I wonder how many Viking fans out there are death metal fans. Something about all that cold weather makes people get shaggy and angry up in Scandinavia. Pirates had cooler songs to sing.
Shadowbrand wrote:Well Black Metal is a acquired taste like fine wine.
Not gonna lie some Melo-Death kickass.
But most Death Metal is overrated.
I don't know I always thought "Possessed" was a good Death Metal band and I prefer Death Metal over Black I just can't take them seriously with all that corpse paint. Although I found this interesting pictorial history of corpse paint that I'll share.
Yes Venom is amazing that is the closest I'll ever get to Black Metal although, they're really Thrash/Speed Metal musically but they were a major influence to the Black Metal genre. The genre is even named after one of there songs.
Gailbraithe wrote: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.
GB's right, although it could just be all Nordic peoples vs. Admiral (yes Admiral) Morgan's Panama attack fleet. 30 pirate ships in the high seas vs. Sven and his Swedish meatballs, I'll take the guys firing broadsides at 500 yards Alex.
Shadowbrand wrote:I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am.
GTFO Orks.
Whoa whoa whoa Shadowbrand, Im with ya on the viking thing....but it gets personal when you start bringing in da Orks. Sorry mate, but no WAY would some hummie be able to take on the Orks. Viking or no! Besides that debate was argued months ago in that who could out drink who debate, where Orks CAME OUT ON TOP!
I find it interesting that accusations of cheating and having multiple acounts are being thrown around when it was a pirate supporter who said vikings are sore losers? hmmm
Also for all of you who are advocating the accuracy of period firearms have any of you fired a historically made weapon of the time to know just how accurate they are or are you basing it off of movies? I personally have not fired one myself but I do own one as a family hierloom from the Spanish side of my family and I have seen one fired in person. Add on to that the fact that most who where shot didn't die from the shot itself but more often from the infection caused by scraps of cloth forced into the wound with the bullet. This means that while the viking may well die later from infection he would still have time to cut the pirate in half.
And for those who say that using a viking army instead of a raiding party you should know that for the vikings they where the same thing. Now yes there is a differance between massed armies of hundreds or thousands ment to invade foriegn countries but viking raiding parties where small armies. They wern't attacking ships at sea and they wern't always fighting merchants or peasents which required them to fight in force instead of running around individually like pirates.
Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:And for those who say that using a viking army instead of a raiding party you should know that for the vikings they where the same thing.
No they aren't. The demographics were different. Armies were armies and a soldering class was present in them. Raiding parties tended to be made of poor farmers looking for a way to make money in the off season and there'd be maybe two or three guys variant on their numbers who actually knew how to fight or had experience in it.
Now yes there is a differance between massed armies of hundreds or thousands ment to invade foriegn countries but viking raiding parties where small armies.
Most Viking raids were conducted by groups between 60-120 men. Some as small as 20. That's not a small army that's a roaming band of semi-doom. There are instance of raids much larger in scale, but most were conducted by small groups. There's a difference between a pirate ship crewed by at best 60 men, at least 20, fighting a typical viking raiding group and a viking army.
Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:I find it interesting that accusations of cheating and having multiple acounts are being thrown around when it was a pirate supporter who said vikings are sore losers? hmmm
Guitardian wrote:I wonder how many Viking fans out there are death metal fans. Something about all that cold weather makes people get shaggy and angry up in Scandinavia. Pirates had cooler songs to sing.
Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:Also for all of you who are advocating the accuracy of period firearms have any of you fired a historically made weapon of the time to know just how accurate they are or are you basing it off of movies?
Movies virtually never show them used at considerable range.
I personally have not fired one myself but I do own one as a family hierloom from the Spanish side of my family and I have seen one fired in person.
I'm still not sure why the accuracy of the pistols is particularly significant, given that the vikings have no equivalent to them, besides a spear or throwing axe maybe, which is sure as hell less accurate than an 18th century pistol.
Also, there are plenty of non-movie sources regarding this kind of thing that can be looked up. For instance, a quick Google search brings up a very good point:
Carl Scholar wrote:This may not be what you are looking for but I do have some data on 17th/18th century firearm accuracy.
An antique 17th century matchlock was tested in Austria (IIRC) against a man sized silhouette. The gun was aimed and fixed directly onto the center of the targets chest. At 100 meters it hit 50% percent of the time. The same test was done with a pistol from the same period with the result of 98% accuracy at 30 meters.
In an 18th century test flint locks hit a target simulating an infantry line 75% percent of the time at 100 yards.
There was also an officer in the revolutionary army who is quoted as saying that a man could expect to hit a lone person with a brown bess at 80 yards and perhaps even 100 yards but would have little hope of striking a man at 150 yards.
I have a lot more data, but I don't have it on had at the moment.
Actual accuracy didn't change too much through out the age of the smooth bore firearm. However certain inventions, like the percussion cap, did make the firing process less volatile and thus made aiming easier. Not to mention the fact that, at least in the 15th century, the ergonomics of firearms improved significantly.
All in all this is more accurate then most people think, but it should be remembered that on the battlefield the confusion and tension would make it hard for any one to squeeze off accurate shots. During the American Civil war there were some battles where lines exchanged repeated volleys at 75 yards with weapons nearly as accurate as today’s rifles!
Also, don't forget that firearms not only replaced bows as weapons of war but also as weapons of hunting. There is absolutely no point in intimidating the heck out of the dear you’re trying to hunt. Today modern smooth bore hunters recommend firing at 40 to 50 yards to hit the kill zone, while archers who are taking the same aiming factors into consideration prefer to loose at 30 to 35 yards.
A exceptionally skilled modern longbow archer can hit a man sized target three out of five times at 100 yards.
My personal belief as to why guns replaced bows is that on a field, where you don't know the range in advance, its easier to aim with a firearm as firearms (300-400mps), compared to bows (50-70mps), are high velocity weapons that allow you to aim directly at your target at ranges of less than 150 yards or so. I know of bow hunters who refuse to do in door target shooting in order to home their range judging abilities. To me this would explain why Musashi, in his treatise on combat, said the reason that the bow was abandoned for the gun was the bows unsatisfactory performance at over 40 yards. It may also explain why the French captain Monluc (sp?) felt that he got an exaggerated sense of English courage during a battle he was present in during the 16th century because of how close the longbowmen had to approach to fire at his musketeers.
Add on to that the fact that most who where shot didn't die from the shot itself but more often from the infection caused by scraps of cloth forced into the wound with the bullet. This means that while the viking may well die later from infection he would still have time to cut the pirate in half.
With nearly every man-portable weapon, then and now, a single hit usually isn't immediately lethal. A viking deftly cutting off someone's head is as rare as a shot to the heart, in both cases it's generally infection, bloodloss, being executed while squirming on the ground that finishes you off. Of course, the trick is, lethality is pretty much irrelevant, what matters is stopping power.
Actually, you've unwittingly made a good point in favor of the pirates. A viking who is unable to stand sure as hell won't be doing much with an axe, a spear, or a bow, but a pirate who's unable to stand can still use a loaded firearm to some degree. And most shots/arrows/slices with a melee weapon will end up leaving the victim alive but wounded.
And for those who say that using a viking army instead of a raiding party you should know that for the vikings they where the same thing. Now yes there is a differance between massed armies of hundreds or thousands ment to invade foriegn countries but viking raiding parties where small armies. They wern't attacking ships at sea and they wern't always fighting merchants or peasents which required them to fight in force instead of running around individually like pirates.
That they were trained to fight as an army doesn't really matter. The pirates would have no reason to fight them "as an army" (rather than a group of skirmishers with much, much better range), and even if they did, they would do so as a block of men armed with muskets or rifles, and so would be something the vikings had absolutely no experience with anyways.
Also, if you combined all the pirates living in, say, 1750, you'd have a pretty damn large "army" of your own. Population sizes at that point in time were far bigger than they were in the dark ages. Don't forget either, that Asia and northern Africa had pirates of their own. The pirates wouldn't all be European.
wat. Why can't we assume that the vikings already had time to take care of themselves for a couple months? Getting off the boat and getting into battle is so june 6th 1944...
Samus_aran115 wrote:wat. Why can't we assume that the vikings already had time to take care of themselves for a couple months? Getting off the boat and getting into battle is so june 6th 1944...
So you're assuming the vikings are on land. Ok.
But why would the pirates be on land?
But regardless.
Vikings herd de herd with a mix of bows and spear guys. Maybe a nice shield wall.
Pirates argh! with long guns, pistols, cutlasses, and grenades. A motly mass of foes that will start blasting away at range (assuming they didn't pull cannon off the ship(s)).
Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:I find it interesting that accusations of cheating and having multiple acounts are being thrown around when it was a pirate supporter who said vikings are sore losers? hmmm
Maybe becuase the Pirates were just scraping ahead with one or two votes when Shadowbrands Valkryies/Multiple accounts land in an extra 20 something votes.
Shadowbrand wrote:We need to kill 3 members and rename ourselves the Primarchs.
I call being Kurze!
Our mission is to destroy the mods not ourselves have you forgotten our goals already?
Is it today, that Heresy shall mark the members of DOOMFART? I will not stand for this, cleanse him brother, oh I shall bring forth a judgment with no regret, no remorse, no redemption.
Pirates and Vikings (and orks) have about the same tactic: Waaagh! Vikings had better weapons though, relative to their time, and had motivation beyond money and women.
Shadowbrand wrote:Yea but think of it. I could be the terror tactic's specialist.
I thought you already were the terror tactic's specialist, oh yeah you're Lord Shadowbrand Extreme Gaylord Viking of Black Metal who hails from the distant floating ice palace of Norway, would you like a name change? Also isn't MaterDRD
our terror tactics specialist after all he does know of the "Night Lord" comic and if DOOMFART could find it's whereabouts we might be able to overcome the mods with much fewer losses using the comics knowledge.
Shadowbrand wrote:No the Viking Warlord in a frozen palace in Norway.
Very Black Metal.
Lord Shadowbrand Extreme Gaylord Viking of Black Metal who hails from the distant floating ice palace of Norway is an impressive title although I think it should be "Bi-sexual Viking" not "Gaylord Viking" as you have shown yourself, that your sexual
preference does not discriminate on such petty issues as gender.
Shadowbrand wrote:No the Viking Warlord in a frozen palace in Norway.
Very Black Metal.
Lord Shadowbrand Extreme Gaylord Viking of Black Metal who hails from the distant floating ice palace of Norway is an impressive title although I think it should be "Bi-sexual Viking" not "Gaylord Viking" as you have shown yourself, that your sexual
preference does not discriminate on such petty issues as gender.
Orkeosaurus wrote:haha vikigs are so gay ur all gay lovers y dont you go hav gaysex?
pirites aret gay like you are pirites are 2 cool tehy hav guns
It's a reference to a joke shadow made about "Ass Pirates" and "Gay Vikings" and how he commented about "coming out of the closet" and how only the wolves know despite the fact a few posts later, he talks about raping virgin woman and a
Im sorry Shadow, but Im becomming a convert. Im an Ork, and I love Flashgits with a passion. Really the fact that I was a closet Pirate should of been obvious to me but took some thinking to figure it out.
But in all seriousness IF Pirates really were to go tor to toe with Vikings, they would win. The technology is so vastly better then what the Vikings had they would have no problems taking out the vikings in a real fight. I mean, read into how Andrew Jackson won his major victory for the battle of 1812 (which didnt take place in 1812, is really likw 1814 or something but thats the name of the war so.....ok Im rambling) Pirates mate......Pirates
Hey Shadowbrand, you think you're so clever just because vikings are winning the poll. However, little do you know, that you aren't even a viking! You are a pirate!
There is a term for the money paid to keep Vikings from sacking your town, raiding your village and/or taking what they want... Danegeld, or Dane Gold.
There is no term for such that specifically was used for pirates.
I don't know if anyone mentioned this earlier, but has anyone thought that perhaps this arguement is moot? Viking Vs. Pirate, Pirate Vs. Viking. They are the same thing, just different time periods in time.
Infreak wrote:I don't know if anyone mentioned this earlier, but has anyone thought that perhaps this arguement is moot? Viking Vs. Pirate, Pirate Vs. Viking. They are the same thing, just different time periods in time.
Infreak wrote:I don't know if anyone mentioned this earlier, but has anyone thought that perhaps this arguement is moot? Viking Vs. Pirate, Pirate Vs. Viking. They are the same thing, just different time periods in time.
Longships made it here first! and although pirates are cool and alestorm rock, being a viking I'd have to side with vikings. Compared to us pirates are well dressed girls that rely on comparativly new technology rather than sheer madness rrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
I suppose it all depends on what they are using the Seals for. If they are just going up and killing them just to kill them, then yes, that is wrong, and should be stopped. But the food chain is a terrible business and something has to die in order for something else to live, as you know. If they are killing them for meat, have at it, but if they are just killing them just to kill them, they should be stopped.
Heh, I've always found that funny about myself. I can, will, and won't regret beating the crap out of someone to an inch of their life, but I can't stand it when someone just abuses anyone, or anything, just because they can get away with it, even if they are just dumb animals.
you [see forum posting rules] rthinkg that vijing s an beat up pitates pirates have afdavanced weapinry sucha saas rfuare arns and teyh wiukd kick the prites ASS ALL OBET RHWT CARRIBEAN,.
Orkeosaurus wrote:you [see forum posting rules] rthinkg that vijing s an beat up pitates pirates have afdavanced weapinry sucha saas rfuare arns and teyh wiukd kick the prites ASS ALL OBET RHWT CARRIBEAN,.
I have had my people working to translate this. Nothing readable has come up.
Orkeosaurus wrote:you [see forum posting rules] rthinkg that vijing s an beat up pitates pirates have afdavanced weapinry sucha saas rfuare arns and teyh wiukd kick the prites ASS ALL OBET RHWT CARRIBEAN,.
I have had my people working to translate this. Nothing readable has come up.
You really think that vikings can beat up pirates, pirates have advanced weaponry such as fire arms and they would kick the pirates ass all over something
Orkeosaurus wrote:you [see forum posting rules] rthinkg that vijing s an beat up pitates pirates have afdavanced weapinry sucha saas rfuare arns and teyh wiukd kick the prites ASS ALL OBET RHWT CARRIBEAN,.
I have had my people working to translate this. Nothing readable has come up.
You really think that vikings can beat up pirates, pirates have advanced weaponry such as fire arms and they would kick the pirates ass all over something
I specialize in drunk translation
Oh, well thank you. My people still have nothing, makes me think they are overpayed....
Orkeosaurus wrote:you [see forum posting rules] rthinkg that vijing s an beat up pitates pirates have afdavanced weapinry sucha saas rfuare arns and teyh wiukd kick the prites ASS ALL OBET RHWT CARRIBEAN,.
I have had my people working to translate this. Nothing readable has come up.
You really think that vikings can beat up pirates, pirates have advanced weaponry such as fire arms and they would kick the pirates ass all over something
"All over the Caribbean", I think, although I'm not quite sure how "the" came out as "rhwt".
