Where did this ''barbarians are beasts in head on combat'' meme come from...

No, the reputation of people at their time.

As far as I can tell they didn't shy away from straight up pitched battles in phalanx formations either.

Can't be arsed to find a citation but... even folk like the Romans commended their barbarian opponents. They openly declared they were better individual fighters than themselves and went to great pains to hire Germans especially.

Problem is that the Romans weren't warriors, they were cogs in a machine. Doesn't matter how skilled/fierce you are against the ancient equivalent of a Tank Battalion.

Vikings literally fucked up northern France so hard they moved in and became Normans.

Then they decided to team up, fuck up the Saxon lands and make England, which grew to become the biggest empire in human history.

The only reason the UK is shit now is they've gone back to their Saxon roots.

The barbarian is more adventurer and opportunist than professional combatant, employing weaponry and techniques that, while of questionable application against conventional foes, prove more useful in mowing down a horde of diminutive goblinoids or hacking away at the massive limbs and body of some terrible monster.

Fantasy tends to focus on single combat instead of pitched battles where formations and discipline are superior to individual talent.

>mongols
>barbarians

More like Empire.

Normandy was given to them after they were defeated to serve as a buffer zone from other vikings you dumb ass.

Oh really? Give some sources and I mean from soldiers not monks who piss themselves in terror the moment someone looks at them funny.

>somewhat murderous fuckers

just like modern niggers so I guess they are amazing heroic warriors as well

>Give some sources
That's never going to happen in casual internet conversation. Largely because you'd just say "nope not good enough" anyways, but mostly because I value my time too much to actually do the research for you. Almost any time it's trotted out in casual conversation on the internet it's a means to silence opposing views, rather than a statement of actual genuine interest and curiosity.

There's plenty of non-anecdotal references that can be made about their ferocity in combat, and importantly their loyalty... which is why kings and lords *loved* to use them as bodyguards.

I know it's just a harmless fantasy but it really does annoy me that charging naked into battle like an absolute retard is considered cool when it would just never fucking work in real life.
Why can't warriors be considered cool or brave by being sound tacticians as well as impressive physical specimens, and not just relying on brute force and being able to ignore serious injuries for no reason?

So no one in this thread read pic related?

You walloped that straw man hard! please set it up again and give him another good whack!

A more accurate real life comparison would be something like the ghurkas.

The only time they were used as bodyguards is in Byzantine Empire and Varangian Guard consisted of Saxons later on. They were defeated as well by the way and no there is not even a single source that says anything about vikings being ferocious in combat and what kind of combat are you talking about? They raided defenceless villages and monasteries is killing an unarmed guy ''combat'' now?

While he is tarrying a few days at Vesontio, on account of corn and provisions; from the inquiries of our men and the reports of the Gauls and traders (who asserted that the Germans were men of huge stature, of incredible valor and practice in arms - that oftentimes they, on encountering them, could not bear even their countenance, and the fierceness of their eyes) - so great a panic on a sudden seized the whole army, as to discompose the minds and spirits of all in no slight degree. This first arose from the tribunes of the soldiers, the prefects and the rest, who, having followed Caesar from the city [Rome] from motives of friendship, had no great experience in military affairs. And alleging, some of them one reason, some another, which they said made it necessary for them to depart, they requested that by his consent they might be allowed to withdraw; some, influenced by shame, stayed behind in order that they might avoid the suspicion of cowardice. These could neither compose their countenance, nor even sometimes check their tears: but hidden in their tents, either bewailed their fate, or deplored with their comrades the general danger. Wills were sealed universally throughout the whole camp. By the expressions and cowardice of these men, even those who possessed great experience in the camp, both soldiers and centurions, and those [the decurions] who were in command of the cavalry, were gradually disconcerted. Such of them as wished to be considered less alarmed, said that they did not dread the enemy, but feared the narrowness of the roads and the vastness of the forests which lay between them and Ariovistus, or else that the supplies could not be brought up readily enough. Some even declared to Caesar, that when he gave orders for the camp to be moved and the troops to advance, the soldiers would not be obedient to the command, nor advance in consequence of their fear.

>is killing an unarmed guy ''combat'' now?
I mean, we consider speedrunning in vidya a skill, it's about as equally pants-on-head retarded.

Your autism is showing user.

Fantasy settings have magic. Barbarians can be magically angry (unlike your buttflustered ass). There's room for 'tactical geniuses' along side 'angry warriors who can also be cunning', but remember that for every one 'cunning angry warrior' there's 300 more 'stupid angry warriors'.

Yeah let's change a subject because it turned out vikings were niggers of Europe.

Are you an idiot? The Vikings were driven out of England by the Anglo-Saxons.

>Why can't warriors be considered cool or brave by being sound tacticians as well as impressive physical specimens, and not just relying on brute force and being able to ignore serious injuries for no reason?
It's far more difficult to make someone look cool, instead of letting him just charge the enemies naked and yell a lot. I mean you have to make his plans look like they make sense and are interesting, the disciplined soldiers should not look like an emotionless automaton.

Funny enough, Conan was a pretty sound tactician.

>relied mostly on element of surprise and ambush and usually got shitstomped when they tried to fight actual soldiers why are fantasy barbarians not utilizing any of it?
Don't all PCs, barbarians included, go for small scale ambushes and raids rather than massed combat versus armies? It really sounds like you've answered your own question here.

The niggers of Europe are the gypsies though.

Not anymore more unfortunately.

What the fuck is even the purpose of this question or thread?

Cimbrian Wars, check Plutarch

Fiery War, check about the roman conquest of Iberia.

New Zealand Wars had the Maori inventing trench warfare before WW1.

Gallic Wars, check Caesar's diaries.

Celtic Invasion of Greece, check Pausanias.

Those are the historical sources I can remember, is that enough?

badassoftheweek.com/stamfordbridge.html

if you're talking about the barbarian class, it was originally a wilderness-survival fighter which actually had a bonus to things like stealth and surprise, based to no small degree on conan the barbarian.

the current barbarian is pretty obviously based on the norse berserkers.

>his men rushed forwards without armour, were as mad as dogs or wolves, bit their shields, and were strong as bears or wild bulls, and killed people at a blow, but neither fire nor iron told upon themselves. These were called Berserker.

That idiotic side also has a viking who supposedly lived for 400 years listed not to mention Norwegians themselves DID NOT mention any lone viking. I can't believe americans are this fucking stupid.

Right, so how about we talk about all the totally legit wizards that used to be running around. It's a STORY, retard. And RPGs that treat barbarians like that are FICTION. The site also has fucking Darth Vader, it's not supposed to be 100% facts.

Then the fuck are you linking me a bullshit story about vikings for?

>Vikings
got absolutely REKT against any organized resistance when not raiding

>Mongols
>beasts in head on combat
Nigga, horse archery is a) not "head on combat" b) absolutely GOAT unless you have light cav that can keep up with fuckers that spend their entire life in the saddle

Mongols had lancers as well they weren't a pure horse archer spam meme army.

Not in a TTRPG sense, no. You can't always be able to prepare an ambush for a group of NPCs, and to be useless outside of an ambush is not fun, especially if the fighter is tanking shots and the paladin is smiting evil.

obviously they had other troop types, but horse archery is what they are best remembered for due to the problems that gave their enemies.

Just like not all Vikings were berserkers but that's what a lot of popular culture memes them as

Still noting in the Mongol repertoire matches jives up with the "classic" definition of Barbarian that OP is angling for

Because the fantasy barbarians are all little conans with different cultural flavours.

The fact that Conan was super strong and brave was only partially related with him being a barbarian, but that's not important.

Alfred the Great would like to have a word with you.

>Where did this ''barbarians are beasts in head on combat'' meme come from?
Maybe you searched for: "berserkers".

>It's smarter than HURR GONNA GO 1v50 xD.
It's called "target rich environment", you pansy.

>barbarians cannot have empires

By fucking definition they can't because then they become civilized.

The idea comes from rough living making rough men, who are more physically hard than their civilised counterparts. In your typical RPG, there are no battles with legions of Romans, only fights between individuals and small groups of people. Barbarians fought the Romans and vikings fought later more civilised peoples in the way you describe, avoiding direct battle, because of inferior large-scale military organisation. Reduce large battles to two guys fighting each other and the disparity in large scale military organisation is lost, and now only the disparity in physical hardness remains (assuming no significant difference in quality of arms).

Your understanding of early English history is fucking atrocious.

You guys know that this book is literally propaganda to show how badass Caesar is and how shit was everybody else, right? He needs to show the germans as badass and exaggerate hard.

Never conquered
Muh legions
Varus analy devestated
Sacking rome

>civilized
That word doesn't mean anything.

Because Conan the Barbarian and overhyped Berserkers.

There were "wizards" IRL, but they sure as fuck didn't cast spells.

Raiders raid, thier whole point is to avoid armies.

Modern fantasy barbarians are based on a long-standing fantasy archetype that only has loose connections to accurate history, and is more of a dramatized glorification, than an accurate depiction. This is true of pretty much all fantasy character archetypes, though, not just barbarians. Did Charlemagne's knight's actually have magic powers given to them by god? Of course not. That's why it's fantasy.

You know that the romans won that war and killed Arminius like a pussy the second they decided to send a competent man, right?

The only of those famous barbarian "heroes" like Arminius or Boudica that managed to not get defeated was Viriatus (and his people was defeated after his death). The rest are only glorified by romans trying to justify their incompetent institutions and re-glorified by modern nationalism.

What? No.

You should just go ahead and attach some wheels to those goal posts. I know it seems like a pain in the ass, but it'll make things easier for you in the long run.

In some parts. In other parts of the world, such as in Arabic countries and IIRC India, the vikings were known as tradesmen.

"Muh historical realism!" fags always forget that (most) fantasy RPGs aren't about army on army combat. They're about individual combat and small skirmishes.

Yes, a Roman legion would beat a barbarian army in head-to-head combat. But put an average Roman up against a German barbarian warrior? An average man-at-arms from the Dark Ages against a viking? I'd bet on the barbarians in this case.

How can I be moving goalposts if you're replying to my first commentary related to this subject?

Average man at arms is a proffesional soldier while vikings were part time raiders I think you meant a levy.

Yeah, I meant a levy or an average medieval european redshirt.

As said above, Romans commended barbarians' individual fighting skill and recruited them whenever possible. It's their inferior tactics that allowed legions to have the upper hand.

It came from pulp fantasy products, particularly Conan the barbarian. I know Gygax was inspired a lot by stuff in Conan.

Barbarians are warriors. Great in combat one on one or small skirmishes. They begin to lose effectiveness once battles become larger and there is a campaign and strategy comes into play, in which professional soldiers (romans) begin to wreck face.

>skills
>scent marking

lol