Roman Legionary VS Viking

True that, and keep in mind legionaries in late antiquity *specialized* in repelling small time raiders and marauders.

A 4th century Celtic Roman legionary would have not only raped the encroaching viking host, they'd have launched a punitive expedition wiping out the village that the viking raiders came from.

Attached: 127648a58b8affb60e691cefd9e7ae76.jpg (800x581, 107K)

>they'd have launched a punitive expedition wiping out the village that the viking raiders came from.

Complete and utter bullshit. The Romans would never have sent a party to Denmark or Sweden on a punitive expedition.

They would if they had been in places under attack by vikings(that is, if their footthold in Britain and france had remained) and had been attacked from there.

>The Romans would never have sent a party to Denmark or Sweden on a punitive expedition
The Late Romans launched punitive expeditions pretty regularly. It was kind of a substitute for the conquest of earlier centuries.

Yeah,
Into Germany.

>muh superior viking ship
>get BALLISTAed

rhodoks are supposed to be the "anti-cav" faction, but my swadian knights crushed them every time.

I'm assuming roughly Augustan era legionaries for the Romans, and, uh, vikings for the vikings.

In a battle? Probably the Romans would win.
Why?
Because a viking army wouldn't have been very unfamiliar in its combat doctrine. Lots of spearmen, of which most are lightly armoured if armoured at all, formed up in a tight shield wall. Nothing new to the Romans
I also think that due to how lightly built viking-era round shields tended to be, the Pilum would've been pretty damn effective.

Now as for small-scale skirmishes or single combat?
I think we can assume in this case that we're not just dealing with random Norse dudes who've gone off to do a little piracy. I'd say we're talking warrior nobility.
For these guys, we can assume they had some pretty damn good gear, as well as impressive skills.
Hell, even the Romans themselves acknowledged it. Well, Greek Romans, that is. You know what I'm talking about.

Other than some pretty decent armour, their equipment would probably be well suited for fighting Romans. I would put special emphasis on the daneaxe here, I think it would be ideal for getting around the scutum, kinda like a falx but even better. The sword, one-handed axe and spear would naturally also be very valid options.
So for single combat and smaller-scale engagements, I'd say advantage vikings if we assume we're talking actual warriors.

It needs to be noted, legionaries only had a few months of training before being sent off on campaign, and much of this wouldn't even be combat training. While they were doubtlessly well drilled, there's no guarantee that they'd actually be very great fighters and historical accounts seem to back that up.

Attached: lustige-waräger-heath.jpg (556x744, 101K)

>svinfylke
>memeball plays are "complex formations"

Attached: 1436229788564.jpg (313x286, 31K)

So? Your saying that the Late Romans wouldn't have gone and made sure the naval raiders they kept on getting hit by didn't learn not to raid them? As they did to Britain when the Gauls kept fleeing across the channel, then coming back with reinforcements.

>pushing beyond the Elbe, Rhine, and Oder
>nordcucks think their Kattegat will save them

Adding to your point about the shields, viking era shields are the worst type of shields to use against Pilum, since the pilum punch through, and then lodge in, making it useless. Then holes appear in the shield wall, till some pila actually being hurting. And then the slingers go forward...

stop playing on 60% difficulty

>It needs to be noted, legionaries only had a few months of training before being sent off on campaign, and much of this wouldn't even be combat training.
If you're talking about Augustan legionaries at their height, then this is total bullshit. Legionary training was often described as "bloodless battles" because of how much their training resembled real warfare. They had gladiators teaching them 1 on 1 swordsmanship techniques. They did a shitload of marching and a shitload of ditch-digging and rampart-building to systematically harden their bodies for war.

If you're going to bring the Viking nobility into the equation, you have to pit them against the best of the best that the Roman legions had to offer, such as the legionary's Primus Pilus, a highly coveted position given to the best soldier in the regiment. And under the right commanders Romans were insanely competent soldiers, armored head to toe in segmented armor and holding the line even when outnumbered by other heavy infantry

Attached: Picture_andrea-ROMAN-LEGIONARY-1.jpg (400x529, 47K)

it is a rather complex formation, with a pre-determined place for light infantry, a system of reserves and a wedged tip facing the enemy.

Found it

>We are informed by the writings of the ancients that, among their other exercises, they had that of the post. They gave their recruits round bucklers woven with willows, twice as heavy as those used on real service, and wooden swords double the weight of the common ones. They exercised them with these at the post both morning and afternoon.

>This is an invention of the greatest use, not only to soldiers, but also to gladiators. No man of either profession ever distinguished himself in the circus or field of battle, who was not perfect in this kind of exercise. Every soldier, therefore, fixed a post firmly in the ground, about the height of six feet. Against this, as against a real enemy, the recruit was exercised with the above mentioned arms, as it were with the common shield and sword, sometimes aiming At the head or face, sometimes at the sides, at others endeavoring to strike at the thighs or legs. He was instructed in what manner to advance and retire, and in short how to take every advantage of his adversary; but was thus above all particularly cautioned not to lay himself open to his antagonist while aiming his stroke at him.

De Re Militari by Vegetius
digitalattic.org/home/war/vegetius/

Attached: main-qimg-fe7ea8d5f694bbaf81d6c66f8317dd86-c.jpg (800x570, 97K)

>The Varangian Guard (Greek: Τάγμα τῶν Βαράγγων, Tágma tōn Varángōn) was an elite unit of the Byzantine Army, from the 10th to the 14th centuries, whose members served as personal bodyguards to the Byzantine Emperors. They are known for being primarily composed of Germanic peoples, specifically Norsemen (the Guard was formed approximately 200 years into the Viking Age) and Anglo-Saxons (after the Norman Conquest of England created an Anglo-Saxon diaspora, part of which found employment in Constantinople).

Attached: the thinker.png (363x475, 89K)

That's Late Romans though, not Augustan era Romans

It's the closest thing to a primary source on the matter that we have, and Vegetius specifically says that he is drawing upon the writings of authors who came before him

>They were likewise taught not to cut but to thrust with their swords. For the Romans not only made a jest of those who fought with the edge of that weapon, but always found them an easy conquest. A stroke with the edges, though made with ever so much force, seldom kills, as the vital parts of the body are defended both by the bones and armor. On the contrary, a stab, though it penetrates but two inches, is generally fatal. Besides in the attitude of striking, it is impossible to avoid exposing the right arm and side; but on the other hand, the body is covered while a thrust is given, and the adversary receives the point before he sees the sword. This was the method of fighting principally used by the Romans, and their reason for exercising recruits with arms of such a weight at first was, that when they came to carry the common ones so much lighter, the greater difference might enable them to act with greater security and alacrity in time of action.

Attached: training.jpg (490x321, 127K)

>trusting Publius "dude this one time some soldiers took off their armor to chase the enemy through a swamp this means that every soldier in the Empire stopped wearing armor after this date lmao" Vegetius

De Ri Militari was widely considered the golden standard for military training well into the modern age

>De re militari became a military guide in the Middle Ages. Even after the introduction of gunpowder to Europe, it was carried by general officers and their staffs as a field guide to methods. Friends and subordinates customarily presented embellished copies as gifts to leaders. It went on into the 18th and 19th centuries as a source of policy and strategy to the major states of Europe. In that sense De re militari is a projection of Roman civilization into modern times and a continuation of its influence on its cultural descendants.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_re_militari

He was by no means perfect, and often let his personal biases influence some of his conclusions, but he was drawing on a huge variety of authors from all periods of Roman history. His sources, according to his own statement, were Cato the Elder, Cornelius Celsus, Frontinus, Paternus and the imperial constitutions of Augustus, Trajan and Hadrian