Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
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.
I'm both chaotic and orderly. I value my own principles, and am willing to go to extreme lengths to enforce them, often trampling on the very same principles in the process. At best, I'm heroic and principled; at worst, I'm hypocritical and disorderly.
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.
"Black metal"? I don't give a feth, we got muppets.
Anuvver fing - when they do sumfing, they try to make it look like somfink else to confuse everybody. When one of them wants to lord it over the uvvers, 'e says "I'm very speshul so'z you gotta worship me", or "I know summink wot you lot don't know, so yer better lissen good". Da funny fing is, arf of 'em believe it and da over arf don't, so 'e 'as to hit 'em all anyway or run fer it.
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.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:
It is done, my Lord.
This thread has definitely taken a turn for Epic.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/09/28 12:05:58
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
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
This thread is nothing but good humor.
Vikings suck, Pirates RULE!
I've never feared Death or Dying. I've only feared never Trying.
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/09/28 22:03:15
Anuvver fing - when they do sumfing, they try to make it look like somfink else to confuse everybody. When one of them wants to lord it over the uvvers, 'e says "I'm very speshul so'z you gotta worship me", or "I know summink wot you lot don't know, so yer better lissen good". Da funny fing is, arf of 'em believe it and da over arf don't, so 'e 'as to hit 'em all anyway or run fer it.
Morgan had 3,000 pirates for his big Panama raid. Thats a lot of pirates. More importantly thats a lot of ships.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Deathskulls
Logan Grimnar's Great Company