*in a chorus of Valkyries Thor descends to the earth with Mjolnir he races across the sea of stars and drops mighty Mjolnir. The young Norseman takes up the godly weapon and swings it casting lighting obliterating the Pirates and with a wild power metal scream Shadowbrand holds his pinky and 4th finger out*
And were just better. As egotistical as it sounds I would much rather be a Odinhist Norseman sailing around the world and killing and raping EVERYONE. Then some quack in a over sized boat chasing "booty" and riddled with scavy.
Since when did vikings not have parties?
They had raiding parties.
Festivals.
Beaches
Scandanavian women
Aqua vita and Mead
Extremely competent seagoing credentials
Founded many a city
Founded the world's first parliament
and a had better knowledge of history than Roobiks
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Since when did vikings not have parties?
They had raiding parties.
Festivals.
Beaches
Scandanavian women
Aqua vita and Mead
Extremely competent seagoing credentials
Founded many a city
Founded the world's first parliament
and a had better knowledge of history than Roobiks
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Since when did vikings not have parties?
They had raiding parties.
Festivals.
Beaches
Scandanavian women
Aqua vita and Mead
Extremely competent seagoing credentials
Founded many a city
Founded the world's first parliament
and a had better knowledge of history than Roobiks
Gotta give it to the Pirates. Because Kiera Knightley is probably not what a viking woman really looked like, Valhalla probably doesn't exist, and carribean rum trumps dark ages (what-passes-for) ale any day. I'm thinking something more like Hagar the Horrible's wife, piss ale, and a dismal angry existance chopping each other up in the cold. Pirates get lusty wenches when they come to port, and when there's no wenches out at sea... well... hey they aren't pickey. Oh yeah, nice longboat and battle axe guys... somebody load the cannon and sink those shaggy idiots before they get any closer.
If you have never supped Scandinavian Ales please refrain from comparing it to what passes through your bladder, into a bottle and labelled Budweisser.
Both had military grade expierience
Both consumed prodigous amounts of alcahol
Both believed in sea monsters
Both raided and pillaged (yes even pirates attacked towns)
That being said I have to go with Vikings.
Pirates have tavern wenchs, we have valkyries.
Pirates have the fastest ships of their time, vikings have the fastest ships of their time (though this dosen't matter in a person vs person battle).
Yes pirates had guns, it's one thing entirely to have the gun but it's a whole differant story to be able to hit anything and smooth bore flintlocks aren't the most accurate or reliable weapons.
Pirates have Blackbeard, all vikings have beards.
Pirates have Davy Jones Locker (which sounds SOOOO crappy), we have Valhalla where we fight during the day and drink and fornicate at night
Pirates have Kierra Knightly, we have Angelina Jolie.
Pirates have Sid Meyers, Vikings have Viking: Battle for Asgard
Pirates have Jack Sparrow, Vikings have Beowulf.
And lastely Pirates have Huron Blackheart, vikings have Logan Grimnar......I think nothing more need be said
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:If you have never supped Scandinavian Ales please refrain from comparing it to what passes through your bladder, into a bottle and labelled Budweisser.
stuff it limey, I drink Malt Liquah with da homies! budweisser is for white boyz. Scandinavian beer may be good now, but I doubt if it was back in 1000 A.D. Chainmail bikinis and helmets with horns on them are both a myth, as are adolescent fantasy hot chicks with axes wearing chainmail bikinis and helmets with horns on them. Try grubby peasant women covered in boils with ratty hair and smelling like mulch to come home to.
Shadowbrand wrote:*in a chorus of Valkyries Thor descends to the earth with Mjolnir he races across the sea of stars and drops mighty Mjolnir. The young Norseman takes up the godly weapon and swings it casting lighting obliterating the Pirates and with a wild power metal scream Shadowbrand holds his pinky and 4th finger out*
Well as Vikings actually existed and the whole Romantic Pirate legend was begun by Robert Louis Stevenson in Treasure Island, who had never so much as set foot on a sailing ship much less a buccaneer vessel, I think its pretty clear who is the winner here . Ok now that's out of the system onto the women. Neither side really wins here. Pirate 'wenches' were flea ridden hives of STIs who found baths unhygienic and applied make up with a metaphorical trowel. Viking women weren't much better though with the same flea and hygiene problems. So it boils down to rum vs mead basically. Neither were close to what we would call their modern derivative though. So its basically rancid coconut milk vs alcoholic dish water. Ohh the choices...... ... . .
My Ancestors were the first to reach North America and We went wherever we pleased even as far as the Mideast.
My Ancestors also for a few hundred years were a force of brutality and savagery that was described as a horde from the pits of hell itself.
They also reproducible for a lot of positive things? What are Pirates? Poor starving men who prey on the weak. What is a Viking? A warrior baptized in fire and ice and with a pagan ferocity and a animalistic instinct for survival.
Darth Bob Pirates are cool, I dressed up like one once upon a time and played with lego pirate men once upon a time.
Vikings are legendary and we may never see people like that again. I am so dearly proud to of come from such a race of men.
People who do good things will be lost to the pages of time,
but those men's names who do terrible deeds will be remembered for all eternity.
Or something like that.
(Without googling it), who invented onion rings, and who was the leader of the Nazi party?
As an example. ^
battle Brother Lucifer wrote:People who do good things will be lost to the pages of time,
but those men's names who do terrible deeds will be remembered for all eternity.
Or something like that.
(Without googling it), who invented onion rings, and who was the leader of the Nazi party?
As an example. ^
The Nazi Party was a good thing? (I kid, I kid!)
Also I think the saying goes "We write our woes in marble, and our happiness in sand."
battle Brother Lucifer wrote:People who do good things will be lost to the pages of time,
but those men's names who do terrible deeds will be remembered for all eternity.
Or something like that.
(Without googling it), who invented onion rings, and who was the leader of the Nazi party?
As an example. ^
The Nazi Party was a good thing? (I kid, I kid!)
Also I think the saying goes "We write our woes in marble, and our happiness in sand."
The onion rings was the good part >.>
Also, I (tried to) use the quote I did because Fabius Bile said it
battle Brother Lucifer wrote:Also, I (tried to) use the quote I did because Fabius Bile said it
"If a man dedicates his life to good deeds and the welfare of others, he will die unthanked and unremembered. If he excercises his genius bringing misery and death to billions, his name will echo dowwn through the millennia for a hundred lifetimes. Infamy is always more preferable to Ignominy."
Pirates win. Viking lack the stealth and magic powers that Ninjas (traditional enemy of pirates) have, and that's the edge that allows Ninjas to win in Pirates Vs Ninjas. Of course, if sufficient Viking can close to assault range then they could win. Vikings definitely win in assaults.
But without a specific scenario described, I think Vikings vs Pirates ends with a dozen longships at the bottom of the sea, and a bunch of drowned norsemen.
Ok, it's a given that at sea the Pirates have the advantage, however, Viking tactics rarely involved sea battles. The Viking tactic of choice was land near the town and move in on foot. For Pirates to mount any kind of sea based defense, they would:
A) have to know of the attack.
B) muster enough ships and personel.
C) very possibly co-operate with each other.
D) be sober and awake enough to shoot straight.
A failure on any of these points means a loss for the pirates.
A Pirate raid on a viking village would be met with much resistance because Vikings were capable of fighting while drunk and tired.
Maybe EF, but eventually the pirates would have to make their landing.
Also on ship to ship fighting the Vikings gain an advantage on maneuverability. Oars and a shorter length give the longships a much tighter turning radius than the sail based movement of the Pirates ship. The Pirate may be faster with the wind, but the Viking can turn that against them, and travel against the wind.
The Norse went from place to place we would probably see the pirates and simply leave for out summer home. Plus they had a proper army in the later years of the Viking era.
helgrenze wrote:Maybe EF, but eventually the pirates would have to make their landing.
Also on ship to ship fighting the Vikings gain an advantage on maneuverability. Oars and a shorter length give the longships a much tighter turning radius than the sail based movement of the Pirates ship. The Pirate may be faster with the wind, but the Viking can turn that against them, and travel against the wind.
Which is actually sailing more across the wind than against it. And while you are zigzagging to gain ground, the Viking can close distance very swiftly and board your ship. In a naval battle, the ability to change course quickly is an advantage.
Which is actually sailing more across the wind than against it. And while you are zigzagging to gain ground, the Viking can close distance very swiftly and board your ship. In a naval battle, the ability to change course quickly is an advantage.
You really have completely forgetten about the cannons on both sides of the ship haven't you? (Not to mention the front)
Which is actually sailing more across the wind than against it. And while you are zigzagging to gain ground, the Viking can close distance very swiftly and board your ship. In a naval battle, the ability to change course quickly is an advantage.
You can sail directly into the wind if you angle the sail into the wind at a specific angle and it pulls the ship rather than pushing it.
That means the pirates go zipping off into the setting sun while the vikings sit in their longboats sweating and pulling their oars
And it only works with lanteen sails, which the vikings didn't have
helgrenze wrote:Ok, it's a given that at sea the Pirates have the advantage, however, Viking tactics rarely involved sea battles. The Viking tactic of choice was land near the town and move in on foot. For Pirates to mount any kind of sea based defense, they would:
A) have to know of the attack.
The much lower running viking longships will be harder to spot by look-outs than English or Spanish galleons, but their slower speed means they'll have far more time to notice them.
B) muster enough ships and personel.
That won't be a problem. Of course, any pirate bay worth its salt will have gun embankments to fire on approaching ships, and will destroy the longships long before they shore.
C) very possibly co-operate with each other.
That's definitely not a problem, pirates were extremely good at self-organization and very democratic. Because they voted for their captains, they tended to have a strong sense of loyalty to those captains. If pirates were naturally fractious, they wouldn't have had any success against the highly disciplined navies of England and Spain.
D) be sober and awake enough to shoot straight.
Always a problem with pirates on the defense, but with no ability to stealthily infiltrate and time their attack, the vikings can't count on this.
A Pirate raid on a viking village would be met with much resistance because Vikings were capable of fighting while drunk and tired.
So are pirates!
helgrenze wrote:Also on ship to ship fighting the Vikings gain an advantage on maneuverability. Oars and a shorter length give the longships a much tighter turning radius than the sail based movement of the Pirates ship. The Pirate may be faster with the wind, but the Viking can turn that against them, and travel against the wind.
Doesn't matter. Unless we're artificially chumping the pirates, they'll have smaller rail mounted hand cannons used for boarding actions. While these small cannons are nearly useless against the sidewalls of a galleon, they'll punch holes through a far flimisier longship. What makes this a real problem for the viking is that they can't do squat to the pirates until they board the ship, so they have to draw up next to the ship. Because the deck of a longship is far bellow that of a galleon, the viking will have to climb up the sides of the ship -- while the pirates above can merrily rain hell down on them. And those hand cannons? They're firing almost straight down into the unprotected hull of the ship, punching holes below the water line...which means the viking have nowhere to retreat.
But that won't actually happen, because no matter how manueverable the longship is, it simply can't match the speed of a galleon, and so the pirates can force the viking to engage in defensive manuevering to avoid cannon fire and thus never close, or the viking can run straight at the galleon -- and pray to Odin that the pirates are the worst shots ever, because one cannonball hits them and they're toast. No longship can stand up to a cannon shot. Seriously, no longship is even close to being a match for any proper pirate vessel. Even a tiny merchantman would clean its clock.
Its tied. Sorry Pirate whores, but Vikings would crush you any day of the week.
And yapping on about a pirate bay being protected by cannons and the like is silly. No viking ship would land RIGHT NEXT TO THE VILLAGE! They would make land fall miles away and just pop out from no where if they had to. Seriously, this is a debate? DOUBLE SPEARS DAMMIT!
Yea and the point about Vikings not being stealthy. They could set their boats on land and attack you and leave well before proper force could be made.
That's why the British and French had such troubles with us. They had big boats but they needed time to be set up.
However a Viking raid on a village is not stealthy at all I will be honest, but we could slip in and out... Like a stud.
I agree. Vikings were the masters of rapid strikes. They could literally wipe an entire village out in one night and no surrounding villages would have ANY clue what happened to them. Cmon. Im failing to see the argument
Are you honestly saying that Vikings beat a musket in close quarters? Becuase that musket ball is going straight through your round viking shield, through your dingy viking helmet and into you thick viking skull.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Are you honestly saying that Vikings beat a musket in close quarters? Becuase that musket ball is going straight through your round viking shield, through your dingy viking helmet and into you thick viking skull.
And then what? I hope those pirates can reload like modern guns my friend. Because that one viking might fall, but his incredibly pissed off brothers in arms will rip the pirate to shreds. Also your muskets are WILDLY inaccurate
Emperors Faithful wrote:Are you honestly saying that Vikings beat a musket in close quarters? Becuase that musket ball is going straight through your round viking shield, through your dingy viking helmet and into you thick viking skull.
And then what? I hope those pirates can reload like modern guns my friend. Because that one viking might fall, but his incredibly pissed off brothers in arms will rip the pirate to shreds. Also your muskets are WILDLY inaccurate
So they have more friends..... GOOD! That means we can fire in any direction, they won't get away this time!
HA! Thats funny. You guys will loose any advantage firing your guns. Because once those are gone, in close quarters youll be screwed. Now Im not saying that pirates CANT fight, but they are used to drunken brawls. A Viking on the other hand, is used to brutal hand to hand combat. The weak are killed off early on. Your stuck with the most brutal warriors left.
KingCracker wrote:HA! Thats funny. You guys will loose any advantage firing your guns. Because once those are gone, in close quarters youll be screwed. Now Im not saying that pirates CANT fight, but they are used to drunken brawls. A Viking on the other hand, is used to brutal hand to hand combat. The weak are killed off early on. Your stuck with the most brutal warriors left.
Enjoy the ride
But Vikings are also honorable fighters, They don't strike below the belt, both figuratively and literally. Pirates have no such "honor"
Emperors Faithful wrote:Are you honestly saying that Vikings beat a musket in close quarters? Becuase that musket ball is going straight through your round viking shield, through your dingy viking helmet and into you thick viking skull.
And then what? I hope those pirates can reload like modern guns my friend. Because that one viking might fall, but his incredibly pissed off brothers in arms will rip the pirate to shreds. Also your muskets are WILDLY inaccurate
So they have more friends..... GOOD! That means we can fire in any direction, they won't get away this time!
Emperors Faithful wrote:Are you honestly saying that Vikings beat a musket in close quarters? Becuase that musket ball is going straight through your round viking shield, through your dingy viking helmet and into you thick viking skull.
And then what? I hope those pirates can reload like modern guns my friend. Because that one viking might fall, but his incredibly pissed off brothers in arms will rip the pirate to shreds. Also your muskets are WILDLY inaccurate
1) If your vikings are standing far away enough to allow for innacuracy then the pirates will probably have to time reload before you close the gap.
2) By the time you've closed the gap the innacuracy of the musket won't matter.
KingCracker wrote:HA! Thats funny. You guys will loose any advantage firing your guns. Because once those are gone, in close quarters youll be screwed. Now Im not saying that pirates CANT fight, but they are used to drunken brawls. A Viking on the other hand, is used to brutal hand to hand combat. The weak are killed off early on. Your stuck with the most brutal warriors left.
Enjoy the ride
Oh really? Becuase in the history books it reads something like this... "Vikings plundered, pillaged and raped many defenceless villages in England...But when they actually went toe to toe with regular army fellows they got cut down quick-smart."
Whereas pirates were always on their toes regarding the British fething Navy.
Shadowbrand wrote:That's because the books mostly fail to mention there was a time before people had proper armies that's when the Viking raids lost their momentum.
This story is what is considered the "last" viking.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Are you honestly saying that Vikings beat a musket in close quarters? Becuase that musket ball is going straight through your round viking shield, through your dingy viking helmet and into you thick viking skull.
And then what? I hope those pirates can reload like modern guns my friend. Because that one viking might fall, but his incredibly pissed off brothers in arms will rip the pirate to shreds. Also your muskets are WILDLY inaccurate
1) If your vikings are standing far away enough to allow for innacuracy then the pirates will probably have to time reload before you close the gap.
2) By the time you've closed the gap the innacuracy of the musket won't matter.
KingCracker wrote:HA! Thats funny. You guys will loose any advantage firing your guns. Because once those are gone, in close quarters youll be screwed. Now Im not saying that pirates CANT fight, but they are used to drunken brawls. A Viking on the other hand, is used to brutal hand to hand combat. The weak are killed off early on. Your stuck with the most brutal warriors left.
Enjoy the ride
Oh really? Becuase in the history books it reads something like this... "Vikings plundered, pillaged and raped many defenceless villages in England...But when they actually went toe to toe with regular army fellows they got cut down quick-smart."
Whereas pirates were always on their toes regarding the British fething Navy.
Actually untrue there were several armies that tried to stop the vikings but almost all failed, Charlemagne (a Frenchie oddly enough) was one of the few who could compete with the vikings. In fact the viking raids were so common and
horrible kings would actually pay the vikings not to attack there country.
KingCracker wrote:Its tied. Sorry Pirate whores, but Vikings would crush you any day of the week.
And yapping on about a pirate bay being protected by cannons and the like is silly. No viking ship would land RIGHT NEXT TO THE VILLAGE! They would make land fall miles away and just pop out from no where if they had to. Seriously, this is a debate? DOUBLE SPEARS DAMMIT!
Of course. And the reason the British and Spanish didn't do that is because they were all such horribly stupid clods with total gak for brains, and not at all because pirates (and everyone else) chose locations for their bases that made such incredibly obvious tactic ineffective...
Shadowbrand wrote:Yes. But then a french man destroyed the Saxons.
Curious isn't it?
But for the record Harada was pretty Badass.
This also was after CENTURIES of attacking the Island and the European mainland.
Yeah there was a time when being French meant you were a bad ass but that time has long passed. To be fair Charlemagne was like the Genghis Khan of France.
Actually untrue there were several armies that tried to stop the vikings but almost all failed, Charlemagne (a Frenchie oddly enough) was one of the few who could compete with the vikings. In fact the viking raids were so common and
horrible kings would actually pay the vikings not to attack there country.
Interestingly, Viking Raids are considered one of the main factors that encouraged Kings of those times to incorporate proffessional armies, rather than rely on levvies.
KingCracker wrote:I agree. Vikings were the masters of rapid strikes. They could literally wipe an entire village out in one night and no surrounding villages would have ANY clue what happened to them. Cmon. Im failing to see the argument
Oh my god, a small army of well armed and armored men could slaughter an entire village of defenseless farmers in a sneak attack? Clearly these guys are masters of war! Because obviosly no other fighting force in history could stand against the might of an entire village of peasants!
Actually untrue there were several armies that tried to stop the vikings but almost all failed, Charlemagne (a Frenchie oddly enough) was one of the few who could compete with the vikings. In fact the viking raids were so common and
horrible kings would actually pay the vikings not to attack there country.
Interestingly, Viking Raids are considered one of the main factors that encouraged Kings of those times to incorporate proffessional armies, rather than rely on levies.
And unfortunately those soldiers were of little help, so there money would have been better spent ass kissing the vikings instead, which happened anyway.
KingCracker wrote:I agree. Vikings were the masters of rapid strikes. They could literally wipe an entire village out in one night and no surrounding villages would have ANY clue what happened to them. Cmon. Im failing to see the argument
Oh my god, a small army of well armed and armored men could slaughter an entire village of defenseless farmers in a sneak attack? Clearly these guys are masters of war! Because obviosly no other fighting force in history could stand against the might of an entire village of peasants!
[1]Source: Deadliest Warrior, the most scientific appraisal of warriors and their deadliestness currently available to researchers. [2]Source: Common sense, the knight has better armor and the samurai lacks the equipment and training to combat it. No it doesn't matter that samurai were actually used as horse archers, all that matters is that their portrayal is internally consistent, geez.
Shadowbrand wrote:And pirates are no fething better?
You are BAD at arguing!
Actually Pirates preyed on Merchant ships and had to stave of 2nd and 3rd Class Ships of the line that were tasked with hunting them down. Messy business, and considerably more dangerous than sacking a village.
Guys, join me and Shadowbrand in the collaborative effort to create a gruesome and terrifying new Viking/Pirate hybrid.
We shall call them Pirakings.
The lands of ice and snow and the seven seas will sing praise to the Pirakings! Who will rule the planet with the combined force of guns, hot women, and epicly manly beards!
Shadowbrand wrote:There is nothing more dangerous then taking on a army let alone 2, sure the Vikings lost, but I'd fething love to see a pirate do that.
No discussion there.
Which army? Most were actually unsuccessful at retaliating Viking raids.
Darth Bob wrote:Guys, join me and Shadowbrand in the collaborative effort to create a gruesome and terrifying new Viking/Pirate hybrid.
We shall call them Pirakings.
The lands of ice and snow and the seven seas will sing praise to the Pirakings! Who will rule the planet with the combined force of guns, hot women, and epicly manly beards!
Not going to lie, Piraking sounds like a Pokemon of the Pirasect/Pirasite evolution.
Shadowbrand wrote:There is nothing more dangerous then taking on a army let alone 2, sure the Vikings lost, but I'd fething love to see a pirate do that.
No discussion there.
Which army? Most were actually unsuccessful at retaliating Viking raids.
Shadowbrand wrote:@Cheesecat The Saxon and Normans at Hastings.
So we have a few armies here and there who can take them that's still a pretty good track record considering they put Europe in constant fear for several centuries. Also it wasn't a military force that killed the Vikings it was cultural changes such as
converting to Christianity and not wanting to enslave Christians (one of there primary sources of profit) anymore that did it.
But in my defense. The Normans lineage goes back to us.
They are a mixture of the Viking conquerors of the territory and the native population of Frankish and Gallo-Roman people, the Normans live in Northern France.
I think the major problem here is that there is a significant gap between Vikings and Pirates. Muskets would prove to be quite difficult but I'm sorry in close combat we got you.
*Edit*
Found this whilst looking of a picture of a Pirate fighting a Viking.
I think we are on something that the internets hasnt caught up to yet. I cannot find a damn picture with a VIKING fighting a PIRATE.
*note, I wish that "viking" chick was in my bed right now. Id cheat on my wife in a snap..... unless she was in the bed too.....then....I er...... WTF am I sitting here typing for? It could be happening!
Good luck gents
Automatically Appended Next Post: OH EF - Id like to add though, the Pirates we are all arguing about used muskets, which were VERY inaccurate unless you were literally a few feet infront of the gun. They were nothing like muzzleloaders we have today, or hell even like the smooth bores from revolutionary war times. Im talking once the round left the barrel it was anyones guess where the damn things were going.
You only had to be a few feet away. you're fighting on the deck of a ship. yeah 10 feet is probably long range, but what's he going to do? run towards you! That's why all the fearsome pirate cap'ns didn't just carry a pistol, they carried a whole harness full of em. a "brace" of 6 loaded pistols strapped around them. Fire one, toss it aside, fire another, etc. and reclaim up your discarded litter after the killin's been done. YAaar!
The cabin boy was such a toy
He was a little nipper
He packed his arse with broken glass
to circumcize the skipper...
Cuz we was...
Friggin in the riggin...
friggin in the riggin
friggin in the riggin cuz theres feth all else to do...
singin Yaar yaar...
we're dancin on the bar...
I shat me pantaloons
when I counted me doublouns...
[1]Source: Deadliest Warrior, the most scientific appraisal of warriors and their deadliestness currently available to researchers. [2]Source: Common sense, the knight has better armor and the samurai lacks the equipment and training to combat it. No it doesn't matter that samurai were actually used as horse archers, all that matters is that their portrayal is internally consistent, geez.
But samurai have katanas, and katanas do more damage than lightsabers.
At least if you listen to the majority of gamer dweebs.
Guitardian wrote:You only had to be a few feet away. you're fighting on the deck of a ship. yeah 10 feet is probably long range, but what's he going to do? run towards you! That's why all the fearsome pirate cap'ns didn't just carry a pistol, they carried a whole harness full of em. a "brace" of 6 loaded pistols strapped around them. Fire one, toss it aside, fire another, etc. and reclaim up your discarded litter after the killin's been done. YAaar!
The cabin boy was such a toy
He was a little nipper
He packed his arse with broken glass
to circumcize the skipper...
Cuz we was...
Friggin in the riggin...
friggin in the riggin
friggin in the riggin cuz theres feth all else to do...
singin Yaar yaar...
we're dancin on the bar...
I shat me pantaloons
when I counted me doublouns...
I changed my mind. Pirates win because of this song.
I think the major problem here is that there is a significant gap between Vikings and Pirates. Muskets would prove to be quite difficult but I'm sorry in close combat we got you.
That's like saying "Leman Russ Battletanks and Basiliks and Baneblades would prove to be quite difficult but I'm sorry in close combat we got you."
Yeah, get through the cannons and musketry first. Then you can brag about CC.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Since when did vikings not have parties?
They had raiding parties.
Festivals.
Beaches
Scandanavian women
Aqua vita and Mead
Extremely competent seagoing credentials
Founded many a city
Founded the world's first parliament
and a had better knowledge of history than Roobiks
Aren't they the same? Vikings were just early pirates without the rum. Poor Vikings never having rum. That must have sucked.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Since when did vikings not have parties?
They had raiding parties.
Festivals.
Beaches
Scandanavian women
Aqua vita and Mead
Extremely competent seagoing credentials
Founded many a city
Founded the world's first parliament
and a had better knowledge of history than Roobiks
Aren't they the same? Vikings were just early pirates without the rum. Poor Vikings never having rum. That must have sucked.
They had Mead. Thus they win.
Mmmm. Mead. Yet another reason to move back South, as I know where to buy it there!
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Since when did vikings not have parties?
They had raiding parties.
Festivals.
Beaches
Scandanavian women
Aqua vita and Mead
Extremely competent seagoing credentials
Founded many a city
Founded the world's first parliament
and a had better knowledge of history than Roobiks
Aren't they the same? Vikings were just early pirates without the rum. Poor Vikings never having rum. That must have sucked.
They had Mead. Thus they win.
Mmmm. Mead. Yet another reason to move back South, as I know where to buy it there!
Pfff here's is an adventure to find it!!!! at least a decent one... but here in Mallorca there's many places that make it for village markets.... good enough...( i had drinked better ones.. but by now there's no other way..)
Shadowbrand wrote:Yea so where the Saxons and a sizable Norwegian force.
*Edit* Whats the diffidence?
You do realize Normans aren't Vikings right? They are a bunch of French men who conquered parts of England and Italy.
No. Normans is a name that comes from North Men. The Normans aren't Vikings but they're from the same Scandanavian stock. They weren't Franks, though they conquer the northern coast of France that bears their name. They also ruled Sicily for a few decades.
Pirate women nor Viking women would look like that.
Stop going off Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean, mind you she only looked good because she was royalty, and to top it off, how can you look good after spending over a week on a ship, with no form of bathing items and essentials?
Same for vikings, the women shouldn't matter.
Also...
Ranged:
Pirates: Cannons (Require loading, ammo, powder and crew.) Guns (Highly Inaccurate at their time, and I highly doubt, a bead of led in that day could pierce most chain mail or if the viking couldn't take it.)
Vikings: Arrows (Fast, require skill, can be equipped to become flaming arrows.) Throwing axes (Not likely, but someone might hit.) Spears (Still used today, just like arrows.)
Ships:
Pirates: Ships were bigger, and potentially faster, but they lacked the quality to be able to board on to enemies within moments. They also require a highly active crew to maintain movement.
Vikings: Ships varied in sizes, were man powered, could change course on a dime, were designed for boarding enemies.
Close Combat:
Pirates: Guns & Swords (Brawled not really all to skilled.)
Vikings: Shields, armor, axes, swords, maces, etc. (Lived to fight.)
The_Savior wrote:Pirate women nor Viking women would look like that.
Stop going off Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean, mind you she only looked good because she was royalty, and to top it off, how can you look good after spending over a week on a ship, with no form of bathing items and essentials?
The_Savior wrote:Pirate women nor Viking women would look like that.
Stop going off Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean, mind you she only looked good because she was royalty, and to top it off, how can you look good after spending over a week on a ship, with no form of bathing items and essentials?
Same for vikings, the women shouldn't matter.
Hey I judge all v's threads via the important rules of the Internet, well the only one that counts.
One quick look around told me all I needed to now.. Pirates win.
The_Savior wrote:Pirate women nor Viking women would look like that.
Stop going off Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean, mind you she only looked good because she was royalty, and to top it off, how can you look good after spending over a week on a ship, with no form of bathing items and essentials?
Same for vikings, the women shouldn't matter.
Whoa now! Its on my friend. No one insults Disney!
Pirates: Cannons (Require loading, ammo, powder and crew.)
Extreme range and destructive force that can go through and entire row of men. Vikings got arrows...
Guns (Highly Inaccurate at their time, and I highly doubt, a bead of led in that day could pierce most chain mail or if the viking couldn't take it.)
What? Early fire arms could pierce full body plate armor. Since pirates were a little down the line in terms of the technology, they're not going to have a problem with chain mail. At the range of a boarding event it doesn't really matter. It's hard to miss a target a few feet in front of you. At range, cannons were far more accurate than some people give them credit for.
Vikings: Arrows (Fast, require skill, can be equipped to become flaming arrows.) Throwing axes (Not likely, but someone might hit.) Spears (Still used today, just like arrows.)
I do not believe Vikings were well known for throwing axes (they certainly are in popular mythology but that's not really historically sound to my knowledge). The types of axes the vikings used were far to heavy for throwing. They didn't throw their spears. Spears were a bulk weapon of most forces at the time because they were cheap and poor farmers could afford to have one. And Bows requiring skill is a pretty big disadvantage. Guns are pretty much point and shoot. Bows require extensive knowledge to be used effectively.
Pirates: Ships were bigger, and potentially faster, but they lacked the quality to be able to board on to enemies within moments. They also require a highly active crew to maintain movement.
What? Pirates boarded ships all the time. it was kind of a requirement if you wanted to steal anything from the ship that you board it rather than destroy it. Once you've boarded you don't need to maintain movement anymore. Your men are aboard and seizing control.
Vikings: Ships varied in sizes, were man powered, could change course on a dime, were designed for boarding enemies.
No they weren't.
Pirates: Guns & Swords (Brawled not really all to skilled.)
Guns. And to criticize a pirate for skill in battle is a little silly. Most Vikings were farmers. Most pirates were serial murders. They were well known for warriors but the bulk of a viking force would be what any other force at the time was made of. Young men, mostly farmers, inexperienced in battle.
Vikings: Shields, armor, axes, swords, maces, etc. (Lived to fight.)
For someone mocking the glorious lord Disney, you seem to be getting a lot of your information from movies... The idea of vikings as life time warriors is a myth. Their culture was warlike but not to the degree that many people seem to think it was. They didn't live to fight. They just ended up doing it a lot. Pirates would win this fight simply because of technological advantages. Their ships were larger. They were faster. They had guns. Many pirates were privateers and professional soldiers. Vikings were a typical feudal society, only well known for the age of fear they invoked in Western Europe for about a few centuries.
The_Savior wrote:Pirate women nor Viking women would look like that.
Stop going off Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean, mind you she only looked good because she was royalty, and to top it off, how can you look good after spending over a week on a ship, with no form of bathing items and essentials?
Same for vikings, the women shouldn't matter.
Whoa now! Its on my friend. No one insults Disney!
Pirates: Cannons (Require loading, ammo, powder and crew.)
Extreme range and destructive force that can go through and entire row of men. Vikings got arrows...
Guns (Highly Inaccurate at their time, and I highly doubt, a bead of led in that day could pierce most chain mail or if the viking couldn't take it.)
What? Early fire arms could pierce full body plate armor. Since pirates were a little down the line in terms of the technology, they're not going to have a problem with chain mail. At the range of a boarding event it doesn't really matter. It's hard to miss a target a few feet in front of you. At range, cannons were far more accurate than some people give them credit for.
Vikings: Arrows (Fast, require skill, can be equipped to become flaming arrows.) Throwing axes (Not likely, but someone might hit.) Spears (Still used today, just like arrows.)
I do not believe Vikings were well known for throwing axes (they certainly are in popular mythology but that's not really historically sound to my knowledge). The types of axes the vikings used were far to heavy for throwing. They didn't throw their spears. Spears were a bulk weapon of most forces at the time because they were cheap and poor farmers could afford to have one. And Bows requiring skill is a pretty big disadvantage. Guns are pretty much point and shoot. Bows require extensive knowledge to be used effectively.
Pirates: Ships were bigger, and potentially faster, but they lacked the quality to be able to board on to enemies within moments. They also require a highly active crew to maintain movement.
What? Pirates boarded ships all the time. it was kind of a requirement if you wanted to steal anything from the ship that you board it rather than destroy it. Once you've boarded you don't need to maintain movement anymore. Your men are aboard and seizing control.
Vikings: Ships varied in sizes, were man powered, could change course on a dime, were designed for boarding enemies.
No they weren't.
Pirates: Guns & Swords (Brawled not really all to skilled.)
Guns. And to criticize a pirate for skill in battle is a little silly. Most Vikings were farmers. Most pirates were serial murders. They were well known for warriors but the bulk of a viking force would be what any other force at the time was made of. Young men, mostly farmers, inexperienced in battle.
Vikings: Shields, armor, axes, swords, maces, etc. (Lived to fight.)
For someone mocking the glorious lord Disney, you seem to be getting a lot of your information from movies... The idea of vikings as life time warriors is a myth. Their culture was warlike but not to the degree that many people seem to think it was. They didn't live to fight. They just ended up doing it a lot. Pirates would win this fight simply because of technological advantages. Their ships were larger. They were faster. They had guns. Many pirates were privateers and professional soldiers. Vikings were a typical feudal society, only well known for the age of fear they invoked in Western Europe for about a few centuries.
Do you have proof?
Support your knowledge with sources.
Also, you sound like a pirate fan boy, it must be sad to idolize Johnny Depp and Orlando Bloom, thinking about how they plunder your chocolate canal.
Do you? Movies don't count. I'd stay away from Spike TV too. The History channel isn't as reliable as it used to be sadly.
Support your knowledge with sources.
I've said it before I'll say it again. I won't play the citation game. These are your claims that are being refuted. Back them up yourself. I may very well be wrong as I'm no expert on vikings but I'm pretty damn confident on most of the points. The fact you think a fire arm couldn't pierce chain mail is pretty dubious. They went to full plate armor in part because arrows could break chain mail. A gun carries more power than an arrow. Even an early one. Even sadder is that you have gotten the idea pirates were experts at boarding ships and that somehow Vikings, who are not known to have ever engaged in naval warfare on a significant scale, somehow were.
Also, you sound like a pirate fan boy, it must be sad to idolize Johnny Depp and Orlando Bloom, thinking about how they plunder your chocolate canal.
First movie was entertaining. Other two were pretty stupid with a really nonsensical plot. Most of Disney good stuff comes from Pixar these days. But still. You sir insult Disney! Maker of Lion King and bringer of Aladdin!
Do you? Movies don't count. I'd stay away from Spike TV too. The History channel isn't as reliable as it used to be sadly.
Support your knowledge with sources.
I've said it before I'll say it again. I won't play the citation game. These are your claims that are being refuted. Back them up yourself. I may very well be wrong as I'm no expert on vikings but I'm pretty damn confident on most of the points. The fact you think a fire arm couldn't pierce chain mail is pretty dubious. They went to full plate armor in part because arrows could break chain mail. A gun carries more power than an arrow. Even an early one.
Also, you sound like a pirate fan boy, it must be sad to idolize Johnny Depp and Orlando Bloom, thinking about how they plunder your chocolate canal.
First movie was entertaining. Other two were pretty stupid with a really nonsensical plot. Most of Disney good stuff comes from Pixar these days. But still. You sir insult Disney! Maker of Lion King and bringer of Aladdin!
And insults? Classy.
I'll agree with you on the sources point.
Disney... Live Action can die. Animated is Golden.
Now I'm not going to lie I am a Buccaneers fan so go Bucs.
And what was said about pirates boarding ships all the time isn't that accurate. Most Pirates relied on frightening their prey into submition with a warning shot and hoping that they would surrender as boarding engagments would be very costly in lives.
Vikings on the other hand relied on close combat as many of you have said they didn't have fire arms. They had a nifty thing called a shield wall which allowed them to fight and beat even the Romans. Now talking about fire arms the guns used by pirates where not only innacurate they where also unreliable and prone to missfire. Someone said they could pearce armor? WRONG, blunderbusses could but that's a point blank weapon. The smaller hand held cannon wasen't numerous enough for every pirate to carry.
Also there is a question of numbers, viking forces wern't small raiding parties they where actual armies and I doubt that pirates could fire, reload and fire again fast enough to kill every viking. And yes Pirates where ex navy but unlike what was said earlier they where not all officers. And there is a differance between cutlasses, boarding axes and NO armor vs chainmail, spears, lang axes and great swords.
Now yes there is a the differance between naval class vessels of the Pirates and Vikings and pirates did have cannons but they where used against other vessels of the same size or larger. Yes long ships where smaller which gave them a smaller profile and makes them harder to hit. That's also assuming that the pirates are on their ships 24/7, when at port they didn't have their cannons with them as it would be too much work to move the cannons. And as was said before vikings excelled at swift raids landing on an island and moving into a village. The perfect time to destroy those rum soaked pirates who don't know when to put away their grog (which they carried on their ships with them) while the Vikings new when to put down the drinking horn which by the way was the real horn the vikings had. No antler hats
Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote: Now talking about fire arms the guns used by pirates where not only innacurate they where also unreliable and prone to missfire. Someone said they could pearce armor? WRONG, blunderbusses could but that's a point blank weapon. The smaller hand held cannon wasen't numerous enough for every pirate to carry.
I suppose that could be true of plate armor, but vikings weren't really packing plate armor. They were packing chain mail if they could afford it. Pistols could break that, and pistols were a fairly common weapon among pirates as far as I know.
Also there is a question of numbers, viking forces wern't small raiding parties they where actual armies
That depends on what we're talking about. Vikings going out and conquering, or viking raiding parties. I thought that we were assuming that when viking was said we were referring to raiding parties rather than armies.
Pirates: Cannons (Require loading, ammo, powder and crew.) Guns (Highly Inaccurate at their time, and I highly doubt, a bead of led in that day could pierce most chain mail or if the viking couldn't take it.)
Vikings: Arrows (Fast, require skill, can be equipped to become flaming arrows.) Throwing axes (Not likely, but someone might hit.) Spears (Still used today, just like arrows.)
The Golden Age of piracy was between the 1650's and 1720's. Rifling was invented back in the 1450's. Their guns weren't as inaccurate as you seem to be making them out to be. There is no conceivable way to twist things so that vikings win at ranged. You just can't.
Ships:
Pirates: Ships were bigger, and potentially faster, but they lacked the quality to be able to board on to enemies within moments. They also require a highly active crew to maintain movement.
Vikings: Ships varied in sizes, were man powered, could change course on a dime, were designed for boarding enemies.
Okay, pirates commonly operated in small fleets and ship size varied greatly. From sleek three or four masted clippers and vast merchantmen and galleons to smaller ships such as corvettes or brigs. Clippers could outstrip the fastest ships of their day easily, and would have no problem out running a viking longboat. An East Indiaman or decked out ship of the line could blow a longboat to smithereens with a single broadside. And a small double masted schooner would run circles around any longboat all the while peppering it with small cannon and musket fire.
And speaking of needing a highly active crew to maintain guess what all the vikings had to do if they needed to travel against the wind? They had to row.
The majority of the afore mentioned craft could sail into the wind. The vikings with their square sailed cogs had to make do with oars.
Pirates:
Vikings:
The vikings' longboats were impressive vessels, but there is no way you could argue that they could stand against the craft piloted by most pirates.
Close Combat:
Pirates: Guns & Swords (Brawled not really all to skilled.)
Vikings: Shields, armor, axes, swords, maces, etc. (Lived to fight.)
I rest my case...
I will concede that in close combat, vikings have the upper hand. But they first have to get into close combat.
The_Savior wrote:Pirates: Cannons (Require loading, ammo, powder and crew.) Guns (Highly Inaccurate at their time, and I highly doubt, a bead of led in that day could pierce most chain mail or if the viking couldn't take it.)
The invention of the handgun brought an end to the age of armor. Guess what? People did not stop wearing armor because it was so effective against bullets.
Pirates: Ships were bigger, and potentially faster, but they lacked the quality to be able to board on to enemies within moments.
Vikings: Ships varied in sizes, were man powered, could change course on a dime, were designed for boarding enemies.
This is the exact opposite of reality.
Longships were not designed for boarding at all, while galleons were. You know the phrase "Make him walk the plank!" Well, they didn't have planks just so they could make people walk off them. The proper name for those planks is a boarding plank. It, along with boarding hooks and boarding cannons were part of the set of dedicated tools found on a galleon specifically for (you guessed it) boarding.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Since when did vikings not have parties?
They had raiding parties.
Festivals.
Beaches
Scandanavian women
Aqua vita and Mead
Extremely competent seagoing credentials
Founded many a city
Founded the world's first parliament
and a had better knowledge of history than Roobiks
Aren't they the same? Vikings were just early pirates without the rum. Poor Vikings never having rum. That must have sucked.
They had Mead. Thus they win.
Mmmm. Mead. Yet another reason to move back South, as I know where to buy it there!
Although Mead is part fo the reason I am now married, IT IS NOT RUM! BLASPHEMER!
Gailbraithe wrote:
Longships were not designed for boarding at all, while galleons were. You know the phrase "Make him walk the plank!" Well, they didn't have planks just so they could make people walk off them. The proper name for those planks is a boarding plank. It, along with boarding hooks and boarding cannons were part of the set of dedicated tools found on a galleon specifically for (you guessed it) boarding.
Technically galleons weren't designed specifically with boarding in mind, they were more of an all purpose swiss army knife kind of ship. Equally useful for commerce or as a warship. They were very successful at both.
Vikings are clearly much more awesome (although pirates are good too).
Early guns were unacurate, had difficulty going through tough armour and had a chance of blowing the users hand off. Pirates mainly attacked ships that transported goods so didn't need to be great fighters. While they did get into fights with actual soldiers, a lot of the time they just intimidated unarmed sailors. Cannons were not that acurate but the main problem was they are slow. Against a few large ships they worked great but if used against a large fleet of small ships they just won't be able to fire at many of them.
Pirates do have (overall) better gear but the Vikings were much more skilled and had much higher numbers.
You forgot Pirate ships can ram a wussy longboat and cut it in half. They are larger by orders of magnitude.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:
Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote: Now talking about fire arms the guns used by pirates where not only innacurate they where also unreliable and prone to missfire. Someone said they could pearce armor? WRONG, blunderbusses could but that's a point blank weapon. The smaller hand held cannon wasen't numerous enough for every pirate to carry.
I suppose that could be true of plate armor, but vikings weren't really packing plate armor. They were packing chain mail if they could afford it. Pistols could break that, and pistols were a fairly common weapon among pirates as far as I know.
Also there is a question of numbers, viking forces wern't small raiding parties they where actual armies
That depends on what we're talking about. Vikings going out and conquering, or viking raiding parties. I thought that we were assuming that when viking was said we were referring to raiding parties rather than armies.
And what age pirates? 1700s pirates with steel swords multiple flintlocks each? Or are we talking Somali pirates with AKs are RPGs?
4M2A wrote:Vikings are clearly much more awesome (although pirates are good too).
Early guns were unacurate, had difficulty going through tough armour and had a chance of blowing the users hand off. Pirates mainly attacked ships that transported goods so didn't need to be great fighters. While they did get into fights with actual soldiers, a lot of the time they just intimidated unarmed sailors. Cannons were not that acurate but the main problem was they are slow. Against a few large ships they worked great but if used against a large fleet of small ships they just won't be able to fire at many of them.
Pirates do have (overall) better gear but the Vikings were much more skilled and had much higher numbers.
Yes. Very true. However, the guns used by pirates were not as early as you think. The barrels of the muskets they used would have been rifled, not smooth bore and the pistols were quite effective at close range. And even if you have dozens of longboats versus a few well armed pirate vessels, that's still a lot of fire power, and it wouldn't take but one shot to punch through the side of a viking ship. And if it came down to it, the pirates could ram the longships, utterly destroying them, while potentially suffering damage to their own vessels.
4M2A wrote:Early guns were unacurate, had difficulty going through tough armour and had a chance of blowing the users hand off.
If we are assuming pirates from the Age of Piracy, then they were not using "early guns." By the sixteenth century guns were quite sophisticated and reliable.
Pirates mainly attacked ships that transported goods so didn't need to be great fighters. While they did get into fights with actual soldiers, a lot of the time they just intimidated unarmed sailors.
Vikings mainly attacked coastal villages full of unarmed peasants, so they didn't need to be that great of fighters either. Viking rarely engaged in battle with soldiers, their successes was dependent on their ability to strike fast and disappear before local forces could be mustered. Try to remember that Vikings were basically pirates of their day.
Some of the confusion seems to stem from what kind of Viking. The raiding parties were not equipped for battle but for pillage. Viking armies were very different from the raiders that terrorized Europe's Northern coastline even though they came from the same culture.
Pirates RARELY had a full sized "Ship-of-the-Line" Galleon. They preferred smaller, faster, and more maneurerable ships like Brigs. Ships like the "Dutchman" and the "Black Pearl" were extremely rare. Most pirate ships ran one or two gun decks with a likely compliment of less than 32 guns. I learned this from a practicing "Pirate" in NC called 'Captain Sinbad'. His ship, found here>>> http://www.pirate-privateer.com/index.html <<< is a 2/3 - scale replica of an 17th Century, two masted pirate brigantine armed with 8 cannons, that was historically researched. The original ship was @81 feet with 14 cannons. (For the PotC fanboys, The Meka II was in all 3 movies, as was the Captain and his Lt.)
Viking longships ranged from 56 feet to 118 feet in length.The long ship lasted as a primary war and trade vessel until 1429..... 63 years before Columbus. Oh nad they did employ a sail..... which, working with the design of the hull allowed the ship to travel at great speed due to the shallow draft of the keel.
It should also be noted that the Vikings gave us .... The basis of parlamentry procedure, trial by jury, and the "Germanic" language base whose derivitives includes English.
helgrenze wrote:Pirates RARELY had a full sized "Ship-of-the-Line" Galleon. They preferred smaller, faster, and more maneurerable ships like Brigs. Ships like the "Dutchman" and the "Black Pearl" were extremely rare. Most pirate ships ran one or two gun decks with a likely compliment of less than 32 guns. I learned this from a practicing "Pirate" in NC called 'Captain Sinbad'. His ship, found here>>> http://www.pirate-privateer.com/index.html <<< is a 2/3 - scale replica of an 17th Century, two masted pirate brigantine armed with 8 cannons, that was historically researched. The original ship was @81 feet with 14 cannons. (For the PotC fanboys, The Meka II was in all 3 movies, as was the Captain and his Lt.)
Viking longships ranged from 56 feet to 118 feet in length.The long ship lasted as a primary war and trade vessel until 1429..... 63 years before Columbus. Oh nad they did employ a sail..... which, working with the design of the hull allowed the ship to travel at great speed due to the shallow draft of the keel.
True, pirates rarely had the biggest and best ships, but a double or triple masted schooner or brig would still blow a viking longship out of the water (both literally and figuratively.)
They were faster, had more sail, could sail into the wind, and had cannons aboard. A swift pirate ship could pull up along side a viking longship, blow a few holes in said longship, and zip off. The vikings wouldn't have a chance.
4M2A wrote:Vikings invaded other countries and were quite successful. They began just raiding small towns but quickly moved onto other things.
Even the guns used in the 16th century had a chance of exploding in your hand if they weren't very carefully looked after.
You still have to move it forward about two centuries to get to the heyday of pirates. We're only talking about 50 years before the American Revolution.
Besides Pirates had parrots. Parrots are epic cool.
4M2A wrote:Vikings invaded other countries and were quite successful. They began just raiding small towns but quickly moved onto other things.
Even the guns used in the 16th century had a chance of exploding in your hand if they weren't very carefully looked after.
You still have to move it forward about two centuries to get to the heyday of pirates. We're only talking about 50 years before the American Revolution.
Besides Pirates had parrots. Parrots are epic cool.
yeah, the 16th century was the 1500's. The high point of the age of the pirates was the late 1600's into the 1700's.
I think we all are missing the point. Pirates and Vikings should be working together! Against the people who appear on Disney Channel!
Viking storming a Hanna Montana episode. Pirates raiding the stage of the Jonas Brothers.With the Pirates ships and guns, and the Viking attitude and uncanny ability to consume massive amounts of alcohol while remaining combat effective we can finally be free of screaming tweens and their pop idols!
4M2A wrote:Vikings invaded other countries and were quite successful. They began just raiding small towns but quickly moved onto other things.
Even the guns used in the 16th century had a chance of exploding in your hand if they weren't very carefully looked after.
You still have to move it forward about two centuries to get to the heyday of pirates. We're only talking about 50 years before the American Revolution.
Besides Pirates had parrots. Parrots are epic cool.
Considering that the Vikings were a seafaring people, would it be possible that there were...
LordofHats wrote:I think we all are missing the point. Pirates and Vikings should be working together! Against the people who appear on Disney Channel!
Viking storming a Hanna Montana episode. Pirates raiding the stage of the Jonas Brothers.With the Pirates ships and guns, and the Viking attitude and uncanny ability to consume massive amounts of alcohol while remaining combat effective we can finally be free of screaming tweens and their pop idols!
4M2A wrote:Vikings invaded other countries and were quite successful. They began just raiding small towns but quickly moved onto other things.
Even the guns used in the 16th century had a chance of exploding in your hand if they weren't very carefully looked after.
You still have to move it forward about two centuries to get to the heyday of pirates. We're only talking about 50 years before the American Revolution.
Besides Pirates had parrots. Parrots are epic cool.
What you never heard of the Norwegian Blue Parrot?
Well, the fact that I have over 2/3 of my troops left due to my tactical geniu...........CREED!!1!
(in all seriousness, I destroyed them. Though, I give them credit. They managed to get 2 'brutal shots' on their own troops)
may I just point out that although we are all miniature gaming enthusiasts I'm impressed by the historical/nautical knowledge shared by my fellow Dakkaites. Some of it isn't that accurate but alot of what is being said is spot on
Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:may I just point out that although we are all miniature gaming enthusiasts I'm impressed by the historical/nautical knowledge shared by my fellow Dakkaites. Some of it isn't that accurate but alot of what is being said is spot on
And some people want the OT forum done away with. . . Shame!
Nope, I did not. (I was painting, gotta find some time somewhere)
I did however hear about it, and watched a bit of the Patriots game. Also, New England clam chowdah is the only clam chowder for me. (I hate Manhattan style.)
Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:may I just point out that although we are all miniature gaming enthusiasts I'm impressed by the historical/nautical knowledge shared by my fellow Dakkaites. Some of it isn't that accurate but alot of what is being said is spot on
And some people want the OT forum done away with. . . Shame!
It's because you don't treat the Spacemanz website as it should be treated.
Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:may I just point out that although we are all miniature gaming enthusiasts I'm impressed by the historical/nautical knowledge shared by my fellow Dakkaites. Some of it isn't that accurate but alot of what is being said is spot on
Hyu has to be a Schmott Guy like dis fella to play wit toy soldjas.
Also I just wanted to add a bit more about the firearms that the pirates used.
Sure back in the day SOME guns had rifling, but it wasnt a very popular way to build guns, due to many reasons, mainly it was just harder to do it. MOST flintlocks back then were smooth bore. So sure the muskets were more accurate then the pistols, I still wouldnt call it them anywhere near accurate. The entire design of a flintlock was just full of bad. The lead balls were small, and usually packed into the barrel with shirt and cloth. This didnt make a very tight pack, and so gasses would escape around the ball making them EVEN MORE inaccurate.
Not to mention pirates spent alot of time on the sea (Inorite?) and the salty sea air would plague their guns even further. If you asked me, Id say they carried so many firearms 50% to missing and 50% to pan flashes.
Also, the vikings didnt wear JUST chainmail. They would wear heavy cloth and leathers/furs as well. Now Im not saying that would make modern day bullet resistant vests, but that DOES make layers. And layers butt rape bullets more then anything. Hell phones books are actually proven to make small arms bullet proofing for cars. Why? Layers.
Im just glad the Vikings are back on top.....where they belong
KingCracker wrote:Also I just wanted to add a bit more about the firearms that the pirates used.
Sure back in the day SOME guns had rifling, but it wasnt a very popular way to build guns, due to many reasons, mainly it was just harder to do it. MOST flintlocks back then were smooth bore. So sure the muskets were more accurate then the pistols, I still wouldnt call it them anywhere near accurate. The entire design of a flintlock was just full of bad. The lead balls were small, and usually packed into the barrel with shirt and cloth. This didnt make a very tight pack, and so gasses would escape around the ball making them EVEN MORE inaccurate.
You do realise that muskets evolved over time? Sure if we're talking 1650's-1700's they were pretty damn innaccurate, but further on they start kicking tail and taking names.
Not to mention pirates spent alot of time on the sea (Inorite?) and the salty sea air would plague their guns even further. If you asked me, Id say they carried so many firearms 50% to missing and 50% to pan flashes.
1) Any sailor worth his salt would preserve their weapons to the best of their ability...but yes.
2) If this is matchup is taking place at sea, pirates have already won.
Also, the vikings didnt wear JUST chainmail. They would wear heavy cloth and leathers/furs as well. Now Im not saying that would make modern day bullet resistant vests, but that DOES make layers. And layers butt rape bullets more then anything. Hell phones books are actually proven to make small arms bullet proofing for cars. Why? Layers.
Muskets have been proven to have more punching power than the average handgun.
Vikings, duh. Pirates are fgts. No, but pirates have less 'guff' than vikings, and their swords are rusty from the sea. A viking's axe is clean and sharp, like his tough HOHOHO!
I think it's unfair to hold things like salt corrosion and the like against pirates in this match-up. I think one has to compared a median pirate raider crew with ship vs a median viking raider crew with ship, and assume each has fully functional equipment in good repair.
Otherwise I'm going to insist the pirates win since the Vikings just crossed the Atlantic in a longship, and thus are probably already dead (having been swamped at sea), terribly sick and starving, and otherwise in poor shape for combat.
Also, anyone who is trying to make this Norseman army vs Pirates is totally cheating. Viking are raiders, that is what viking means. If we're talking about the full military might of the Nordic peoples crica 11th century, then the pirates -- privateers -- have to be able to draw on the resources of the entire British navy, which means now you're talking viking versus British ships of the line, the same ships that shattered the Spanish Armada.
KingCracker wrote:Also I just wanted to add a bit more about the firearms that the pirates used.
Sure back in the day SOME guns had rifling, but it wasnt a very popular way to build guns, due to many reasons, mainly it was just harder to do it. MOST flintlocks back then were smooth bore. So sure the muskets were more accurate then the pistols, I still wouldnt call it them anywhere near accurate. The entire design of a flintlock was just full of bad. The lead balls were small, and usually packed into the barrel with shirt and cloth. This didnt make a very tight pack, and so gasses would escape around the ball making them EVEN MORE inaccurate.
You do realise that muskets evolved over time? Sure if we're talking 1650's-1700's they were pretty damn innaccurate, but further on they start kicking tail and taking names.
Not to mention pirates spent alot of time on the sea (Inorite?) and the salty sea air would plague their guns even further. If you asked me, Id say they carried so many firearms 50% to missing and 50% to pan flashes.
1) Any sailor worth his salt would preserve their weapons to the best of their ability...but yes.
2) If this is matchup is taking place at sea, pirates have already won.
Also, the vikings didnt wear JUST chainmail. They would wear heavy cloth and leathers/furs as well. Now Im not saying that would make modern day bullet resistant vests, but that DOES make layers. And layers butt rape bullets more then anything. Hell phones books are actually proven to make small arms bullet proofing for cars. Why? Layers.
Muskets have been proven to have more punching power than the average handgun.
Firstly with that line of logic, I could just say that Vikings evolved into a modern military and so they win by default. Yes eventually flintlocks evolve into better weapons, but the typical "Pirate" that everyone is arguing about had crappy smooth bores that literally had trouble hitting the broad side of a barn, in essence they sucked.
Yes a sailor would take care of his equipment, and Im sure Pirates did as well, but my point still stands that bows and arrows will not corrode and fail because of the salty sea air.....well maybe the arrow heads, but thatll just make them more deadly lol
And Im not arguing that Vikings would win in a sea battle. Hell a horrible, just told 10 minutes ago how to use the ship, crew would give the vikings a serious what for, if it was a galleon vs a long boat. Simply the cannons and muskets would probably be enough to keep them at bay. Youve got to realize Vikings never SAW a gun, let alone a cannon. Just the bark from either would probably freak them out.
And what modern handgun are you talking about? There are MANY that would fail being fired at the viking armor. But again many that would plow through it as well.
And who ever it was that was going on about guns going through an entire rank of vikings? Seriously? Im guessing your knowledge goes as far as the most recent action movie youve seen. Just letting you know, people dont go flying when they get shot, and bullets do stop. Even high powered rifle rounds cant go through more then 2 people. It just cant keep its velocity after 1 person at best.
Well, I think that since pirates came from several centuries later than vikings, they would win due to better technology. Vikings look cooler though, and thats probably why they are winning.
Either that or Shadowbrand made a bunch of accounts.
There's really no contest, equipment wise. Sorry, but it's the truth. If the things vikings wore protected them from the weapons pirates used, pirates would have worn them themselves. If firearms weren't significantly better than bows and arrows, pirates would be using the bows. If spears weren't better than cutlasses for fighting ship-to-ship combat, pirates would have used spears.
Pirates could get chainmail, spears, and bows a lot easier than vikings could, they had more resources available than the average viking and the manufacturing process for these things had improved in the meantime. They didn't use these, however, nor did you see the professional European armies of the 1600s running around in fur and chainmail, or using bows and spears as their main weaponry. Why? Because it was not effective. There is no other reason why they wouldn't have done it, it was fully in their capability. The vikings, on the other hand, were not able to procure firearms for themselves, nor were decent swords readily available in their time.
Pirates are the vikings of a more technologically advanced time, they're simply the more dangerous fighter.
KingCracker wrote:
Firstly with that line of logic, I could just say that Vikings evolved into a modern military and so they win by default. Yes eventually flintlocks evolve into better weapons, but the typical "Pirate" that everyone is arguing about had crappy smooth bores that literally had trouble hitting the broad side of a barn, in essence they sucked.
Vikings evolved into what now?
Yes a sailor would take care of his equipment, and Im sure Pirates did as well, but my point still stands that bows and arrows will not corrode and fail because of the salty sea air.....well maybe the arrow heads, but thatll just make them more deadly lol
I don't know where you are getting this logic.
And what modern handgun are you talking about? There are MANY that would fail being fired at the viking armor. But again many that would plow through it as well.
Really. Like what?
And who ever it was that was going on about guns going through an entire rank of vikings? Seriously? Im guessing your knowledge goes as far as the most recent action movie youve seen. Just letting you know, people dont go flying when they get shot, and bullets do stop. Even high powered rifle rounds cant go through more then 2 people. It just cant keep its velocity after 1 person at best.
I don't know about a musket, but a cannon or 12-18 pounder gun certainly could. No question about it.
Slarg232 wrote:
Shadowbrand wrote:The extra votes are my Valkyries!
Shadowbrand wrote:Not so much sore losers as hard fighters!
We have a will and stubbornness only matched by the Scots!
*Edit* Gotta admit in a boarding action or close quarters the Vikings will outfight you by a long shot.
You ever hear of a decoy ship where Pirates would lure people on to them and then shoot a flaming arrow onto it, causing it to burn eveyrone on board to death?
.
I'm so sad I'm going to munch on some Brotato chips until my mood improves.
