Were the vikings good warriors?

...

Yes

Yes

NOT PARTICULARLY; THEY WERE BETTER MERCHANTS, AND RAIDERS.

they also wrote in all caps. Are you a viking?

But someone said, that they were shit against armies and only fared well, when raiding against peasants and disarmed priests etc., so that's not true?

Obviusliey

WHY DO YOU QUOTE MY POST WHEN OBVIOUSLY DID NOT READ IT?

Because you said "not particularly", which means, that you know something relevant to the issue.

Vikings were just bands of raiders so of course they'd lose to armies. An actual invasion by the Great Heathen Army showed Norse dominance in war. They took half of Britain for themselves.

...

Yes they were.

There is a reason why they were used as elite mercenary units in Britan, Eastern Europe and The Byzantine Empire.

There is a reason why most cities/countries decided to pay them off rather than trying to fight them.

?

They weren't.

They were great merchants and explorers though.

...

>my ~20 cherrypicked battles out of a ~300 year history with basically constant warring is proof the vikings sucked

>mention the effectiveness of the GHA

Way to read snownigger

For you.

...

>Poo in loo text
why am i not surprised, you don't understand shit

>Poo in loo
>don't understand shit

kek

ave kek

Yes, when organized they show great prowess.

Post more pics like that

...

They were average raiders, nomadic Turks and Mongols were much better

You're the one with zero reading comprehension, therefore your replies don't make sense.

>it's another "the vikings were inferior yet somehow terrified europe for 500 years" thread

It's like sports fans claiming they're the better team after getting blown out

>well you see the vikings never fought REAL battles as they were untrained farmers who only killed untrained farmers but uh Christian armies fought the Vikings so this logic means christian armies only killed untrained farmers but we're the superior ones despite initially claiming Christians were peaceful dindu nuffins

Really makes me think

Whoa,
>it's another "the vikings were inferior yet somehow terrified europe for 500 years" thread
>Muslims/ISIS/whatever are inferior, yet somehow they terrorize modern Europe
Really makes me think

> nomadic Turks and Mongols were much better

Were they though?

Because viking armies rarely numbered over 1000-2000 while Turkic and Mongol forces were most often above 10 000 and sometimes reached 100 000, so it is not really measured pound for pound then.

Owning weapons for protection is illegal in most of Europe. How would I defend against a mudslim with an ak47?

>Really makes me think

No it doesn't, because ISIS had a few attacks in a few years while the other dudes sacked entire cities.

Once ISIS takes out Frankfurt or something then we can talk.

>An actual invasion by the Great Heathen Army showed Norse dominance in war. They took half of Britain for themselves.

It merely showed British inferiority desu
When Danes tried that shit in France, they got BTFO

>what is Normandy

I think they were choosing easy targets, and they acted all crazy which put the spooks in the people they were raiding.

Prolly wouldn't be able to put up much of a fight against a roman legionnaire

No.

The French paid Danegeld on numerous occasions and gave them Normandy.

How would peasant defend himself against bunch of warriors with legit weapons, shields and armours?
>while the other dudes sacked entire cities.
Isis captured cities too. Mosul, for example. And they actually fought for them and occupied them, compared to
>the other guys
who after pillaging would flee, because army is coming for them

They were big hardened warriors who knew when and who to pick a fight with, plus they played their reputation to their advantage. Vikings were smart, and that's why they were good warriors.

They sacked villages during the time of mass for example. Paris was sacked by vikings multiple times, it was their largest attack that they lost badly at.

Viking raids were a thing from the late 700s to the 1000's and were often paid off because nobody wanted to try going up against them.

i doubt you could lead such men without at least being a fierce looking warrior
what else could they possibly revere in a leader

...

They were superior light armed warriors for their time, became shit when heavier armor became prominent in europe

Vikings were even better warriors tahn the spartans