@hrodvitnir9 . and how do you know? svejoner/varingar/norses/or vikingar. was werry popular as body guards between 650 to 1300 ac. vikings was dated before 650 but there is no real note on dat . but for the history so was there vikings during the romans age. BUT at the end. but we was popular at the crusade lands. Think on it. tall well builded man that had a chain mail and a 2 handed axe.an axe was more often used than a sword.rich peples used swords. shore you chud allso pick it from the field
The organization, command and control were really impressive not to mention the grace and agility of the individual warriors...heh..heh...heh...heh...heh...what a disorganized mess!
Romans and Vikings ways of fighting were totally diffrent. Vikings were great warrirs trained in using sword from their childhood, no one could match them in fighting skills. Also due to harsh terms of their Homeland, they could easily deal with any weather and battlefield. In opposit Romans had soldiers perfectly trained to fight in formation and gaining advantage due to their morale.
(But if Vikings would fight Roman this would mean... total anihilation of Roman :] )
Are you sure the Vikings would annihilate the Romans? The Vikings fought Germanic groups who were similar to the Vikings, and beat them many times. The Romans fought a tribe from Denmark called the Cimbri in one battle, and totally slaughtered them.
No... by "Viking" I mean "Viking" not Germans. You see, Germanic tribes werent the same or even similiar to Vikings. Nordic Warriors were far superior than Denmarks. Hundreds years of slaying evry man in their way proved, that no one could match Vikings.
(Remember: Vikings were not some kind of german tribe!)
I understand what you are saying, but I still have to disagree. You see, the Vikings WERE GERMANIC TRIBES-"north Germanic", to be precise. Many of the Germanic, barbarian tribes had Scandinavian origins-the Goths and the Lombards are two clear examples. The only advantage the Vikings MIGHT have over the Romans would be technology, and again that's a big maybe.
OK, so lets begin with the lesson of history... Germanic tribes were: the Visigoths, the Ostrogoths, the Vandals, the Burgundians, the Lombards, and the Franks. (if you want to be more precise, Vandals were actualy two tribes that is Asding and Siling Vandals)
Perhaps what you were trying to say was, that Vikings belong to northern group of Germanic LANGUAGES? Thats big difrence! Keep that in mind and read more abaut someone history before arguing on this topic.
Hmm. Well, I still respect your arguments. But, the Vikings and the Germanic tribes were still very similar-both in terms of language AND certain customs. They all came from the same stock. I don't know if you know about this, but many Norse sagas actually recount the exploits of the Goths, such as their struggles against the Huns and Romans. And these sagas were written during the Viking Age.
Agree, Vikings and Germans had similiar languages and a few aspects of culture but were totally difrent when it come to war. Basically Germans wre living on fecund land, so they have evrtything they needed. In Vikings case their homeland were very rigor, so in order to survive they had to become the most powerfull warriors so no one could stop them when they plundered villages and cities all over europe.
Just so you remember it norway have existe as a country shorter time than it were a part of the dansigh kingdom ;) But i dont want to start a fight so just forget about it again :)
Yes but already around 1000 bc the oslo fjord and the parts around there were under danish king
Btw it was mostly swedish vikings which reached constantinople not norwegian, the norwegian vikings came to iceland, greenland and vinland the only place they actually raided was scotland.
...and that gardists have alvays been from Norway...espesially in the Union with Sweeden when all of the guardists were norwegian...why? because the swedes reconed on their naval fleet and not infantrie.
Infantry has never been the most important part of denmark, sweden or norwegians army, because of the simple reason that they can get nowhere without ships.
The powero f the romans were the order, just that, neither superior weapons or strenght, they never fought in numeric disvintage contrary to the cistorical sources wich relates "heroic" roman battles
anyway, the viking vs. roman thing is stupid, vikings came after romans.
Let's talk about germans, they were much higher and fiercer than romans, their woods and harsh winters were hard to fight on, but they were used to the weather and landscape, so romans never were able to conquer germania.
Roman soldiers ha ve profissional training and regular armor, a lorica harmata or segmentata, with a scutum and gladium
there never been ANY and then i mean ANY artifactial funds of viking helmet with horns! you moron! thats just something the french and english told in theyr stories to make it even more scary! learn story before talking about something you don't know! (sorry about my english btw) XD
ok the flat out fact is that this, THE ROMANS AND, MOST LIKLEY EVEN GREEK OR PERSAIN WOULD HAVE DESTROYED ALL THE VIKING WITH THEIR EYES SHUT!!!. now only would the viking have been out-numbered, but also would have been out armed. also the roman fleets were better trained, the viking warroirs went through next to no training, where as many of the roman soldiers were trained from early age. romans lasted much longer than viking and conqured more. they win, go cry about it
romans were only trained after serving in military, nor from early age, but vikings were, but they would be pwned anyway, the same ways celtics were...
i know that historically they dident have much. a sword in them days was the equivelant price to a 2 story house these days. but these days steel is cheap. there is no reason not to make your own helmets and chainmail. it allows you to be more full on with your techniques and such as you dont have to hold back as much while training. makes it more fun i reckon.
no helmets? it takes what? a weekend to hammer out the plates and strapping for a 4 section helm. dont be so lazy ladds get some real equipment. chainmail should only take you a couple months also. failing that at least some lamela or however you spell it. and research your techniques from the manuscripts.
And vikings dident have hemets so much and chinmail I dont think we got any xD I hope you dont belive in the saying that vikings av horns on the helmet....... xD
but in old pictures vikings are always wearing helmets (without horns) i accept that vikings never weared as much armor as others, but still they did wear mails. but sometimes they fight without. some sagas say that enraged norseman takes off his mail to fight and die with honor
hey im related to the vikings so shut up u douc-#@!$%&. the vikings could kick a roman legions ass u know y cuz the romans were a bunch of pansies u piece of @!#$.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
LOl shut up you idiot...the romans were stronger than the viking's and one of the greatest forces of this world...all the viking did was raid..pillage and rape...the romans liberated alot of places...and conquered most of the world...what did the vikings do..? just raid the Uk and like two other countrys....
hah you dont know shit man, the vikings were quite peacefull also farmers etc. as for the romans they raided pillaged and raped aswell mabe more. and why is it that scandinavian vikings were so expensive as gladiators? the vikings were up to five times more expensive than romans. aswell as scottish higlanders.
Yeaaahh, vikings were peaceful farmers, thats why they needed the war fleet's and such, and i know the romans pillaged and raped, i wasnt denying it, and Romans were the most expensive, the vikings wore alot of hides and chain mail where as the romans used plate mail and such, vikings also didnt have hardly any siege weaponry while the romans invented ballista, siege towers, catapults.
the vikings was much bigger than the romans and greeks, if i recall right, and also the vikings who were warriors were trained from early age! they were also armed to the teeth and could easily kill some pathetic romans!*spit* the viking rage that came over them when they fought made them very scary and dangerous opponents!
probably, toigh professional roman training makes them a much more disciplined force, so they probably won't panic, also their equipmente is better, German and Nordic countries are poor in iron and steel...
they just took the name Vikings if they where on viking, when they where on raid ore when they conquerred other lands. When they where peacefull they where just mens of the north, danish, swedish, like that.
@sofus330 Perhaps scandinavians were expensive gladiators, but not the vikings. There were no vikings until 793, wich is almost three hundred years after the roman empire fell, and no gladiators possibly could exist anymore. Also, the word viking aims at those of the scandinavian people who did do raids and plunder, not the rest of them, so to say that the VIKINGS were peaceful is wrong.
@GustavJorgensen ive heard that viking refers to what your doing as well specifically raiding, ,to the point that danes would only have the figurehead of their sips shown when they were going 'a viking' otherwise theywere known simply as danes swedes or norse.
i can see how itd extend to explorers, bt the farmers too?
You cant be related to vikings...you can be related to someone who WAS a viking..doesnt mean your a viking...thats like saying im german that makes me a Nazi (wich im not)
the normans are ancestors of my countrymen norwegians. that is why they are named normans. according to snorre sturlason gange-rolv ocupied normandy at the time named valland
my experience of reenactment fighting with Regia Anglorum is that, if there are more than about five people on each side, a formation is essential.
The two major formations were the shield wall, and wedge (or boarsnout) as mjolner89 said, and a shieldwall takes a lot of killing. A straight charge is suicide but a properly done boars snout can punch through it - and, as was shown in the video, once you are behind the enemy's lines, you win, as the shield wall breaks up.
nice. two questions: 1) did vikings use aketon/gambeson or something like that? 2) didn't vikings use any "formation" or "scheme"? did they fight always so "freely"?
As to the gambeson, yea there are period finds in both sweeden and England sugesting that they did as well as illustrations/carvings from denmark. Concerning the fighting (I participatet in this one) You are right about the use of formations and far more organiced taktics. In the fighting in this clip however, we are traning for a much larger event (Moesgaard) and focusing on the chaotic part of the battle that will take place behind the lines due to runners and brakethroughs.
2) The Vikings didnt used any known form of formation, and fighted like this "freely" if thats the rigt word hehe.. Mostly of them were so high on drugs like Muchrooms (Fluesopp/Feng)..
That I dont think the formations in the fighting would have helped them.. It was youst a road to Valhalla..
no they did use formations, mostly the viking fighters that hade a shield whent first out to battle and created a "shieldwall" and that "shieldwall" should take the hits from arrows and throwspears, and there was another formation that they used sometimes that was called the "wedgeformation". And not all the vikings was high on Muchrooms often there was one kind of fighter ho took muchrooms and that were the "bersärkers",, and they mixed the muchrooms white the mead that they drank,
no idont play videogames...i read alot about the vikings and the mytologi and i have done that for many years, i can more about the vikings then my history teacher
Du må sitte deg ned å lese litt.. Vikinger som ruset seg på sopp er ingen myte.. Er funnet utallige beviser på att det stemmnte.. De blandet det ofte ut med mjød, og drakk det.. Og jeg vet hva jeg snakker om..
Javel, da kan du vel anbefale noen bøker eller linker til seriøse studier om dette temaet.
Det eneste jeg finner om vikinger på sopp er en teori fra 1700-tallet av en svensk prest og professor, basicly. Denne teorien har blitt forvandlet over tid til en sannhet.
jeg har lest mangen bøker om vikingtiden (snorreskongesagaer,egilskallagrimsonsaga njålsaga etc og d er ikke nevnt en gang at de bruker fleinsopp eller fluesopp. kan du fortelle meg hvor dette står for her er d tydelig vesentlig informasjon som jeg har gått glipp av. på forhånd takk.
Tror du vikelig at det står i gammle kongesagaer om vikingene brukte rusmidler.. Min bror er arkeolog og har sitt felt netopp under vikingeperioden, og det ER FUNNET mange TYDELIGE bevis på at dette stemmte. Og da snakker vi om håndfaste funn, som for. eks matrester etc, som er blitt analysert og konkludert med teorien. Bøker kan lese opp og ned i mente, men er ikke alltid man finner det man søker..
Kom igjen, du må gi oss noe vi kan sjekke ut. Hvem fant bevisene, hvor og når? Hvilke bevis snakker vi om? Jeg har lest sagaer, faktabøker og artikler. De seriøse tekstene nevner aldri vikinger på sopp, trolig fordi det ikke finnes noen bevis. Teorien fra 1700-tallet er forvandlet til en sannhet!
ja eg tror d står i gamle kongesagaer at de brukte rusmidler. det står at de drakk mye mjød og skålte i hytt og vær mens de sverget til gudene. då var de dritings. men fluesopp og fleinsopp glimrer med sitt fravær. og jeg har leitet vettet av meg for og finne dokumentasjon på bruk av fluesopp eller fleinsopp.
In large battles against the normands in Britain yes, in everyday hand to hand combat no. But then again you are from the United States so of course you know everything about vikings...
This was the original issue, real vikings against the reanactment knights of sodom, right ?
By the way, why do you even take time to write something if it isn't a personal offence(a real anglo-dane would probably try to offend me), I mean, it may be so that the normans were "fags" but for some reason it hasn't been well documented. Especially after the normans toke over England and rape-killed everyone. "No offence dude", "LOL"
No, the Anglo-Danes were not 'basically normans'. Danish Vikings came to England and settled sometime in the 8th or early 9th century, and hence became anglo-danes. And yes, people do get hurt. I personally have had 4 fingers broken, 2 cracked ribs, 2 shot knee caps, 2 fucked elbows and countless other things, and thats nothing compared to what some people get.
I know danish vikings came to england, they came to normandie as well, that is why normandie is called normandie(land of normans)."fingers broken, 2 cracked ribs, 2 shot knee caps, 2 fucked elbows and countless other things,", yeah right.
What I wouldn't give to have that many guys/gals on the field. Reminds me of the old "kill the guy with the ball" game, with everyone running all over. Are you all working towards eliminating one side or the other, first?
Yuh huh. 1) You had to be one rich motha fucka to use a sword. 2) If your Lord sent you to fight, he would arm you with a spear (or just tell you to use your Seax) and a shield.
Do you guys perform reenactments n stuff? I worked at Fort York in Toronto three summers ago and did reenactments as an 1815 British Soldier. I was part of the Fort York Drum unit as well as the Royal Artillery Detachments.
this is fuckinnnnnngggg GGGAAAYYYY!
jncallie10 11 months ago
@hrodvitnir9 . and how do you know? svejoner/varingar/norses/or vikingar. was werry popular as body guards between 650 to 1300 ac. vikings was dated before 650 but there is no real note on dat . but for the history so was there vikings during the romans age. BUT at the end. but we was popular at the crusade lands. Think on it. tall well builded man that had a chain mail and a 2 handed axe.an axe was more often used than a sword.rich peples used swords. shore you chud allso pick it from the field
matane993 1 year ago
This turns out as effectiveless training with no helmets. Because half of techique you cant use!
drakoncuka 2 years ago
Hmm strange you dont see denmark as vikings? Denmark had vikings 700-1050 is viking age in demark
JesterJ0 2 years ago
The organization, command and control were really impressive not to mention the grace and agility of the individual warriors...heh..heh...heh...heh...heh...what a disorganized mess!
PublicDisgrace2 2 years ago
Romans and Vikings ways of fighting were totally diffrent. Vikings were great warrirs trained in using sword from their childhood, no one could match them in fighting skills. Also due to harsh terms of their Homeland, they could easily deal with any weather and battlefield. In opposit Romans had soldiers perfectly trained to fight in formation and gaining advantage due to their morale.
(But if Vikings would fight Roman this would mean... total anihilation of Roman :] )
ShadowOfUndead 2 years ago
Are you sure the Vikings would annihilate the Romans? The Vikings fought Germanic groups who were similar to the Vikings, and beat them many times. The Romans fought a tribe from Denmark called the Cimbri in one battle, and totally slaughtered them.
wilb6657 2 years ago
No... by "Viking" I mean "Viking" not Germans. You see, Germanic tribes werent the same or even similiar to Vikings. Nordic Warriors were far superior than Denmarks. Hundreds years of slaying evry man in their way proved, that no one could match Vikings.
(Remember: Vikings were not some kind of german tribe!)
ShadowOfUndead 2 years ago
I understand what you are saying, but I still have to disagree. You see, the Vikings WERE GERMANIC TRIBES-"north Germanic", to be precise. Many of the Germanic, barbarian tribes had Scandinavian origins-the Goths and the Lombards are two clear examples. The only advantage the Vikings MIGHT have over the Romans would be technology, and again that's a big maybe.
wilb6657 2 years ago
OK, so lets begin with the lesson of history... Germanic tribes were: the Visigoths, the Ostrogoths, the Vandals, the Burgundians, the Lombards, and the Franks. (if you want to be more precise, Vandals were actualy two tribes that is Asding and Siling Vandals)
Perhaps what you were trying to say was, that Vikings belong to northern group of Germanic LANGUAGES? Thats big difrence! Keep that in mind and read more abaut someone history before arguing on this topic.
ShadowOfUndead 2 years ago
Hmm. Well, I still respect your arguments. But, the Vikings and the Germanic tribes were still very similar-both in terms of language AND certain customs. They all came from the same stock. I don't know if you know about this, but many Norse sagas actually recount the exploits of the Goths, such as their struggles against the Huns and Romans. And these sagas were written during the Viking Age.
wilb6657 2 years ago
Agree, Vikings and Germans had similiar languages and a few aspects of culture but were totally difrent when it come to war. Basically Germans wre living on fecund land, so they have evrtything they needed. In Vikings case their homeland were very rigor, so in order to survive they had to become the most powerfull warriors so no one could stop them when they plundered villages and cities all over europe.
ShadowOfUndead 2 years ago
Hmm...ok, you are right. That does explain the differences between German and Viking fighting mentality. Thanks for that.
wilb6657 2 years ago
You have to have in mind that the Constantinopelguard/-hird at the east roman emperor were exclusive Norwegian Vikings...Why:
The Emperor wanted the biggest, strongest and most fearful guardists/hirdman
This is altso the reason that Norway have the longest tradition for guardists/hirdman.
Xirque666 2 years ago
Just so you remember it norway have existe as a country shorter time than it were a part of the dansigh kingdom ;) But i dont want to start a fight so just forget about it again :)
JesterJ0 2 years ago
but then again that was because of the plague and the Kalmar union.
Xirque666 2 years ago
Yes but already around 1000 bc the oslo fjord and the parts around there were under danish king
Btw it was mostly swedish vikings which reached constantinople not norwegian, the norwegian vikings came to iceland, greenland and vinland the only place they actually raided was scotland.
JesterJ0 2 years ago
...and that gardists have alvays been from Norway...espesially in the Union with Sweeden when all of the guardists were norwegian...why? because the swedes reconed on their naval fleet and not infantrie.
Xirque666 2 years ago
Infantry has never been the most important part of denmark, sweden or norwegians army, because of the simple reason that they can get nowhere without ships.
JesterJ0 2 years ago
yeahthey were skandinavians like me
simon9999912 2 years ago
those danes wera outnomerd badly ecupt and disorinised
simon9999912 2 years ago
learn english
fokyeah99 2 years ago
The powero f the romans were the order, just that, neither superior weapons or strenght, they never fought in numeric disvintage contrary to the cistorical sources wich relates "heroic" roman battles
Jarnvarg 2 years ago
, but germanics use their own armor and weapons, so they were cleary out qeuipped and outtrained with the romans.
Xerdocreisson 3 years ago
the Romans latter trained the Germanic tribes and outfitted them too,thanks to the Huns.That's one of the reasons why King Alaric was so successful.
lobeking 3 years ago
anyway, the viking vs. roman thing is stupid, vikings came after romans.
Let's talk about germans, they were much higher and fiercer than romans, their woods and harsh winters were hard to fight on, but they were used to the weather and landscape, so romans never were able to conquer germania.
Roman soldiers ha ve profissional training and regular armor, a lorica harmata or segmentata, with a scutum and gladium
Xerdocreisson 3 years ago
is it me or did any1 else hear the word SPARTA at the beginning of this?
NyokoAyya 3 years ago 3
hahhah that was Luie XD, the guy smiling very big on the right flank whith long hair, hahaha, I didn´t know he was traning in germany.
SwedishWolf93 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the costumes of those idiots are wrong. vikings had cow horns on their helmets.
majorpainful 3 years ago
youre kidding right?
there never been ANY and then i mean ANY artifactial funds of viking helmet with horns! you moron! thats just something the french and english told in theyr stories to make it even more scary! learn story before talking about something you don't know! (sorry about my english btw) XD
Knifes6l 3 years ago
The english might be not so good, but the message is completely true. ;)
2ndCthulhu 3 years ago 2
someone smart please help me
hi anyone want to chat Zw
14954391 3 years ago
-_-
000majorwinters000 3 years ago
ok the flat out fact is that this, THE ROMANS AND, MOST LIKLEY EVEN GREEK OR PERSAIN WOULD HAVE DESTROYED ALL THE VIKING WITH THEIR EYES SHUT!!!. now only would the viking have been out-numbered, but also would have been out armed. also the roman fleets were better trained, the viking warroirs went through next to no training, where as many of the roman soldiers were trained from early age. romans lasted much longer than viking and conqured more. they win, go cry about it
BabyWithKnife 3 years ago
romans were only trained after serving in military, nor from early age, but vikings were, but they would be pwned anyway, the same ways celtics were...
Xerdocreisson 3 years ago
how the fuck does someone not lose an eye in this shit lol
corpsegrinder161 3 years ago
They did wear chainmail thats for sure! Otherwise they wouldn't had made amour piercing arrow heads!!
The 3 or 4 cornered tips.
Andreas0705 3 years ago
It is in swedish verklighetstroget..and that is not bad.
simonkarlsson52732 4 years ago
i know that historically they dident have much. a sword in them days was the equivelant price to a 2 story house these days. but these days steel is cheap. there is no reason not to make your own helmets and chainmail. it allows you to be more full on with your techniques and such as you dont have to hold back as much while training. makes it more fun i reckon.
FunkadAlex 4 years ago
no helmets? it takes what? a weekend to hammer out the plates and strapping for a 4 section helm. dont be so lazy ladds get some real equipment. chainmail should only take you a couple months also. failing that at least some lamela or however you spell it. and research your techniques from the manuscripts.
FunkadAlex 4 years ago
Vikings did not have to much chainmail and helmets of metal.
wespozo 4 years ago
And vikings dident have hemets so much and chinmail I dont think we got any xD I hope you dont belive in the saying that vikings av horns on the helmet....... xD
kyoshoro 3 years ago 2
but in old pictures vikings are always wearing helmets (without horns) i accept that vikings never weared as much armor as others, but still they did wear mails. but sometimes they fight without. some sagas say that enraged norseman takes off his mail to fight and die with honor
monalit666 3 years ago
er det i Haugesund? i Karmoy?
yenzhe1985 4 years ago
Well, I thinks its fantastic! Lots to look at regarding strategies, what works and what doesn't, etc. Thanks for posting it!
favoritepet10 4 years ago
It looks like a Monty Python Movie! What a bunch of Normand Animals! I want to see them facing a Roman Legion. Like Legio IV Macedonica.
Hannibalsousa 4 years ago
lol Hannibalsousa the viking were the best warriors of their time..
warspirit86 4 years ago
hey im related to the vikings so shut up u douc-#@!$%&. the vikings could kick a roman legions ass u know y cuz the romans were a bunch of pansies u piece of @!#$.
Vikingguy01 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
LOl shut up you idiot...the romans were stronger than the viking's and one of the greatest forces of this world...all the viking did was raid..pillage and rape...the romans liberated alot of places...and conquered most of the world...what did the vikings do..? just raid the Uk and like two other countrys....
Dirubbo001 3 years ago
hah you dont know shit man, the vikings were quite peacefull also farmers etc. as for the romans they raided pillaged and raped aswell mabe more. and why is it that scandinavian vikings were so expensive as gladiators? the vikings were up to five times more expensive than romans. aswell as scottish higlanders.
sofus330 3 years ago 12
Yeaaahh, vikings were peaceful farmers, thats why they needed the war fleet's and such, and i know the romans pillaged and raped, i wasnt denying it, and Romans were the most expensive, the vikings wore alot of hides and chain mail where as the romans used plate mail and such, vikings also didnt have hardly any siege weaponry while the romans invented ballista, siege towers, catapults.
Dirubbo001 3 years ago
the vikings was much bigger than the romans and greeks, if i recall right, and also the vikings who were warriors were trained from early age! they were also armed to the teeth and could easily kill some pathetic romans!*spit* the viking rage that came over them when they fought made them very scary and dangerous opponents!
Knifes6l 3 years ago
probably, toigh professional roman training makes them a much more disciplined force, so they probably won't panic, also their equipmente is better, German and Nordic countries are poor in iron and steel...
Xerdocreisson 3 years ago
FAIL
they just took the name Vikings if they where on viking, when they where on raid ore when they conquerred other lands. When they where peacefull they where just mens of the north, danish, swedish, like that.
AidanRaiknarok 1 year ago
@sofus330 Perhaps scandinavians were expensive gladiators, but not the vikings. There were no vikings until 793, wich is almost three hundred years after the roman empire fell, and no gladiators possibly could exist anymore. Also, the word viking aims at those of the scandinavian people who did do raids and plunder, not the rest of them, so to say that the VIKINGS were peaceful is wrong.
SimonDaNinja2 1 year ago
@SimonDaNinja2 No the word Viking is also used for scandinavian explorers and farmers living in the period.
GustavJorgensen 1 year ago
@GustavJorgensen ive heard that viking refers to what your doing as well specifically raiding, ,to the point that danes would only have the figurehead of their sips shown when they were going 'a viking' otherwise theywere known simply as danes swedes or norse.
i can see how itd extend to explorers, bt the farmers too?
elgostine 11 months ago
@sofus330 The Romans never had Scandinavian Vikings or Scottish Highlanders as gladiators.
hrodvitnir9 1 year ago
@sofus330 What video game have you been playing?... wrong time period asshole.
Pedro2008Anton 1 year ago
@sofus330 vikings were only peaceful when they were at home, even then they had the whole blood feud thing going on.
Rockmaster354 1 year ago
Dude they werent stronger... they were more rich and wealthier.
AimAnder 3 years ago
Acutally...sometimes vikings were stronger then vikings and sometimes not....
qwerty999110 3 years ago
Your name sounds familiar.... let's settle this with cake.
000majorwinters000 3 years ago
You cant be related to vikings...you can be related to someone who WAS a viking..doesnt mean your a viking...thats like saying im german that makes me a Nazi (wich im not)
qwerty999110 3 years ago 2
Get help dude :D
Aljazhhh 2 years ago
Amazing - did'nt know Vikings had video camera's back then!
jossgower 4 years ago 2
ya,and cars too.lol
BurtonKelly12 4 years ago
Ha ha. Check out the guy grinning at the camera at 00:11. Very authentic.
triggerchelsea1 4 years ago
the normans came from norway gange-rolv was from norway
pomfeleon 4 years ago 3
the normans were from france hence normandy beach
mononokifool 4 years ago
the normans are ancestors of my countrymen norwegians. that is why they are named normans. according to snorre sturlason gange-rolv ocupied normandy at the time named valland
pomfeleon 4 years ago
fare enough
mononokifool 4 years ago
my experience of reenactment fighting with Regia Anglorum is that, if there are more than about five people on each side, a formation is essential.
The two major formations were the shield wall, and wedge (or boarsnout) as mjolner89 said, and a shieldwall takes a lot of killing. A straight charge is suicide but a properly done boars snout can punch through it - and, as was shown in the video, once you are behind the enemy's lines, you win, as the shield wall breaks up.
Dbjmmjo 4 years ago 2
I don't notice any horned helms...which is good since they have never unearthed a norse helm with horns on it.
SkinSinFilms 4 years ago 3
SWEDISH PENIS POWER!!!
nimblened 4 years ago
I'm the one with the training outfit and the lance!
retteretox 4 years ago
nice. two questions: 1) did vikings use aketon/gambeson or something like that? 2) didn't vikings use any "formation" or "scheme"? did they fight always so "freely"?
jeeezuz 4 years ago
i'm from norway...
and vikings used one trick, thats called
moochroms, beer and attack
Fredricoillos 4 years ago
As to the gambeson, yea there are period finds in both sweeden and England sugesting that they did as well as illustrations/carvings from denmark. Concerning the fighting (I participatet in this one) You are right about the use of formations and far more organiced taktics. In the fighting in this clip however, we are traning for a much larger event (Moesgaard) and focusing on the chaotic part of the battle that will take place behind the lines due to runners and brakethroughs.
MadsASK 4 years ago
1) Yes they used some sort of lether amor
2) The Vikings didnt used any known form of formation, and fighted like this "freely" if thats the rigt word hehe.. Mostly of them were so high on drugs like Muchrooms (Fluesopp/Feng)..
That I dont think the formations in the fighting would have helped them.. It was youst a road to Valhalla..
bananhore 4 years ago
no they did use formations, mostly the viking fighters that hade a shield whent first out to battle and created a "shieldwall" and that "shieldwall" should take the hits from arrows and throwspears, and there was another formation that they used sometimes that was called the "wedgeformation". And not all the vikings was high on Muchrooms often there was one kind of fighter ho took muchrooms and that were the "bersärkers",, and they mixed the muchrooms white the mead that they drank,
mjolner89 4 years ago
a berserk is a man dressed in a bear serk.
pomfeleon 4 years ago
u must have seen it on a videogame
klogens 4 years ago
no i dont play videogames. i read alot about vikings and the mytologi, i can more about vikings then my history teacher.....
mjolner89 4 years ago
no idont play videogames...i read alot about the vikings and the mytologi and i have done that for many years, i can more about the vikings then my history teacher
mjolner89 4 years ago
Vikings on mushrooms is a myth! There is no mentioning of this in any of the norse sagas/litterature.
This myth has roots in the Swedish professor, Samual Ödman, who suggested it in 1784.
PrenDeBergen 4 years ago
Du må sitte deg ned å lese litt.. Vikinger som ruset seg på sopp er ingen myte.. Er funnet utallige beviser på att det stemmnte.. De blandet det ofte ut med mjød, og drakk det.. Og jeg vet hva jeg snakker om..
bananhore 4 years ago
Javel, da kan du vel anbefale noen bøker eller linker til seriøse studier om dette temaet.
Det eneste jeg finner om vikinger på sopp er en teori fra 1700-tallet av en svensk prest og professor, basicly. Denne teorien har blitt forvandlet over tid til en sannhet.
PrenDeBergen 4 years ago 2
jeg har lest mangen bøker om vikingtiden (snorreskongesagaer,egilskallagrimsonsaga njålsaga etc og d er ikke nevnt en gang at de bruker fleinsopp eller fluesopp. kan du fortelle meg hvor dette står for her er d tydelig vesentlig informasjon som jeg har gått glipp av. på forhånd takk.
pomfeleon 4 years ago 2
Tror du vikelig at det står i gammle kongesagaer om vikingene brukte rusmidler.. Min bror er arkeolog og har sitt felt netopp under vikingeperioden, og det ER FUNNET mange TYDELIGE bevis på at dette stemmte. Og da snakker vi om håndfaste funn, som for. eks matrester etc, som er blitt analysert og konkludert med teorien. Bøker kan lese opp og ned i mente, men er ikke alltid man finner det man søker..
bananhore 4 years ago
Kom igjen, du må gi oss noe vi kan sjekke ut. Hvem fant bevisene, hvor og når? Hvilke bevis snakker vi om? Jeg har lest sagaer, faktabøker og artikler. De seriøse tekstene nevner aldri vikinger på sopp, trolig fordi det ikke finnes noen bevis. Teorien fra 1700-tallet er forvandlet til en sannhet!
Spør din bror.
PrenDeBergen 4 years ago
ja eg tror d står i gamle kongesagaer at de brukte rusmidler. det står at de drakk mye mjød og skålte i hytt og vær mens de sverget til gudene. då var de dritings. men fluesopp og fleinsopp glimrer med sitt fravær. og jeg har leitet vettet av meg for og finne dokumentasjon på bruk av fluesopp eller fleinsopp.
pomfeleon 4 years ago
the only problem is the vikings used shield walls and javelin throwers
rogueshdw 4 years ago
In large battles against the normands in Britain yes, in everyday hand to hand combat no. But then again you are from the United States so of course you know everything about vikings...
atepo07 4 years ago
VIKING FORCE!!!
keir121 4 years ago
reenactment rules, the viking lifestyle ruled!!!
calhoun0026 4 years ago
hey, all you members of the army of jomsborg, any of you members of the UK jomsbergolag?
faithbloodfire 4 years ago
ICELANDIC VIKING POWER!
Herulfr 4 years ago
SWEDESH VIKING POWER
Saphiregun 4 years ago
NORWEGIAN VIKING POWER >:O
jakerodely 4 years ago 16
Some of you are missing the point...apart from having an interest in history it's just good fun; both the taking part and the social life!
scattynim 4 years ago
no sheald wall?? *tut tut*
mckinnon1 4 years ago
I agree, wheres the shield wall??????
aesir666 4 years ago
i wounder who they would do agaist my ansetors the normans
bigbangerbison 5 years ago
Not very well, the normans were real vikings.
seigrblod 5 years ago
Lol, no offence dude, but the Normans were fags (even though they were vikings...) Nothing personal, but i play an Anglo-Dane...
TasteMyBlade 4 years ago
well the anglo-danes were pretty much like normans, that is way more heterosexual than the people poking each other with sticks in this video.
seigrblod 4 years ago
I mean. does anyone even get slightly hurt in you little dressing up game ?
Do you acctually take turns poking each other or how does it work ?
seigrblod 4 years ago
This was the original issue, real vikings against the reanactment knights of sodom, right ?
By the way, why do you even take time to write something if it isn't a personal offence(a real anglo-dane would probably try to offend me), I mean, it may be so that the normans were "fags" but for some reason it hasn't been well documented. Especially after the normans toke over England and rape-killed everyone. "No offence dude", "LOL"
seigrblod 4 years ago
No, the Anglo-Danes were not 'basically normans'. Danish Vikings came to England and settled sometime in the 8th or early 9th century, and hence became anglo-danes. And yes, people do get hurt. I personally have had 4 fingers broken, 2 cracked ribs, 2 shot knee caps, 2 fucked elbows and countless other things, and thats nothing compared to what some people get.
TasteMyBlade 4 years ago
I know danish vikings came to england, they came to normandie as well, that is why normandie is called normandie(land of normans)."fingers broken, 2 cracked ribs, 2 shot knee caps, 2 fucked elbows and countless other things,", yeah right.
seigrblod 4 years ago
Haha. Do you do re-enactment? If you do, then your a fucking pussy going about it.
TasteMyBlade 4 years ago
Well good, because I sure don't !
seigrblod 4 years ago
And, so your REALLY one to criticize. Get a fuckin clue.
TasteMyBlade 4 years ago
Perhaps you should read our little discussion from the beginning, you would then realize who has a "fuckin" clue and who doesn't.
seigrblod 4 years ago
Nice video.
I'm following the elag's training week ends in Italy to be a future member of Jomsborgh Brotherhood.
I hope see you soon in a Viking Battle my be in Italy or in North Europe...
ultimaterra 5 years ago
i can see lewy and jerry lol
jackjudge15 5 years ago
Awful dangerous, that, running with a spear pointed in front of you ... how often do you all train?
RolfLarsson 5 years ago
we normally train 1-2 days a week to ensure a level of safety. in training or battles the common insuries are blue spots.
lonegunmen 5 years ago
how can i get in on training??
imdeletethis 5 years ago
What I wouldn't give to have that many guys/gals on the field. Reminds me of the old "kill the guy with the ball" game, with everyone running all over. Are you all working towards eliminating one side or the other, first?
skallagrimm 5 years ago
Yes we are working to that, and about the amount of people I think this is not even close to half of our people( in the army of jomsborg)
and thanks for the uploading timm
Jorm828 5 years ago
So many swords and so few spears! Good vid though.
fsbritney 5 years ago
yea spears were mor epopular than swords for a damn good reason..
thorsmitersaw 5 years ago
Yuh huh. 1) You had to be one rich motha fucka to use a sword. 2) If your Lord sent you to fight, he would arm you with a spear (or just tell you to use your Seax) and a shield.
TasteMyBlade 4 years ago
A sword was worth about 18 dairy cattle at the time. Not sure what kind of quality this price would get you though.
PrenDeBergen 4 years ago
Do you guys perform reenactments n stuff? I worked at Fort York in Toronto three summers ago and did reenactments as an 1815 British Soldier. I was part of the Fort York Drum unit as well as the Royal Artillery Detachments.
boondigo 5 years ago
yep, thats called reenactment. but generally its fighting for fun an to find out whos the better fighter. we do theese shows for museums.
we are hundreds of fighter, spreaded all over the world, from texas to australia and from italy to norway.
we are training hard not to hurt our "enemy". but its not the same sport level as you do. i guess you have to train much harder than us.
lonegunmen 5 years ago
roughly where at in Texas?
RavensGuard 5 years ago
wako texas, see
http://www.vikinginvasion.org
greetings
lonegunmen 5 years ago
Matthew and Dean here,From uk elag, enjoyed video guys.We want more
drenga01 5 years ago
hi guys! more vids are on the way...
lonegunmen 5 years ago