Vikings

[IDNeon]

So, how much more effective were vikings as warriors than the typical military aristocracies of the vassalage period of medieval Europe?

I also wonder, since this site helped to illustrate that the average knight was a large, powerful warrior, and not just some random dude, is there any texts on the subject of what the average Viking warrior may have achieved as far as physical build? Were they the Grecian ideals by nature through use of the sword or were they more like ... large burly stocky guys just well fed...but not well worked-out?

[Randall Pleasant]

So, how much more effective were vikings as warriors than the typical military aristocracies of the vassalage period of medieval Europe?

I also wonder, since this site helped to illustrate that the average knight was a large, powerful warrior, and not just some random dude, is there any texts on the subject of what the average Viking warrior may have achieved as far as physical build? Were they the Grecian ideals by nature through use of the sword or were they more like ... large burly stocky guys just well fed...but not well worked-out?

I don't claim to know a lot about the Vikings. However, their ability to "Hit & Run" from their ships is something few, if any, knights could equal. Their ships allowed them to hit weak targets and leave before having to face an actual force of knights.

[Gene Tausk]

So, how much more effective were vikings as warriors than the typical military aristocracies of the vassalage period of medieval Europe?

I also wonder, since this site helped to illustrate that the average knight was a large, powerful warrior, and not just some random dude, is there any texts on the subject of what the average Viking warrior may have achieved as far as physical build? Were they the Grecian ideals by nature through use of the sword or were they more like ... large burly stocky guys just well fed...but not well worked-out?

Please sign out and sign back in using your real name, first and last, as clearly mandated by our Forum rules.

[RayMcCullough]

"Were they the Grecian ideals by nature through use of the sword or were they more like ... large burly stocky guys just well fed...but not well worked-out?"

I seriously doubt they would have not been "well worked out". They would have to row the ship at times and the hit and run tactics demand that you be in good shape.

[Corey Roberts]

I think it's pretty tough to generalize about the body type of an entire ethnic group spanning through Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Iceland, however I would assume norse fighters, like most warriors throughout the world probably had to be in fairly good physical condition to be able to do what they need to do, that is fight. As to Viking vessels, one of the advantages the Vikings possessed in the design of their ships, which many sea-going peoples of this time had not yet developed efficiently was the ability to sail across or even (somewhat) close to the wind (for any of you familiar with sailing: Beam Reach as well as the ability to sail to windward, how well they pointed I'm not really sure.) This allowed Viking ships to sail in directions other people couldn't go unless they were rowing. That's one of the reasons they were so successful in sea-raiding, because nobody could pursue them after they got under sail.

[Stacy Clifford]

You have to remember too that Viking raiders weren't necessarily full-time warriors. They spent their share of time at home between expeditions farming, building, crafting, and doing all the other forms of hard manual labor everyone else in the world had to do, not to mention that sailing is no cushy job either. I don't think there's any reason to believe that Vikings were in any worse shape than anyone else in Europe at the time.

[Axel Pettersson]

We have games and combat games preserved from that time in Sweden, everyone I have tried will get you in great physical shape (conditioning, strength, agility etc, the works), and some are really dangerous if you are not.

[Jaron Bernstein]

So, how much more effective were vikings as warriors than the typical military aristocracies of the vassalage period of medieval Europe?

I also wonder, since this site helped to illustrate that the average knight was a large, powerful warrior, and not just some random dude, is there any texts on the subject of what the average Viking warrior may have achieved as far as physical build? Were they the Grecian ideals by nature through use of the sword or were they more like ... large burly stocky guys just well fed...but not well worked-out?

The average person in the bad old days didn't have a gym membership, with time on the a cardio machine, followed by a yoga session and weight training. They did what is called functional fitness. If your lifestyle required you to be active (walking, riding, sailing, farming, fighting, training for fighting) then you got your PT that way. Training that way produces folks who may or may not look like sculpted athletes, but were certainly capable of performing physical tasks well.

You might read the last section of Di Grassi where he talks about physical fitness and agility vs. raw strength.

[Scott A. Richardson]

Jaron stole the words out of my mouth...or post, as the case may be. We need to remember that our ancestors did not have the cushy lifestyle we now lead, one in which we have to find time in our day for physical exersion just to stay healthy. Not only did the average person have to walk where ever the went, but there was also daily physical labor they had to do.

The Vikings were no different. As other here have said, they were not full-time raiders, but rather farmers or craftsmen. Their daily occupation would have caused them great physical conditioning and so would likely have been in good fighting trim when the need for a raid arose

[s_taillebois]

One the reasons the Vikings were able to raid so successfully in France also has to do with Frankish politics. Charlemagne to control his sometimes unruly vassals had made them pull down their early form of castle. After he dies and the Carolingian empire declines, there were few fortifications from which to project power when the Vikings did come up the rivers.

As M. Richardson & M. Clifford noted they were only part time raiders, and spent much of the year as farmers, traders and husbandmen rather than fighters.

They did tend to be generally somewhat taller than some of the populations further south. Both Muslim and Byzantine writers commented on that aspect.

But it does depend on where they were and the period as to their general physical condition. The Greenlandic Vikings were in pretty poor shape by the end of the period because of various problems with crops, misdirection of resources and such. Before they were largely cut off, visitors from the home country had commented on their poor condition. And despite their better weapons poor physical condition may have been one of the causes of their being over run by the late Inuit. (Those who simply didn't starve or go elsewhere)

One thing about the ship voyages, if it was more than local raiding. After longer trips they would have been in pretty poor shape due to nutrition issues. In addition to the weather that's one of the reasons they didn't generally go Viking in the winter-in the crop season they could put ashore and raid or raise to supplement the shipboard diet. In England and Ireland they did tend to winter over, to the greater vexation of the English and Irish. (The Knorrs could actually carry quite a few provisions but these weren't used on raids being fairly slow compared to a longship).

Perhaps the long voyage/nutrition issue is the reason the Vikings couldn't hold out against the Skrealings, it took too long to recover physically from the longer voyages needed to get to Newfoundland.

[Thrand]

please watch the spike video on youtube then mine i believe the viking would have won due to proper sword and shield techniques.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpu2NRg-HEg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_qFq7QfUjI


Please let me know what you think.

[CalebChow]

Thrand, please sign back in to the forums with your full first and last names, as stated by the forum rules.

As for the Deadliest Warrior videos, the scholarship, actual historicity, and martial soundness of the show is terrible. Watch it for entertainment purposes only. We have another post about it on the forums.

In regards to your point, however, I must disagree because the samurai, like a 15th century knight, was pretty much completely covered in armor and a sword wouldn't do much.

What won in the Deadliest warrior show was a hamstring cut to an unarmored section of the Viking body. Having exposed parts like the arms and legs presents a huge amount of vulnerability compared to the Samurai.

Ultimately it always comes down to the better fighter, just having sword+shield against one 2handed sword is not a guaranteed win, especially when one side has superior armor technology. Viking chainmail was effective, but so was the combination of plate, splint, AND chainmail for the Samurai. The difference was that the Samurai was much more covered.

[Corey Roberts]

please watch the spike video on youtube then mine i believe the viking would have won due to proper sword and shield techniques.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpu2NRg-HEg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_qFq7QfUjI


Please let me know what you think.

I feel really, really sorry for your human pell in those videoes...."Wack!ohhhww! sorry! Sorry! Sorry!"

[Jaron Bernstein]

Nutrition is also a factor. Take 4 hypothetical identical twins. Give them identical very intense workout regimens. Feed one only pure vegen fare with no protein-rich vegetables. Feed the second one protein rich veggies, milk, cheese, eggs and the like. Feed the third one fish, steak and mutton on a regular basis. Feed the fourth the latest in modern protein powder supplements. 1 year later you will see different results based on their diets.

[s_taillebois]

"As for the Deadliest Warrior videos, the scholarship, actual historicity, and martial soundness of the show is terrible. Watch it for entertainment purposes only. We have another post about it on the forums. "

M. Chow Quite correct. In the video about the Viking throughout the whole sequence nothing about using the horns of the great axe, or the use of the axe to entangle legs and etc. Seemed to be mainly overhead wacking. And the vikings did wear a form of woolen trouser, so it seems the bare leg thing in the scene was getting a bit Conan.


The experts on Spike TV seem to vary considerably.

On the original question.

Another factor for their physical condition was the occasional famine both short term and long term. And in winter the diet was passable, but predominately meats and grains. Which no doubt had some adverse effect, especially if it had been a poor year and little would be put up.

As far as period equivalents with knights, when is the operative concern.
In the early period Vikings preferred not to engage fortifications (motte and baileys) and by the nature of their raids would have mainly come up against local forces or improvised resistance. By the middle period (say Norman's or Saint Olaf) they were essentially equivalent to other European's as far as attitudes. William, Olaf or Harald were considerably more than raiders, and so had the technology, equipment and etc roughly equal to their contemporaries.