Historical Fitness

Citation needed

underrated post is underrated. Americans have to oversensationalize everything and feel like discussing this kind of shit is even realistic and/or valuable

You're thinking of templar knights,

Mamlukes

compared to fit, the actual fit I guess we're best compared to sumos

sleeping half a day, bulking the other half, lifting heavy, no cardio and complaining about limited mobility

Sumos are actually pretty mobile all things considered, especially compared to Veeky Forums.

>"ctrl+f" viking
>no results
Wtf Veeky Forums...

Anways your standard viking would have a much superior height and strength advantage. They would butcher any fucking samurai or knight.

Even an ancient army would tear right a shitty modern militia like ISIS. These guys were ferocious beasts who only lived on the battlefield for death and trained right from the cradle to the grave. The original crusaders.

yeah I realised that as soon as I posted it lol
scratch that and switch it with "looking at half naked fatasses"

Greeks. They had primitive gyms where you could pick things up and put them down and also have massive gay orgies

They kinda have to be. You see all those movies with Sumo's chasing around a flabby skinnyfat MC with them out manoeuvring them easily?

That shit wouldn't happen irl. Go near them as an untrained fighter and you're dead.

I'm a Scandi and no.
Jesus no, that post reeks of horrible circle jerking fedora shitstain

lol there's so much wrong in this post

Knights weren't manlets though.

>vikings
>having a chance against knights
>having a chance against modern day fighters with firearms
>heathens being the original crusaders

I'd probably guess vikings or huscarls. Out of all the classes mentioned, they had the best diet.

Excercise would be compereable throughout. Samurai and Knights had similar upbringing but both trained mostly for mounted warfare. Vikings, Indians and Hoplites trained no horsemanship whatsoever, and all three trained in wrestling and callisthenics.

Out of those three, Vikings had the best diet as they ate a lot of fish, as well as having access to oat, wheat, barley. The indians had none of that, except Peruvians who ate fish. Spartans ate mostly bread, olives and goat - as well as wine.

Having said that, I personally believe that Knights would ride circles around those guys (and steppe nomads would ride circles around knights).

Didn't vikings go raiding specifically because denmark was too cold and shit so they couldn't grow enough food?

More like Norway. Hard to farm when you only have mountains.

Kek. Yes they were

How am I wrong? Why are you not proud of your ancestors you cuck? And
>circlejerking
>>>/reddit/

>read first paragraph

I may have been a little incorrect with the crusader thing (it was meant to be more symbolic than literal but you autists just can't figure that out..) but I stand by what I said with ISIS.

ISIS is full of retarded kids who don't what the fuck to do in a real battlefield barring kill innocent children and rape women.

Vikings on the other hand were bred and raised to be warriors and most likely had much better strategists than ISIL does now. Not to mention they'd be much physically stronger and have much more stamina.

In a straight out battle ISIS would win of course. But in a war with good terrain the Vikings could wear and tear them down.

I'd imagine they had fuckloads of goats

them and their milk have great macros

>vikings had a better diet than fucking nobles

Vikings weren't professional warriors.

Vikings were terrible at open war fare dude, they had advanced ships and were capable sea men but this idea that they were a super elite military force is pure fiction/

Vikings were just seamen and raiders, not a professional army. Historically they would pillage somebody's land until a real army showed up to repel them, at which point they would run away.

Lol at you calling ISIS killers of children and rapists when the Vikings did the exact same shit.

Does anybody have that /int/ infographic sheet showing the Vikings losing LITERALLY every battle with a professional army without foreign support/the enemy being weakened.

fucking vikaboos

pic related is a more accurate representation than the bs you believe

No, Vikings went raiding because of a growing group of sons left without no inheritance.

Compare skeletal remains and see for yourself.

That infographic is biased tho. One could just as easily make one for the opposite case.

You could, but you'd have to bullshit an awful lot more to do it. Invading armies from Scandinavia did a number on a fair lot of European lords, but viking raiders tended to get rolled whenever they ran up against an actual defending army.

Which isn't surprising. When your gameplan amounts to 'jump out and grab shit' you're not equipped for, nor intending to fight, pitched battles.

>how

also imagine how fucking heavy armour is

Not as heavy as you'd think (hell, in some cases a chain shirt is heavier than full harness). Its definitely not light but people way overestimate how thick and bulky it is - likewise with weaponry.

irrelevant, you get trained and there are diferent branches to whatever is needed in any well organized army (which the vikings weren't btw, but they were excellent seamen like one user posted before)

>Compare skeletal remains and see for yourself.

Knights were 5'10 on average in a time where the average man was about 5'7, this is about the same as vikings. Fucking scandiboos, get your facts straight.

I feel like i'm stuck inside some fucked up middle school recess detention for a sort-of gay, sort-of fascist special needs group.

30-50lb of armor evenly distributed throughout your body really isn't that much when you've been trained to fight with it. there are videos of people doing flips and cartwheels while wearing full plate. modern day soldiers often carry heavier loads.

welcome to Veeky Forums

enjoy your stay, it's forever

Welcome to Veeky Forums.

Welcome to Veeky Forums! I hope you enjoy your stay :)

>likewise with weaponry.

I am so sick of retards who think greatswords were 50lb slabs of metal. Pic related is one of the biggest two-handed swords ever (7ft long) and it weighted only about 14lb.

armor is actually extremely light if the weight is properly allocated through harnesses and the person wearing it is trained - those who were able to have full plate were pretty much unstoppable death machines until some nigger with a mace came

I assume Spartans because of their attitude to male on male penetration.

Not quite unstoppable, but bloody hard to put down and (very importantly) extremely likely to survive whatever put them down. You could get your bell rung or your ribs broken through plate if the impact was hard enough (and it didn't glance off the rounded plate) but you'd live to fight another day unless someone came back to finish the job. The same couldn't usually be said of someone without armour.

Not really, I looked it up once. It's not as lopsided as that graph makes it look, in fact there's more victories for vikings than defeats.

This is simply not true. Vikings were on average 172-3 cms, which is roughly 2-3 taller than the average knight.

The only reasonable answer

this is just bullshit, the european nobles had far better nutrition than the rest of europe and were roughly as tall as the average modern european. peasants, however, were shorter.

Ok, bud, whatever.

Troll pls go and stay go

Seriously, anyone with more education on the subject than television and heavy metal album covers knows that the primary reason for raids was for farmers to gather supplies and wealth from neighboring countries. The tv show Vikings is relatively accurate about what most vikings were, they were farmers who went out and raided neighboring regions for food and resources. The most innaccurate part of the show is that they use men of average modern height.

The average viking was well below 5'10" and they were often obsessed with caring for their hair and other forms of hygiene.

So not only were they manlets, they were sissy men. They were succesfull in raiding England and France primarily because the peasants and commoners were actively disarmed and prevented from learning combat. Not only that their ships allowed them to sail up river more easily than any other European model of ship which resulted in them being able to quickly reach an undefended area with little to no warning, spend a few hours killing, raping, and pillaging, and then running away.

They were a bunch of short faggots who ran into town while the men where in the fields working (mind you the average English peasant had better nutrition and was taller than the average viking according to skeletal remains), they would then kill the kids and women, steal a bunch of shit, and run away as soon as men with farming implements started dealing casualties to them.

They were a bunch of cowardly manlettes who thought robbing and gang-raping made them more manly. No wonder you like them so much fuccboi.

Damn. Were they ever chased or something after all the looting?

this

Frequently.

But one of the advantages of being ship-borne raiders mostly hitting coastal or riverside locations is that you can usually get the fuck out of dodge in a hurry if things go sideways. Didn't always work (and sometimes it didn't need to - large enough viking bands could be a real issue even for a proper army, separate to the big problem of finding an organised norse invasion force on your doorstep).

NIgga they were poor shits farmers who had no other way to get rich.

I've never read a post filled with more broscience on Veeky Forums. And it's not even about fitness.

>large enough viking bands could be a real issue even for a proper army
Did they ever beat a proper army however?

So they were never chased back to their home or what not? Seems lucky.

A couple of times, from memory. Mostly cases where an army was raised in a hurry to run them off and blundered into a much better prepared/more numerous raiding party than they were expecting.

Its pretty hard to chase sea raiders back where they came from even if you've got a navy hanging around which most raid victims didn't have (and in any case, norse longships were generally much faster than anything the local lords could've tried to chase them down with).

He's kind of right about the Norse being cleanliness-obsessed, at least compared to the west Europeans of the time. There's some pretty entertaining rants from anglo-saxon England complaining about those damn perfumed, bathing danes coming down and attracting all the women.

>Actual historical facts backed up with anthropological findings
>Speaks it in his own words instead of copypasting from wikipedia
>Broscience

You can stop now

>bullets
>swords/arrows

pls be bait

...

iirc modern soldiers usually carry ruck sacks that weight more than armor on their back alone, making it much shittier and harder to move/get used to

>dark souls

kek

>not knowing that Vikings were made to look like blood thirsty brutes by monks because
>they broke into monestaries and stole gold
>the Viking horned helmet literally from an opera/play some shit

jeez the Mongols were way worse in reality Even the blood eagle Viking execution is foggy history at best

OP-LEE-TAY ofc

TREE-ARE-EH-AYE!

Firefighter here, all the gear is about an extra 70 lbs and it's really not bad, mostly distributed over the whole body and can easily move while wearing it