Why were they so shit at fighting?

Why were they so shit at fighting?

If I raid Lindisfarne will you die?

Because they were not warriors. They were traders and explorers who just happened to raid soft targets when convenient.

It would be extremely sacrilegious

And rape.

Yeah that too. Although probably not as much as you think.

You're a big monk

Yeah, I know they don't rape as much as they are alleged to, but killing and raping mainland Euros is what they're still famous for. Frankly if you were one of those people back then, one is too many (and then you get the berserkergang-bang).

For you

Well congratulations you got yourself robbed, now what's the next step of your Catholic plan?

>attacking by the shipload
>no combined arms because amphibious attack
>mostly seasonal fighters used to raiding just soft targets
It's really no surprise at all than all and any proper military formations would rek them.
It's not like they were culturally bad, their warrior class proper was as good as any other warrior class, individually.

how do you know they were good individually?

Because they fought pretty much the same way as their contemporaries, and they met the level of success you'd expect from their resources.
If they had been shit all around, they would lose all army vs army situations too, yet they were average at those.

>average at those


they were below average they lost majority of their battles not just half

>It's really no surprise at all than all and any proper military formations would rek them.
But they won many fights against proper miltiary formations, just look at the Great Heathen Army's invasion of England, Sweyn's invasion, Cnut's invasion, etc. Don't listen to the memers.

>many fights

like 10

They lost when faced with superior resources, they won when faced with inferior ones.
Squabbling divided anglos get rekt, organized entrenched anglos rek them.
Frankish militias get rekt, frankish cavalry reks them.
It's not about the individuals, it's about the resources, every fucking time when evaluating a culture rather than a specific war. You people should stop with your dick measuring contests.


Technically speaking, when a viking army is not raiding, but conquering, it's not a viking army anymore. It's just a danish army.
Danish armies were moderately successful. Good against mostly infantry armies like the anglosaxons, bad against more advanced combined arms forces like the franks.
Danish armies were made almost exclusively of warriors, raiding bands were mostly seasonal fighters.

>Danish army

I'd just like to point out Saxons called all northmen Danes even when they were from Norway or Sweden

Yes, whatever, you know what I meant.
"whatever-fucking-ethnic-group-spawned-them" armies

considering they planted a dynasty in england twice, one which linesge still lasts, cucked the french king and created what is now russia, they did bretty good considering how their area is wiped every odd thousands of years, having a very cold climate which isolates and makes farming impossible for 1/2 of the year, they've done bretty well

>le vikings created Russia xD

when will this meme end?

RURIK

WAS

FINNISH

>Denmark
>very cold climate

kill yourself

>le Rurik had haplogroup N so he was Finnish
What's next, Thomas Jefferson is an Arab?

Why there are no viking longships found in Russia?

Flooding this causeway, with no survivors

No,they've legitimately lost almost every battle in which they've participated.

>They lost when faced with superior resources
Stamford bridge begs to differ.

They haven't created Russia,they've helped to create,the Rurikid dynasty was slavicized after two generations of rule and most importantly,Rurik was of Finno-Baltic descent.
Some were found, but not many.Also, there is very little genetic presence left in Russia,most of their haplogroups are mostly ofMitochondrial(matrilineal) origin,with the exception of the I2,which is South Slavic.

>why did pirates looking for money raid and not fight armies head on?

Created Russia
Conquered Northeastern England in the Viking Invasions
Created Normandy
Conquered England under Cnut
Descendants created Sicily
Descendants conquered England

18th century pirates fought the navy head on so there is no excuse vikings were just fags

>created Russia

how is that a military achievement?

>muh descendants

you are LITERALLY retarded

was bombing Hiroshima Britain's achievement since Americans are their descendants?

Individual pirate ships occasionally fought individual navy ships. No 18th century pirate fleets made anything remotely describable as "habitual" engagements against conventional military fleets.

Shows how much you know about history Barbarossa had his own fucking fleet and so did Ching Shih (I think she even was feature in one Pirates of the Caribbean movie)

They've buy participated in the creation of the first Russian state,that's basically it.

>was bombing Hiroshima Britain's achievement since Americans are their descendants?

No. It was Britain's achievement because the Manhatten Project was a joint USA / Canada / UK project which combined Britain's more advanced nuclear technology with the superior resources of the USA.

I know that's kind of irrelevant to the thread, but you should have come up with a better analogy.

stamford bridge was lost because they were outnumbered on the field. if you look just the numbers that participated in the battle it would seem otherwise but those men were actually in three independent forces that weren't on the same place and were beaten separately.

>Conquered England
>Created Russia
>Ransacked France
>shit

I'm not even mad anymore

I've just realized people are hyperbolic and don't comprehend spectrums

Like idiots who think the Middle Ages were a grimdark GoT/Monty Python horrorshow vs crusaderfags who think it was a perfect fairytale

>created Russia

because ruskies invited them so that's not a military feat

also
>ransacked France

niggers did it to Baltimore

That's solely their problem,not anyone else's.