteran! Beware the spiky mace!