Memes aside how competent were vikings at fighting...

And they had furs.

I read it was the other way around and Norsemen started out as traders and then for some reason historians still try to figure out went batshit.

It is concurrent. The volga trade route was built on the backs of slaves and the establishment of settlements by the new nordic elite.

Every single nation had mercenaries.

None were as prominent as the vikings in their heyday.

So many men were leaving to join the Varangian guard that there was a law in Sweden that no one staying in Greece could inherit property.

You know Byzantine Empire was also hiring turkroaches, Saxons and Slavs right?

The varangian guard was not purely viking it was also Anglo Saxon

The Varangian Guard was an elite unite that served the emperor directly.

And there were Saxons in said Varangian Guard as well.

And these Saxons came from a Norsified England

I don't believe Ireland used mercenaries to any significant extent. The Irish were widely used mercenaries themselves

It's like saying white american from New Mexico is a spic.

quite.

Thats cause Americans create senseless labels.

Reasons being?

They were pure shit
>hurr durr I killed a monk I'm le berserkir xD
>oh fug Olaf there are some soldiers coming better run away :DD

They sucessfully exorterted Paris, twice.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Paris_(845)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Paris_(885–86)

>wrecking french fags during their civil war is impressive

lmao

>Memes aside how competent were vikings at fighting?
They were pirates/bandits, not regular soldiers. So pretty shitty

>I know they attacked defenceless monasteries and coastal towns like a bunch of niggers but were kings sending some troops to patrol the area later on?
How are you gonna protect thousands of monastries and costal towns?

>I know they attacked defenceless monasteries and coastal towns like a bunch of niggers but were kings sending some troops to patrol the area later on?
There are references in the Irish Annals to "monastic levies" who hung around monastaries and could be raised in case of a raid.

There's only two records of them actually being used, and they beat the vikings both times.

The Frisians were and unlike the Norsemen they were peaceful traders even when they were pagans.

Boats, lightning raid & sheild wall was what gave them the edge

>Trying to sound intelligent, but calling English speakers, "spics".

That's all I got. Carry on.

Every single culture used shield wall.

That doesnt happen in skyrim though

Because Skyrim is a shit game.

As individual combatants they were quite formidable but when engaged in larger, more formal battles they didn't do nearly as well.

However, it's important to denote whether you're talking about a professional warrior or just some second son plundering a few abbeys over a season or two in order to get the dosh to buy a farm.

Charlemagne effectively declaring a state of war between Christendom and the rest of Europe probably didn't help. When you mess with one Germanic tribe you mess with the whole trailer park.

Everyone says they were good on individual basis but never cite any sources to back it up.

Haven't you watched Vikings? Fucking pleb.

>Byzantine Empire
were used as mercs because they were cheap as fuck, for actual soldiers and strategoi they used competent warriors that seen actual combat.

They were sought out as mercenaries is the only source there is. However, another explaination for this, is that the average height in Denmark in the viking age was 5'8, which is a head taller than the world average at the time. Simply put, vikings looked menacing.

Besides the whole "viking sucked in larger battles" is a meme. You don't conquer England by being bad at war. However, it is true that during raids they'd get destroyed by real armies. At the same time it is speculated wether or not the raiders where soldiers or just peasants. It's hard to say since vikings never wrote down anything interesting, just shopping lists and obituaries.

Raiders rarely are meant to fight real armies anyway. Point is to fight weak targets and steal shit. If your raiding party is fighting equal numbered armies your raiding leader fucked up.

The Irish used the Norse-Gaels as mercenaries. Norsemen were also used as mercenaries during the Reconquista.

Norse countries had multiple smaller "kingdoms" inside them, who all fought for influence.
Influence = strength = loots
It's possible that these kings couldn't gather an actual army. Instead, they might've lead peasants on risky raiding parties to prosperous areas to potentially bring back a lot of loot in order to gain influence.

Destroying every Anglo-Saxon kingdom save for Wessex is also impressive.

This image sadly don't show which of the areas were governed by the Norse king, but it's honestly still quite impressive

I've heard they were 6' and average Brit was 5'7.

freedom units are fucking me over. The average height in Scandinavia were 178 cm, and the world average was around 160 cm. Don't know about brits specifically.

The yellow in England and Sicily show Norman conquests and settlement. The Normans were the decedents of Danish and Norwegian Vikings, but they definitely were not Vikings themselves.

Nope, England was conquered by Denmark in 1013, and by Normandy in 1066.

People ran out of places to flee to after Wessex (bottom left hand corner of England) they eventually got organised and put up a fight and won ze war

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cynwit
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Edington

I guess that explains Sicily and southern Italy.

Kek, Alfred gave half of England to the Danes.

The average height in Scandinavia was 160cm and averabe Saxon alpha male was 190cm which is why they shat all over memekings who were not only fucking cowards but also manlets and primitives.

They could be counting the Vandals and Goths.

>Colouring in Wessex in yellow

yellow must be Norman invasion right? (I get that they are norse) because it has nothing to do with the heathen army

"In 1038 Byzantine Emperor Michael IV launched a military campaign into Muslim Sicily, with General George Maniaches leading the Christian army against the Saracens. The future king of Norway, Harald Hardrada, commanded the Varangian Guard in the expedition and Michael called on Guaimar IV of Salerno and other Lombard lords to provide additional troops for the campaign. Guiamar sent 300 Norman knights from Aversa, including the three Hauteville brothers (who would achieve renown for their prowess in battle). William of Hauteville became known as William Bras-de-Fer ("William Iron Arm") for single-handedly killing the emir of Syracuse during that city's siege. The Norman contingent would leave before the campaign's end due to the inadequate distribution of Saracen loot".

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_conquest_of_southern_Italy

It's Norwegians

got your dates wrong pal

see
and
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweyn_Forkbeard

He didn't have any of England to give away in the first place only Wessex, he made a deal to split the land, convert Guthrum and the vikings to Christianity and his kids conquered it later unifying the country

Until 1066 comes along and ruins everything

pic is England in 878 after the battle of Edington

"Hence in 1013 when Sweyn sailed a large fleet up the river Trent, most of northern England rapidly submitted to him. He then marched south on London, but London resisted so he swung west to Bath which quickly surrendered. By the Christmas of 1013 it was clear that Aethelred had lost control of the country and so he and his wife Emma escaped to Normandy.

With Aethelred gone London fell into line with the rest of the country and acknowledged Sweyn as king; "the whole nation had him as full king" as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle recorded."

everything2.com/title/The Danish conquest of England

Neither of whom were Vikings and they were there centuries before the first Viking raid on Lindisfarne.

That was not the first viking raid.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygelac

Hygelac, the first king of the geats, died during a raid in Frisia in 515 or 516.

Lindisfarne was the first viking raid recorded in Brittain. Not the first ever.

The Varangian Guard didn't settle in Sicily or southern England. Notice how the 11th century "Viking" settlement of Sicily and southern Italy corresponds exactly with the powerful Norman Kingdom of Sicily.

Ups, he was just king of the geats, not the first king. He is often credited as the first danish king though, not the be confused with "king of danes" or "king of Denmark".

Your probably right, I was just trying to find some sort of explanation. It is likely that some norwegians settled in Italy and Sicily under Norman rule though. After all, Normandy and the Norsemen were friendly towards eachother.

The traditional start of the Viking Age was the 793 (?) raid on Lindisfarne. You could argue otherwise, but the main point is that the Vikings did not conquer and settle Sicily and southern Italy.

Good fighters.

They got enough to eat, they were well equipped, and just genetically big guys.

Vikings were raiders not soldiers.
Remember that they were mostly just massacreing monks and peasants. They were undisciplined light infantry who didn't fight in ordered ranks and would have lost to a disciplined organized army.

Even when they were employed by the eastern roman empire, they were used as boygaurds and shock troops, not as rank and file soldiers.

TLDR: a viking was an equal mat ch for anyone in a 1v1 fight. The vikings (plural) were a rabble band of raiders who were not trained to fight as an army, and did not fare well against organized armies on an open field.

It's hardly conquest if the faggots surrended.

They didn't fare well against a bunch of Celtic levies either so they sucked cock even at small scale skirmishes against anyone who wasn't a monk or woman.

Viking age does not mean that there were no vikings before it, because there definitely were. Viking is actually just an old word that means the same as the word pirate. "Vik" (vig) meaning "shore" or "harbor" (it doesn't actually, but almost), a viking is someone who enters from the shore.

"Vig" is seen in the end of alot of older danish harbor towns, where "havn" (the modern word for harbor) is appears in newer harbor town names.

This pretty much.

Being highly mobile and being able to pick weak targets made them such a force to be reckoned with.

In antiquity, heavy infantry was the core of an army. Towards late antiquity, heavy cavalry became more important.

The Vikings took advantage of increased mobility, but also of political chaos.

Their techniques didn't differ that much from previous sea faring peoples who were beat back by the Romans, in the same way that the Huns techniques weren't radically different from the Mongols.

There just wasn't a giant, well organized (comparatively), continent spanning empire to beat them into submission.

>vikings cant fight organized armies
When will this meme end?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Maldon

They didn't surrender, they fled. Sweyn laid siege on pretty much every major and minor city that was not already part of Danelaw.

Interestingly, the song "London Bridge is falling down" apparently has ties back to the siege of London, where the londoners burned the bridge to prevent the danes from entering.

>None were as prominent as the vikings in their heyday.

source

Wow whole 1 battle that took place in the country of biggest betas they ever encountered.

Sweyn also invaded England after the viking age so he wasn't a fucking viking.

The vking age ended a century after Sweyn died

there where vikings after the viking age ended. I have already explained the word viking in this post:
Besides most people mark the year 1066 as the end of the viking age, though some say it ended in 960-985.

>Norman conquests
>"Scandinavian."
Sho.

>Viking age does not mean that there were no vikings before it, because there definitely were.
That's not what the term 'Viking Age' means. It denoted a period of time when Viking raids were very common.

Well to be fair, the Norman nobility definitely had Scandi genes.

Yes

>Viking is actually just an old word that means the same as the word pirate. "Vik" (vig) meaning "shore" or "harbor" (it doesn't actually, but almost), a viking is someone who enters from the shore.

>"Vig" is seen in the end of alot of older danish harbor towns, where "havn" (the modern word for harbor) is appears in newer harbor town names.

And your point is...?

There were vikings before the viking age

Read the thread before you post. This has already been explained.

What happened to the Danes?

Surrendered after two hours of fighting in ww2

Before, there were just a bunch of weak duchies below them, who were easy to bully. Now there's a country with 40 times their population.
Also they lost they two most prosperous areas, Schleswig and Scania.
And don't forget that they were cucked hard during the Napolean wars, and lost their entire fleet during the worlds first terrorist attack, even though they were neutral.

It says "Scandinavian Settlement". The Goths were scandis.

they were fucking brutal as fuck