Were the Vikings overrated warriors?

[Sparked_26]

Were the Vikings overrated?

They really get a rep for being quite fun, lol.

Let's be honest - in a time long before there was any way of detecting of them - they rocked up out of the sea- sucker punched almost the whole world for a few hundred years (were win some lose some in proper battles) - turned Christian and that was that. Now their decendents furnish all our homes.

Invading back then must have been light work really. There were no Vikings as far as everyone was concerned and then they turned up one day hungry and broke and stole everyone's stuff and smashed a lot of unsuspecting heads in.

Cnut was a good King. Although it's hard to disregard that he was basically called King C.unt

[GrandpaBernard]

Notice the guys with limited scope in what they conquered are the most highly rated. This being the Vikings, Spartans, and Samurai

Despite being more power the Mongols, Alexander’s Hoplites, Rome’s Legionnaires, and the British Empire’s Royal Marines & Sailors get no love

[Sparked_26]

Notice the guys with limited scope in what they conquered are the most highly rated. This being the Vikings, Spartans, and Samurai

Despite being more power the Mongols, Alexander’s Hoplites, Rome’s Legionnaires, and the British Empire’s Royal Marines & Sailors get no love

I suppose the Spartans would have wrecked people back then but they were extremely f.ucking boring. You've got to bring some sort flair to the game.

[GrandpaBernard]

I suppose the Spartans would have wrecked people back then but they were extremely f.ucking boring. You've got to bring some sort flair to the game.

Would rank Spartans higher had they whoop some azz beyond Greece

everyone mentioned in group 2 proved their military well beyond their homeland

[4truth]

MFers gave immigrants a bad name.

[4truth]

I suppose the Spartans would have wrecked people back then but they were extremely f.ucking boring. You've got to bring some sort flair to the game.

Flair?

Those Spartans were flamers. Weird as fck.

[Sparked_26]

Would rank Spartans higher had they whoop some azz beyond Greece

everyone mentioned in group 2 proved their military well beyond their homeland

It is difficult because in that time the motivations are different. Vikings were good at sea but their motivations for their raids were probably that they were broke and their land was bit troublesome for farming.

To be fair even Spartans lost as many battles as won them i'd imagine.

There probably isn't any real difference between any tribes in the dark ages. Although Christianity made the Anglo Saxons fairly meek when basically they were just the Vikings in the centuries preceeding. Whenever they were able to coordinate themselves for any length of time they dealt with the Vikings.

I wonder what history would look like if the Romano British were so incapable of fending off Angles, Saxons and Jutes. They went from Roman Baths and gyms, Villas, heated floors and running water to s.hitting in a ditch for the next several hundred years. Mad really.

Back then whoever was more desperate seemed to win.

[Sparked_26]

Flair?

Those Spartans were flamers. Weird as fck.

Yeah but not in a fun way

[Sparked_26]

There were never very many Vikings to begin with. Not like the Mongols, who incorporated the millions of Chinese who they conquered, or the millions within the Roman Empire.
And outside of the invasion of England with the Great Pagan Army, they were mainly raiders.

Apples and oranges comparing Vikings and Mongols, Romans.

True that's my point. They were raiders in the main usually out for themselves. I'm talking more as actual warriors. In the main They turned up out of the blue - caused havoc and f.ucked off.