My opinion is that the Imperials and Stormcloaks shouldn't be fighting each other and should instead prepare for war against the Aldmeri Dominion.

@Xerrand

3 жыл бұрын

Yep. Not to mention the fact that an independent Skyrim would just be immediately invaded by the Aldmeri Dominion. A united Empire is the only thing that makes sense.

@trexenigma1043

3 жыл бұрын

Men of culture, sirs. @@Xerrand but no, look at a map of Tamriel, the Dominion will have an extremely hard time invading Skyrim all the way from the south.

@skylertremblay3395

3 жыл бұрын

@@Xerrand except a united empire didnt win the first time

@Xerrand

3 жыл бұрын

@@skylertremblay3395 If Skyrim leaves then there's zero hope of ever winning the next one. Independent Skyrim will only ever benefit the Thalmor

@skylertremblay3395

3 жыл бұрын

@@Xerrand then theirs only one option CANCEL THE ALTMER theres no way they can come back from that

"Let's see them march onto the water!" "Let's see them sail their ships over land!" And then they both realized it was easier to beat up the anglo-saxons.

@Thulgore

4 жыл бұрын

LOL.........I can't capitalize that enough. LOL

@ronjayrose9706

3 жыл бұрын

Where is this reference from???

@lostguy7404

3 жыл бұрын

Funny and humorous yes. But technically viking ships could traverse land.

@cheemscat4062

3 жыл бұрын

Not really

@lindaakesson8403

3 жыл бұрын

@@cheemscat4062 they could

Romans were professionals, but also trained to fight in groups.Totally different tactics one on one. I think the Viking has a bit of an advantage in man to man.

When he said “You know what a Viking is, But he doesn’t” I had a Thor poster behind me so he pointed at Thor and said he doesn’t know what a Viking is. Lmao 😂

@BulletDubz

3 жыл бұрын

Lmao, however as Viking means Raid would Thor actually do such a thing, I mean if we are talking about the Thor from the movies then I believe he’s rich enough and doesn’t need to... but I see your point 😂👍🏼

@nextlifeonearth

3 жыл бұрын

Like Marvel Thor or actual norse thunder god Thor? The former has no clue about what a viking is.

@elite_rock_god2292

2 жыл бұрын

Was it Marvel thor or Legit Tor? 😂

"Viking" is a job. Norseman is the culture

@metatronyt

6 жыл бұрын

I'm aware of that, infact I name him "the Viking" as if I said "the raider" not "the Scandinavian".

@CyprinusCarpioDiem

6 жыл бұрын

Metatron oh I know lol that comment was not directed towards you haha

@RussMassey

5 жыл бұрын

@Johan Ofinlohigh but not all Norse were Vikings, therefore many of you who claim them as ancestors very likely have none in your family trees and are just the descendants of pig farmers who never left their home village, much less went out on successful raids.

@derbar1401

5 жыл бұрын

"Norsemen" was just a title. Germanic is the culture (/Genetic)

@LarS1963

5 жыл бұрын

@Johan Ofinlohigh Ah, no. Only by people with no knowldge about the late Iron Age in Scandinavia.

Let’s escalate it to a Whole Roman Legion vs a Viking Raiding Party.

@universalis8208

4 жыл бұрын

The discipline of the Roman Legion would decimate the Viking's party, assuming factors such as terrain were even.

@theZXDgames

4 жыл бұрын

Legion - five to six thousand legionaries Party - a couple to several dozen Vikings Viking parties were tens to hundreds of times smaller than legions, most having one to three ships, with a hundred men at most, the Great Heathen Army had no more than a few thousand men at most.

@MaxHohenstaufen

3 жыл бұрын

The legions were professional armies well trained and equiped. They beat most of the barbarians of their time, including some distant relatives of the vikings who would fight similarly: fiercely, but mostly disorganized and very irregular regarding equipament and skill/experience. Also, when we think about the time difference between both we tend to think the norsemen would have the upper hand in terms of technology, specially metalurgy. Where it is true that middle ages steel was harder and overall better than the iron used in roman times, the vikings ere actually very poor and primitive compared to their contemporaries, so it's unlikely that they would benefit at all from any advancements over the legionaires. Even if we consider equal numbers, the odds would favor the legionaires.

@mortenwammen4159

3 жыл бұрын

Let's bring logistics and cost into it. Legionaries are expensive and quite fast on land Vikings are cheap and even faster on water, you could get a lot of them for the same price, and they are raised in a fanatic warrior culture, they see warfare and dying thereof as their highest goal, you do not think the ones that go for warfare have an advanced training system? It is a thousand years later.

@ericdickison7995

3 жыл бұрын

A Roman Century would be more balanced, no Viking force could ever defeat a full Roman legion.

2:57 "Wow a barbarian lets kill him!" This needs merchandise.

@stephanreichelt2700

3 жыл бұрын

In traditional or formation style warfare the Ronans because if their discipline and advanced technology were hard to beat.I liken the Vikinga more to Guerilla style; raids and quick strikes etc......

@someguyfromarcticfreezer6854

3 жыл бұрын

@@stephanreichelt2700 Vikings love traps and they observe enemies weaknesses rather than attack it directly. Testudo would be a easy to defeat for Vikings.

@Crimea_River

3 жыл бұрын

It's what you do while playing Civilization.

@vondantalingting

2 жыл бұрын

@@someguyfromarcticfreezer6854 what is this? A siege? You do know that testudo is meant to protect your head as people throw shit at you right? Its kind of shitty in the field as the sides are bloody vulnerables.

@someguyfromarcticfreezer6854

2 жыл бұрын

@@vondantalingting Vikings love the dirty fight, they will never face them directly or in the field, they would use the forrest where roman formations are irrelevant.

"We're all nerds; shut up." You didn't need to call me out like that...

@hamishanderson6738

2 жыл бұрын

Own it, namesake🙂

When you said ''some sort of padding'' I imagined Shadiversity shouting ''BUT WHAT ABOUT GAMBESON!?''

@Castor586

6 жыл бұрын

Planken Haha I thought the same thing!

@Decimus-Magnus

5 жыл бұрын

Oh my fucking god that guy and GAMBESON

@weekendyaytime5481

5 жыл бұрын

A gladius would stab through gambeson well enough

@erikjarandson5458

4 жыл бұрын

@@weekendyaytime5481 But barely leave a bruise through mail and gambeson. Unfortunately for the legionary, viking raiders weren't the happy amateurs Metatron imagines. Only the best warriors with the best equipment got a spot on a viking ship; those ships were the cutting edge of military technology at the time, and that was reflected in the price tag. There was no such thing as a viking raider without armor. As for the legionary, with only thin padding under his armor, he would be in for a lot of pain, before merciful death.

@shadowdeslaar

4 жыл бұрын

Erik Jarandson legionaries in general are more trained and disciplined in Formation warfare Vikings never fought Formations So they would have a trouble some time fighting Romans on flat terrain If the Vikings got Romans in a Teutoberg like situation The yes But I’n general Vikings really aren’t amazing like Romans In my opinion at least Also Formations were mainly a Pike Or Phanalx Type With Roman sword infantry being an exception I’m very sure The people Vikings fought Were not soldiers Nor in formation

I see Viking. I like. You don't like? Watch for the longships in the spring!

@seeker093

6 жыл бұрын

Lolll

@malafakka8530

5 жыл бұрын

Best comment here.

@chancethewrapper3557

4 жыл бұрын

it was two springs ago were waiting come to our walls!

@jamesshore3191

3 жыл бұрын

Lmao, bruh the glory of the empire will sink those tubs with a fleet of quinqeremes

I think the best match up would be a housecarl, a Viking who was a professional soldier. They had good training, armor and weapons. Also many Vikings, even normal freemen, were skilled in wrestling as it was a common sport. However Viking wrestling, Glima, was brutal and useful in battle

The Byzantines (East Romans) Had a Varangian Guard members included Harold Hadrada

@bart3030

2 жыл бұрын

@@JDubzDrumz yeah, and also, his point about not being that well equipee doesn't apply to the varangians i think, because the emperor equips them i believe

@Ryokan76

2 жыл бұрын

Harald, thank you.

"viking is hugely misunderstood" you earned my sub with this.

I recommend reading the Snorre saga for those who want to learn more about the viking era. It's an interesting time filled with conflicts both home and abroad.

In a one on one duel, I give the edge to the Viking. Roman soldiers were trained to fight in formation as part of a unit within an army. They had less experience of individual encounters than Norsemen who frequently raided settlements. Someone already mentioned something similar in the comments but I think it's a case of: small scale engagement (e.g. a raid) -> Viking large scale engagement (e.g. a battle or siege) -> Roman

I don't understand why this guy doesn't have more subs! Best channel on YT IMO.

Sooo.... Skallagrim VS Metatron?

@zakback9937

6 жыл бұрын

but the Centurion would have ordered a punishment on Metatron for having long hair.

@iraqigamer2407

6 жыл бұрын

Vault Dweller Do want to be ended rightly?

@iraqigamer2407

6 жыл бұрын

Vault Dweller Nothing will stop the almighty pommel.

@iraqigamer2407

6 жыл бұрын

Vault Dweller Oh, c'mon. How is his personality bad?

@VitorCadari

4 жыл бұрын

Totally

Lindybeige armed with a KATANA-FIRING SPANDAU versus Legionary

@Watermeloon-lm1qt

6 жыл бұрын

with fiery arrow attachments

@baronvonbeans9887

6 жыл бұрын

Maybe a Cromwell tank would be a better match

@MedievalGenie

6 жыл бұрын

Oh no, KZread memes.

@NOTJustANomad

6 жыл бұрын

Haha best KZread Joke ever.

@TheBaconWizard

6 жыл бұрын

What if the Legionary is armed with sword-pommels and a slingshot-channel means of firing them?

I am happy my favorite KZreadr talks about my ancestors 😊

Ave! Nice video, and "sax" is usually how I've heard the long-knife called... Hope you're doing well during this crazy plague, Metatron!

There were professional soldiers among the vikings - carls and huscarls. Viking equipment varied a lot, but the professional warriors of the vikings commonly had swords and often wore maille. Their primary weapon would be a spear or axe, possibly a 2-handed axe. Viking warriors traditionally trained at throwing spears. A viking wouldn't even be considered a carl-warrior until he was able to perform certain combat feats. Vikings were noted among their enemies for being well-organized. They were especially proficient at forming a shield wall and advancing in formation. Their stature would be physiologically significantly larger and stronger than a "Roman" on average, and they'd most likely be much more practiced at fighting one-on-one. Roman soldiers were well equipped, but the common soldier was a soldier of an empire, not a warrior who went on yearly raids in unfamiliar territory. Most Roman soldiers experienced a lot of down time. More important to Roman soldiers than individual fighting skill was the discipline to fight as a unit and the stamina required to be a legionaire. If you were to propose this fight, the smaller the scale of the battle, the more it would favor the viking. The larger the scale of the battle, the more it would favor the Roman. The Roman only prevails individually against a viking if you present a scenario in which the viking must be a poor warrior of his people and the Roman is especially skilled for a legionaire. Otherwise, the viking wins 9/10 times. 10/10 if we identify the viking as a huscarl. But if we're going to make it a huscarl on the viking side, the Roman soldier should be a Scholae Palatinae, in which case if the fight is on foot your guess would be as good as mine, but 10/10 if the Roman is mounted, regardless if the viking is mounted.

@Riceball01

6 жыл бұрын

I'd say that how much down time the average Roman legionary had would depend on what time period and where he was stationed. During the late Republican period he could have spent almost his entire career on campaign. If he wasn't out on campaign on the frontier fighting Gauls or Germanic tribes he was fighting his fellow Romans in one civil war after another. In the span of 27 years you had a war against the Gauls, a war vs. the Parthians, and (depending on how you count them) 3 - 4 civil wars. I would say that all of that kept most legionaries quite busy and in between all of those wars they would have continued to train, as opposed to the Vikings who (mostly) went back to their "day jobs". Also, during those periods in between wars in addition to training the legionaries would have also been manning various forts and outposts all along the frontiers where they would have most likely skirmished with hostile tribes quite regularly. It really wasn't until fairly late in Rome's history that they stopped constantly campaigning and expanding Rome's borders and spent most of their time doing nothing but manning frontier forts. A legionary from that time would almost certainly be different than one from the height of the Empire but even then, I wouldn't think that they would be all that soft. I'd argue that it wasn't until near the end of at least the Western Empire did the legions start getting soft and even that's probably debatable.

@jackforester8456

6 жыл бұрын

ok but i think you, with all due respect, are missing a condition, initial proportion. So let' s say, viking huscarl vs veteran caesarian legionary. huscarl makes yearly raids, roman makes yearly campaign. in the spare time huscarl rows on the boat, the legionary carrys 30 kg for 32 miles a day and dig his trench every day. Tall man vs shorter man BUT long-range smaller shield vs short sword bigger shield tactics. For me the fight is higly interesting and not such certain as you depicted it

@TheGreatgan

6 жыл бұрын

Size is indeed a big factor.. i agree.. on a duel, common roman soldier is at disadvantages. But on a batalion scale or bigger, roman would had advantages..

@DragonHustler

6 жыл бұрын

uh i was reading this comment and i thoght it was almost over and then i taped show more

@user-lu6hp8nx1j

6 жыл бұрын

Weren't huscarl......Anglo-Saxon?

"Seax" is pronounced "Sax" :) I give the edge to the viking due to the versatility of the center grip shield. Romans were outfitted mainly for fighting in tightly packed mobs, not duels. A Viking, I feel, would have better geared for 1v1 combat.

@edi9892

6 жыл бұрын

Dakota Warren Wasn't that also how the saxons got their name?

@dakotawarren4924

6 жыл бұрын

edi I believe so!

@Riceball01

6 жыл бұрын

You forget that the Romans were used to fighting people like Celts and various Germanic tribes who probably would have fought in a similar manner to a Viking. It's also worth mentioning that I believe that Vikings/Norsemen didn't just fight one on one in a duel but in a shield wall like most other cultures of their time and earlier.

@ianlangsev5828

6 жыл бұрын

Dakota Warren I completely agree. And I have actually experience in training for Viking Martial Arts and your statement is entirely true.

@ArezDjinn

6 жыл бұрын

Riceball01 Holmgång was a common thing.

I would like to share this bit of history my teacher in her infinite knowledge decided to offer our class. We were on our high school philosophy class a few weeks ago when suddenly the topic of the fall of Rome came into discussion (we were talking about Saint Agustin and somehow came to that topic) The teacher was saying that the barbarians came and destroyed the empire when suddenly someone asked if they were the vikings, the discussion went on a little bit more when the teacher asked “Who were the vikings” I answered that they were a culture that lived on Scandinavia on the north, when suddenly my teacher decided to bestow upon is this magnificent piece of historical knowledge “(To the class) Yes ok so they were a people that lived on the north, what kind of weather is around on the north? Cold right? And what type of clothing did the Romans wear? Togas right (insert brief simplified explanation of what togas are that actually describes the short tunic thingy whose name I don’t know) So the Romans weren’t able to conquer the vikings because of how they were dressed, because of the winter, just as it happened to the French when they invaded Russia during world war 2”

@kmeanxneth

3 жыл бұрын

and Russia when they invaded Finland (Russia use winter but Finland was born in the winter)

@tyrannicfool2503

3 жыл бұрын

@@kmeanxneth yes, but the problem was that she put the Romana and vikings on the same time frame, and Napoleon on ww2

@kmeanxneth

3 жыл бұрын

@@tyrannicfool2503 yes

@ericolsen5592

2 жыл бұрын

Bruh moment

That was a fun presentation, and I love your enthusiasm for your "home team" in this kind of theoretical thought experiment. Seeing it from the other side, my thought is "History already addresses this issue, and the situation was perhaps unfair for various reasons (including diet & religion), but it was an outcome that happened consistently." When the empire met people like this, they learned to stop trying to conquer and start trying to trade with or hire them instead. In such cases, the empire cast down their own bridge, or built a marker wall, and went home with their pride. Sometimes bravado must bow to wisdom, and when you find yourself facing a Bear-cloak, it's a good time to exercise that judgement.

Jean-Claude Van Damme vs Steven Seagal

@seeker093

6 жыл бұрын

Lol good one. Two ancient warriors indeed. Jean Claude kicks Steven in the stomach, Steven grabs Jean Claude’s leg & snaps it with two fingers, they both go down.

@NichtNameee

5 жыл бұрын

Steven Seagal is a fraud

@ghosturiel

5 жыл бұрын

The muscles from Brussels vs the Michigan martial artist....

@OneFromNothing

5 жыл бұрын

@@NichtNameee Steven Seagal isnt a fraud, his martial art is a fraud.

@OneFromNothing

5 жыл бұрын

@@NichtNameee I'd rather say that he is a grand master of bullshit.

I dont know where I heard it, but wasn't there supposed to be some Romans quote to the effect of: In a fight 10 Romans vs 10 Germans, the Germans will always win. 100 Romans vs 100 Germans could go either way. But 1000 Romans vs 1000 Germans the Romans will always win. The idea being that the wild nature, greater height, round shields, spears, axes, and longer swords of the Germanic warriors were more suited skirmishes. While the discipline, short Spanish style swords, and large Celtic style scutums, of the Romans soldiers was more suited to battles. Every red blooded male in an iron age or other tribal society practices with typical weapons and sparing with blunts well past the point of diminishing returns, when there is no TV or internet what else are you going to do? The advantage of the legionaries training comes with keeping orderly formations and manuevers in large scale battles, that is what wins period wars.

@l0lhei541

6 жыл бұрын

This is what had me scratch my head a bit extra on this one as well. Vikings WERE skilled fighters. Most make them out to be pure, innocent traders and farmers that hopped into boats with a spear, axe and shield on their side, all giddy to trade a little. They DID do this, yes, but they have proven quite a few times, that they were great fighters and even strategists. Romans were among the finest soldiers the world has likely ever seen, but that was during their own time, against their enemies at that time as well. I can't help but feel the Roman would be at a disadvantage instead, seeing how he is not prepared for an opponent that fights the way a viking would. How could he be? Because of "Roman Training"? Because he is simply Roman? It had me at a bias, despite Metatron making plenty of good points. But Vikings weren't all pesky and without skill in battle. They knew how to put up a fight. Knew how to perform a damn good siege as well.

@MrMonkeybat

6 жыл бұрын

The Legionaries would spend a lot of time doing things other than training also, building roads, bridges, fortifications, and other public works.

@chocoman45

6 жыл бұрын

"Fight like a viking would", "Were skilled fighters", "even strategists" Every country, every tribe that has ever existed had great fighters. Vikings are not special in that regard, the only ones that would have a real advantage are full time warriors like the Huscarls. Otherwise its just good old Sven taking a break from farmwork with a couple days worth of actual training with his buddies at the Mead hall. They having good strategist is expected, i mean they are sentient aren't they? Viking were skilled fighters but so was everyone else at the time, but as armies they have one hell of a long losing list. And what's with the mentality that the Dark ages vikings are either "ooga booga greatest warriors evah" or "smartest around"? All in all a typical legionary would better than a typical viking warrior, given that he is actually trained and seasoned.

@aidansumner8364

6 жыл бұрын

The norsemen did not fight in a wild nature though. They were actually pretty damn organised and this knowledge was passed on from their ancestors, who learnt this from the Romans.

@MrMonkeybat

6 жыл бұрын

Your typical freeman has about half a year between plantings and harvests when there is little farm work to be done. What does a typical man do with such free time when there is no TV or internet? Practice fighting of course, while a soldier on a salary may be given constant busy work like a slave to get as much useful labour out of him as you can. There is only so much training you can to till further training has little benefit. The Roman Legions did not win wars because they were super awesome duellists, they won wars because their logistics was well organised and their formations were well drilled.

You use "The Roman adapts with his mistakes" as argument to give the Roman a victory, but any fighter wouldn't keep doing what's not working.

@Tallus_ap_Mordren

3 жыл бұрын

Years long stalemate in the Great War says otherwise...

@Callsign_Prophet

2 жыл бұрын

He has room to make an error was his argument due to protection. Also this isn't a movie the fight wouldn't be 3 minutes but 3 seconds

@vondantalingting

2 жыл бұрын

You do know that's the way the Romans fought against the Punic war right? Or how much more, the Byzantines against the Normans.

@revandrag4875

2 жыл бұрын

They did adapts after their many defeated, like when their got beated by Hannibal, they learned their mistake, analyzed Hannibal's tactic and even reversed it to beated Hannibal and his army in Hispania (modern day Spain) and in Zama. Their also fast to used their brain, I mean Caesar after learned that his wall almost get breach by the Gauls he risked himself to sneak and attack them from behind. And I need to added just like Viking, the Roman will never give up, both have really strong warrior ethic.

As a swedish archaeologist that have specialized in Viking age I approve this! That said I have some points, we have only found one! Viking helmet that's the gjermundbu helmet in Norway. So helmets were probably rare. I would say that it's only the really rich that can afford one. The same with armour. Mail are a bit more common but still rare. The most common archaeological finds of protections are shields. Usually we only find weapons.

The viking in the background is resting after he killed the roman

@mybloodismadeofteaitreally4080

6 жыл бұрын

Good thing it's a digital painting as it's fiction

@Beardshire

6 жыл бұрын

I know I'm a little biased here, but I don't see the legionnaire winning, they're training is group oriented. to often i've read when the lines of the phalanx breaks into skirmishes it was over, and they had to have very well disciplined men to not break and run in times it didn't look good. Vikings broke off into skirmishes from shield walls often. I think for 1 on 1 the viking is more well rounded and trained.

@jackforester8456

6 жыл бұрын

+Beardshire actually romans did not form phalanx in the classical period and there was space between each soldier, so their training was aggressive- oriented and focused to deal even with multiple opponents. Group formations actually were just a surplus, to grant coesion while advancing all togheter. They would pack very rarely, in testudo and while reacting to cavalry for example

@Beardshire

6 жыл бұрын

jack forester they fought and trained as a group is what I mean, the phalanx was just a group tactic, one of many of the unit based soldier. The phalanx was just an example to explain their discipline and dependence on each other in groups.

@jackforester8456

6 жыл бұрын

+Beardshire ok totally aggreed, but i would precise that every man in battle is depending on the other. Romans trained mostly 1v1 and 1v2 when sparring so, i should precise, their formation training was a 'bonus', an adding, rather than a weakness

Hi Metatron! Could you do a video on medieval currency and how much most people made and the cost of common items? Thanks :)

@metatronyt

6 жыл бұрын

I'm working on that actually ;)

@fragtagninja1633

6 жыл бұрын

Nathan Bryant, that is a great idea!

@brianknezevich9894

6 жыл бұрын

Metatron I would advise looking at Spufford's "Money and it's use in Medieval Europe" for the topic of Medieval economy, a favorite source of mine a lifetime ago(ok, 16 years or so, methinks).. If you have any excellent sources (particularly with a beautiful cover like this) I would love to know..

@joshuatraffanstedt2695

6 жыл бұрын

Metatron did you ever finish?

I think individually the Viking stands a good chance, the Roman legionary although not completely undertrained in individual combat, is designed to be as a component of a larger group, that’s were most of his training went, learning drill and how to function as one cohesive unit, I think a Viking could bring down a single legionary as they have more experience in duels and one on one fighting, not only that but the Vikings kit allows him to be more malleable whereas the Romans shield isn’t really designed for one on one fighting, but like you said the legionaries armour is his advantage and therefore is more forgiving for him if he makes a mistake, so I think an individual fight between a Viking and a Roman legionary could go either way, but if you had an entire legionary century vs a raiding party of Vikings, then my money would be on the legionaries every time

@creed22solar123

2 жыл бұрын

no I disagree, as pointed out in the video, Romans were extremely adaptable versatile professional soldiers with extremely good equipment so some raider would not win, if we are talking same level of combat experience. Also what do you mean shield not good for one on one? That shield is good for any situation, because it's huge and covers a large area, and you can't expect the viking to dance around him to get past the shield, the roman can block from any direction. And not to mention the armor. I know you like vikings, or the idea of vikings, who doesn't, especially the way they're portrayed in the Northman, but they're still not professionals like Romans were.

@dmyt58

Жыл бұрын

@@creed22solar123 if you would consider the early germanics and vikings to be similar you could say they were very effective. Ceasar his germanic horsemen helped win him a few battles both on foot and horse against roman soldiers. A farmer would lose, a well trained viking would win.

@leonardomarquesbellini

Жыл бұрын

@@creed22solar123 you shouldn't overplay adaptability, in the context of the Roman Legions their ARMED FORCES were adaptable and capable of reorganizing to deal with an issue, the individual soldier toddling through the mud isn't particularly adaptable, as it would be his death and defeat that made the Roman war machine start turning its gears, as was seen during the Punic, Germanic and Dacian Wars, where the Romans were repeatedly matched or even defeated several times before being able to develop an effective counter measure to the problem at hand.

The Viking of course would stab the roman with his horned helmet!

@yesyesyesyes1600

2 жыл бұрын

eh ... no. There were no horned helmets 😂🤣

@johncamden7193

2 жыл бұрын

@@yesyesyesyes1600 I am praying that his comment was sarcasm….

A "Viking" is specifically a warrior on a raid. Not all Norse men, Danes, and Swedes participated in being "Vikings".

@mivapusa

6 жыл бұрын

It's actually anyone leaving by sea, stemming from the term "Vik", which is basically a natural harbor or the coastline. So even traders, by definition, would belong in the category

@ArezDjinn

6 жыл бұрын

Fun fact; Danish, Swedes and Norwegians were all referred to as 'Danes' at the time.

@cathsaigh2197

6 жыл бұрын

I thought that in England they were referred to often as Danes because in England they were mostly from Denmark.

@thatdutchguy2882

6 жыл бұрын

Merl Ball So were Norwegians, coastal German-Fryian's and Dutch-Frysian's. Viking isn't a race it's a profession of sorts not exclusively Swedish or Däne.

@JamesWhite-hg8yg

6 жыл бұрын

Thank the norse gods someone knows that to go a Viking is a VERB....and I am not buying that a Legionar would out fight a Norse Viking.

I'd like to see a total revisitation of this covering what exactly each person has for equipment.

...... this young man always presents very well his videos ........ 👍🏾 , my respects to you Metatron ......

The Scandinavians and Danes in particular were actually pretty adaptable as well and were generally good at picking their battles well. Turns out when you’re skilled sailors on the North Sea you get really good at sensing where the wind is blowing and changing course as necessary. ;)

Forever and ever: *ROMA INVICTA!*

@gart5379

5 жыл бұрын

If you think about it, the entire time that the Roman republic and the Roman Empire existed, the city of Rome was never conquered by another army. However it was sacked by the barbarians, but not conquered by an organized army. Thus making Roma Invicta a true statement

@sethmadlad5573

5 жыл бұрын

@@gart5379 yes and by Germanic peoples too

@keyboardwarrior2223

5 жыл бұрын

ASSASINO

@pedrosabino8751

5 жыл бұрын

@@gart5379 Do guerrillas always win? The French of Napoleon lost in Spain because of guerrillas.

@gart5379

5 жыл бұрын

@@pedrosabino8751 hmm. The U.S gave up and lost Vietnam to guerilla fighters...

Weren't Arminius' Germanic tribes that fought the Romans at Teutoborg forest basically proto-vikings?

@budibausto

5 жыл бұрын

They were, some of them at least. Even the Cimbri came originally from Jutland

@MaxHohenstaufen

3 жыл бұрын

People often bring up that battle as proof the germans were superior to the romans, but they never mention that Arminius was a roman citizen who got to know the ways of the romans, which allowed him to deceive and ambush the legions.

@BarneyTheDinosaur99

2 жыл бұрын

@@MaxHohenstaufen agree, and some years later the roman has its revenge by burning many germanic tribes past the rhine and even capture arminius’ wife

@yesyesyesyes1600

2 жыл бұрын

That's an interesting thought because no history teacher I had ever called the VIKINGS actually GERMANS. The thing here is - would you call an Italian living from 600 a.d. to 1000 a.d. a Roman?

@Ryokan76

2 жыл бұрын

Even saying proto-vikings are putting it very mildly. Sure, they were of the same stock, worshipped similar gods and spoke a similar language, but is that enough? The defining characteristic of the Vikings is that they are seafaring. Without that, they're not Vikings. The barbarians of Teutoburg and that area of Germania had likely never seen a sea faring vessel larger than a small pram.

Oioi metatron... First Things first thank you for all your work , lovin your vids m8. 1 point with theese duel videos I find the imagination of a full scale battle far more interesting than a duel. Maybe you could consider a vid on that . so a full battle viking vs samurai and so on you'll get the point. Thank you

Another great video by metatron.

Honestly, I feel it's unfair to be comparing a norse raider, who is essentially a seabandit, to a soldier. It'd be like comparing a Roman street thug to a Huskarl or a Varangian Guard. Infact, if you want a fair comparison, I'd actually compare the more professional, militaristic norse warriors (And all European at that time honestly) such as Huskarls, Varangian Guards or warriors designated for war, not just plundering from a few monks. Think of it like this, a norse Huskarl against a Roman Centurion? The Norseman could hook the Romans shield with his Dane axe, brush it to the side and step in for a spikey thrust to the exposed romans face. A gladius is designed to stab into mostly unarmoured opponents in the belly, but it's not going to get through maille armour, Gambeson or possibly even steel lamellar (likely these being layered.) This is the kind of warrior I mean, more professional type: www.archipictor.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/huskarl.jpg cdna.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/001/375/498/large/edoardo-salvej-campagnolo-huscarl.jpg?1445341111 d1936nln04xw7t.cloudfront.net/images/groups/1/4/3656/91261dac3a.jpg Also, the norse were actually pretty good at adapting to their enemies too. Also, lets not take one of the things that the Norsemen were best at out of the equation now, c'mon... The norse were practically the English Bowman of the day. Overall, I think the chances are pretty equal between a Roman and a Norseman, but I'd put my bets on the Norseman for his larger variety, especially for smaller scale wars and 1v1 fights (as the Norse train all their lives fighting with friends and brothers.)

@TheOldBlackShuckyDog

4 жыл бұрын

Aidan Sumner is there a difference between Housecarl and Huskarl or is it just spelling?

@dtaliesin6638

4 жыл бұрын

@@TheOldBlackShuckyDog housecarl is a modern english translation. Huskarl in danish, huscarl in old english, etc. Refers to a household warrior.

@TheOldBlackShuckyDog

4 жыл бұрын

@@dtaliesin6638 Ah, cheers mate.

@GeoGyf

4 жыл бұрын

Pretty difficult to compare a Varangian Guard against a Roman Soldier, since they are in fact allies in the same army lol. Normans, Vikings, Saxons, English all served in the Varangian Guard of the Eastern Roman Empire. Also the Eastern Armies (Eastern Romans, Persians, Mongols etc) used the composite short bow which was more powerful than the standard bow used in the West. It wasnt used in the west because the wet climate dissolved the glue of the composite bows. Lastly at this point in time the gladius wasnt used. The Eastern Romans used the kontarion (spear, 2 varieties 2,4 m & 5 m lengths), the paramerion (curved bladed sword), the spathion (straight, double-edged sword, an evolution of the Roman Spatha), a Makhaira (smaller bladed sword), or a Tzikourion (infantry axe, axe with a small point like a pick on the other side). Sometimes the Menavlion by specialized troops (thicker, heavier spear) to break heavy cavalry charges. The navy infantry also used the Lonkhodrepanon (bill-like polearm). The shield that was used was usually the kite shield, strapped in the arms while the soldiers wielded the spears 2-handed. Spear was the preferred weapon of nearly everyone. The cavalry used the Matzouka/Vardoukion (mace), the Paramerion, the Spathion, the Kontarion, the Composite Bow. The Kataprhaktoi (very heavy cavalry) used a combination of these weapons (even the bow from the units in the center formation) plus they used light throwing maces to create openings when charging against shields etc. Also darts, heavy darts, javelins & the solenarion (bow with a tube (solenas) that shoots darts or pellets, used against horses/charging people)

@alexanderflack566

3 жыл бұрын

@@GeoGyf The I would say that them being allies in the same army doesn't make it any more difficult, and might even make it easier. You may be able to find, for example, writings regarding their opinions of each other. You are, however, incorrect about the composite bow versus longbow issue. Some composite bows, by their design, were superior in performance, but others were very similar to yew longbows (or even, in some cases, slightly worse) both in energy stored per unit draw weight and draw length and in efficiency. There were also bows (such as the Turkish bow) which were better if using the same arrows, but tended to be used with lighter arrows, giving them better arrow speed but worse energy (due to diminishing returns; for example, using an arrow 25% lighter to get 10% more velocity reduces your kinetic energy by 10%) and inferior penetration against armor due to this and the fact that they are more likely to break on impact. Making a composite bow perform significantly better had its own drawbacks, such as making it more expensive and time-consuming to produce than even another composite bow (which already were a greater time investment than a self bow), and making it more fragile and maintenance-intensive. There are certain design features to look for in order to distinguish between low-performance and high-performance reflex bows, such as aggressively forward-angled siyahs and an extreme forward curvature when unstrung, and the shape of the draw force curve can give some clues about how much energy it stores (although some designs, such as with Turkish bows, will have unusually good performance through efficiency rather than energy storage, so this doesn't give the whole story).

Im not sure I share your view on this. In Scandinavia you trained to be a fighter even as a common farmer because you had to fight for your local Jarl or king, and fights among local Jarls were common. The ordinary farmer was allowed to bear arms and they HAD to use them by law. Some historians say training started as early as 3 years old even for a farmers son, with the sword and more importantly with the spears. Naturally as you say only the rich had real swords but the seax or an axe could be used when the spear was broken or lost. Wrestling was a very important sport that you started to practise young which further brings skills for duel type combat. Fighting was an integrated part of the culture, not only for the ones going on a viking. Furthermore the type of Shield the viking used as you say was good and it was more adapted for fast hand to hand combat like in a duel and could be used as an effective weapon for striking aswell. While I have no doubt that a Roman legionary army would absolutely destroy a Norseman army Im not so sure the common legionary by default would have the upper hand in a duel especially not when most of his battle experience would be from doing battle in formation.

@oneproudbrowncoat

3 жыл бұрын

Battles could be won or lost, but Rome succeeded long-term through developing practices that the Norse didn't. Road-building, literate officers, and record keeping (logistics) was much of what made Rome's conquest machine.

@guseks8413

3 жыл бұрын

@@oneproudbrowncoat I fully agree, sir.

@oneproudbrowncoat

3 жыл бұрын

@@guseks8413 thank you, it's a point I find often overlooked.

@MaxHohenstaufen

3 жыл бұрын

Makes sense. Of course, a scenario like that never happened and we are limited to conjectures and, tbh, it could have gone either way. Before firearms were invented, there's just no way to say with 100% accuracy that a fight with swords and spears would HAVE to end with this or that victorious. But, as I said, you make good arguments.

Your vídeos never disappoint, Metatron! As a possibility I think that the Legionaries had a big disadvantage that Vikings would normally exploit in combat, and that's to hook the frontal foot with the Axe, of course you didn't talked about the axe in this vídeo but as I investigated it was a very effective technique used with a two handed Dane Axe or a normal Viking axe, and if we take in account that Roman Legionaries rarely had armor on their feet it could easily turn the dial for the Viking in certain situations, especially if both are using their shields.

"Piratical" -- I LOVE it! I'm gonna start using that until it's common in English. LOVE it! Not being ironic! And I LOVE that you mention how important Vikings were as navigators.

@Ryokan76

2 жыл бұрын

Piratical is a common word you will find in any decent dictionary.

I'm glad that viking seamen are now being considered.

Do a video on a fight between a Drunken Roman citizen versus a Drunken Japanese farmer. They can only use the bottle of their most common drink container as a weapon

Fantastic channel! Thanks a lot

There's no doubt in my mind that vikings vs legionary would be a fight for the ages thanks for the vid my man your a legend 🙌👌

Now i'm curious what Skallagrims opinion is about this topic

@Plankensen

6 жыл бұрын

before or after he goes on a tangent about tangents?

@JP-rf8rr

6 жыл бұрын

I wanna know too

@dakilla123

6 жыл бұрын

marius schoenmaker i have a feeling skall will make a video on this

@DragonHustler

6 жыл бұрын

he'd say we dont know enogh about either so who knows he said that about weaburi vs knight.

@gullintanni

5 жыл бұрын

@@jkosch Vikings came from a varrior culture where they were taught martial arts from a very young age. They would have trained for at least 10 years before going on their first raids. Romans did not learn martial arts before they were drafted to the legions. If they did, they were usually highborne folks that became officers. Vikings felled forrests, worked hard on their farms, hunted, practiced martial arts and rowed their own ships. I think they were far stronger and fitter than most of us can imagine. Have you ever met a farmer that competes in rowing? That farmer would break any of us in 2, including a legionaire.

I've been watching quite a few of these kinds of videos lately. Lots of love to the content creators! But does the comment section always have to devolve into a nationalist pissing contest?

This is a situation where a viking and a roman soldier would be magically and unexpectedly put together to fight each other. Because if the hypothesis was about a situation where these two being potential enemies, then the roman army would adapt (as they always did) and equip their soldiers to have armor that can piece through mail armor.

Actually the Vikings did meet up with the roman legionaries. It was during the Byzantine era. What happened was that, instead of fighting, the Vikings hired on to fight for the Emperor alongside the legionaries. From what I've heard, the Vikings were considered an elite troop. This would mean to me that, when properly equipped, the two groups were considered equally matched.

I think it depends on which epoch the legionnaire comes from. Also what type of legionnaire. It also depends on what type of "Viking" the legionnaire meets. If he meets a poor robber or a member of the military upper class who where also proffessional skilled and trained warriors. I think it is difficult to say who stays at the end of the duel, as there can be so many factors in combat that can determine victory and defeat, but one thing is certain: in an open battle a formed Roman legion is almost near invincible.

"I know I know, you know, right... but he doesn't" Niente dopo questa devo iscrivermi

I'd love to see you do a video on the Roman Empire vs. the Han Dynasty in terms of Military prowess. I've seen good arguments on both sides but I think you could put it to rest.

I think the fight would be more even, raider vikings were also good att adapting to their opponents and many of them were very skilled in using their gear. You also have to account for that there were band's of "Viking Mercenaries", one such band were even maid knights. So maybe, just maybe, the Legionary and the Viking would be more evenly matched. ☺

Legionary.

"Nothing makes me disseminate faster than a Roman soldier stabbing me" ;D

Hey man where did you get that awesome viking pic? I would appreciate if you can send me a link thanks 😊

Metatron, would you slconsider making a top 10 about the 10 most misunderstood aspects of historical warriors? Example, not all Norse being Vikings, etc. I would love to learn more, and I think it would serve as a great video.

Correct me if I'm wrong, didn't the Gaelic speaking people hold roman soldiers and their tactics in very high reguard and try to emulate them in many ways? I mean the vikings formed a testudo in France... And many Vikings would trade and raid in the same voyage abroad and many had very quality equipment for their time period. I wouldn't write the northman off so easily, in the sagas they tend to show a tactical prowess when fighting for foreign lords that the locals usually did not match and I think it is because of their understanding of roman military strategy and their worldliness compared to other societies of their time. Pretty much my opinion is that the Roman Legionary would be using tactics long studied and analyzed by the vikings forefathers putting him at a serious disadvantage

What about navies comparison ? Were Greeks / Vikings / Roman 's military ships designed for sea battle or just for transport ?

@LaserSeQ

6 жыл бұрын

Viking ships where built for sailing, be it stormy seas or shallow rivers, they where not built for Naval warfare as such. Greek had heavier transport ships for troops, and lighter triremes for ramming., i would assume the romans had similar ships

@ArezDjinn

6 жыл бұрын

A carving from a stone in Skåne, (Tulltorpsstenen) shows a viking ship. With a back and front ram. In the battle of Svolder a special made ship, with an 'iron beard' was used i.e a ram. They also boarded ships on sea and fought on the decks. Read the battle of Svolder and Olaf Tryggvason. They tied some ships together in that battle for better defense capabilities. And to make the 'ground' more stable.

@Xirque666

6 жыл бұрын

Thing is Gustavo, the vikings would have won this bu using the elements against the romans, as theis ships would be faster, shallower and over all better in the ocean. remember, while the roman ships might have been bigger, they would not crawl up a river, and they would break in open sea as they would be to large and rigide

@Xirque666

6 жыл бұрын

your mentions of the seefaring of roman ships follows routes that are close to land, witch was the common rule, the norsemen sailed across the the Atlantic and west, without a coastal guideline. also, it is true that the Missconseptios word longboat were more versatile than the gallei, but it was still a specialised ship. Tha Lasgboat as you called it is called a Drakkar, a Dragonship, a higli manuvreable warvessal, both fast and manuvreable, but it was flecible as well in the ocean, so it bent instead of breaking, ot did not stich deep into the water either, and were build in a way (thats still in use in scandinavia today) that gave more lift in the water as well as stability (stephulls). this made it possible to both reach Vinland, Iceland, Greeenland, the British isles, France, whats now Italy, North Africa and Egypt, through the Mediterranian sea, and all the way to the Black sea through rivers through Gardariket (Norse for Russia) the peoples that the bysanians calles Rus, were in fact Scandinavians. Im sorry for the digression, thing is, this was a specialised warship, and were not the ship used for traiding, the trais ships, were of a type called Knarr, a form of ship that still are made today. In daylight the gallei would anahilate the Drakkar, if it could geti t in range of the balista, thats why I said to lure them out into the open ocean, where its size nd stiffness would break it.

@damianmares5338

6 жыл бұрын

Gustavo Larancia don't get me wrong......but I'm pretty sure that after roughly 100 AD romans never had much of a war fleet, because there was no need for it, the Mediterranean Sea was basicly a roman lake and there was no other maritime power neighbouring them.....

Hey Metatron, you should do a video about what if 2 or more legendary empires teamed up with each other, like the Romans and Mongols for example🙂👍

I wasn't thinking in terms of a "one-on-one" encounter, but more on terms of a formation of legiones versus an equal number or so of Vikings. That would have been something to see and study. From a safe distance. From inside a Warrior IFV. Or a Dardo :P

just watched skallagrims video about for honor and how inaccurate it was. would like to see a video about if the armor of a Viking could hold up against the bow and arrows of Japanese samurai to finally disprove/prove if what game theorist had a point or not. personally I would not know. good video Metatron keep up the good work.

@lucanic4328

6 жыл бұрын

Bryan Regalado Well, is quite easy to answer; viking at best worn rivited bloomery iron mail armor over a gambeson. Mail is not the best type of armor against arrows, and piercing attacks too. The Japanese used high energy/ high draw weight bow specialized in armor piercing, with heavy and long arrows fitted with hardened steel arrow heads designed to pierce armor, they could even just slip through the rings and tear apart the gambeson. It's highly probable that Japanese bow will pierce the mail and achieve a dead shot. Here is an article on the Japanese bow; there is also a section dedicated to armor vs bow: gunbai-militaryhistory.blogspot.it/2017/07/yumi-japanese-bow.html?m=1

@ianlangsev5828

6 жыл бұрын

Bryan Regalado I believe that it could hold up. I could be wrong. Also keep this in mind... the Long Bows that Vikings used were equally and sometimes even more powerful (draw weight) than the Samurai bows. So to be fair... if Samurai arrows could penetrate through something like riveted chainmail... than so could a Viking's arrows to an Samurai's armor.... this could be a really cool video topic though.

@michaelmcparland3053

6 жыл бұрын

Bryan Regalado I believe the vikings themselves came across this problem when fighting other people, so they made arrows with skinnier arrows heads, if the Japanese arrows are similar to these arrows then I suppose yes it could, but this is just a calculated guess and should not be taken as fact until actually testing. For now I'm just gonna say that it's likely but since I have never seen a longbow shot at a target wit 800ad or 1000ad armor on. just after doing some research and I have seen images of very skinny looking arrows head which I believe could penetrate. But I believe more research is still needed because they had a large variety of arrow heads and I don't know what purpose they all served or what situation they would be used in, which were preferred or more handier and so on.

@ianlangsev5828

6 жыл бұрын

Luca Nic I think that gambeson and chainmail can still hold up to a Samurai's bow. Sometimes not though. It's all technical I understand.... It's also important to point out that Vikings almost always used a shield (if they weren't using a two handed weapon). So a nice shield -which covers the entire torso-could soften a blow of an arrow too. Lastly, Viking long bows have an equal draw weight and sometimes higher draw weight than that of a Samurai's and I think it's fair to say that they're pretty much still equal with the whole bow and armpit piercing comparison. I'd maybe even give a slight edge to the Vikings due to the use of a shield.

@Knoloaify

6 жыл бұрын

Im pretty sure we have no data on the draw weight of 9th century danish longbows. I don't think we can assume that they were as good as, better or worse than japanese longbows. Overall I don't think viking armor would be able to stop their arrows, unless we're talking about something like a wealthy lord or huscarl. And even then the arrow would most likely still pierce it, just not inflicting a fatal wound.

The Vikings also used great axes...one blow from could crush bones regardless of armor and there’s distance....the Roman would have to try to get close to deliver a good blow

This is truly going to be a fairly difficult one to analyze but which of the two, in your opinion, would win: ~75,000 Army of Northern Virginia during the Chancellorsville Campaign (including Longstreet's Corps). VS. 75,000 Armee du Nord during the Battle of Waterloo.

The casual roman legionary would wear mail and a bronze helmet with a gladius and scutum but the norse bodi would have mail a iron helmet and a round shield with a spear so i feel it would come way closer than what metatron said

Not all vikings

@nattygsbord

6 жыл бұрын

You cannot judge all vikings for the actions of a few!

@fabianknab2604

6 жыл бұрын

This has nothing to do with Odin!

@krixxset2214

6 жыл бұрын

#notall

Honestly? It depends on the Era of the legionary. Later ones would lose, but the "classical" troops are too well drilled and disciplined for the Viking.

@l0lhei541

6 жыл бұрын

Drilling and discipline will not always save you. They would be up against a foe fighting unalike they have ever seen before (Probably) and that might just be enough for them to fall. I love Metatron's content, but on this one, I feel he holds too high of a regard to the Romans, like many, many people do. They were among the worlds finest armies, yes, but far too many over exaggerate them. Vikings WERE good fighters. Some, even saw fighting and battle as a way of religion. To die in battle, means to come to Valhalla, where you would drink, boast of your glorious fights and then go out and fight infinitely. It was a religion to some vikings. They were known to be good strategists as well as having their shield and weapon style that the Romans likely have not seen before, nor knows how to fight against. To me, it would be a very tight fight. Close for either one, but in the end, I give it to the viking, due to his unpredictability.

@jackforester8456

6 жыл бұрын

+L0LHei i think more probably a viking has never seen something even close to a classical legionary .-. While on the other hand romans fought for centuries against nordic tribes with a cult for war

@chocoman45

6 жыл бұрын

Vikings are good warriors, but are barely trained nor disciplined. Just because they view death in the battlefield as an honor doesn't mean they are eager to embrace it. They are mostly raiders and pillagers, not hardcore "to the death" warriors.

@TorianTammas

6 жыл бұрын

LoLHei - Romans were professional soldiers, with a superior training, superior armor and well fed. They were used to kill everything they faced. The Vikings were more or less hobby fighters which no standardized training and lacked about everything the Romans excelled in.

@thewisp7447

5 жыл бұрын

The Vikings had far superior arms and armor. People forgot that the Dacians handed the Romans ass the first time due to their armor and weapons (e.g falx)

One of the most common translated definitions of the word vikingr (Viking) is; to go on voyage by sea. I’m glad that you pointed out that the two main groups called viking were traders and raiders.

Duel is won by viking hands down. Because dueling was a central part of the Old Norse legal system. The legionary is made for formation fighting. And the Romans did not duel, at all. The mail hauberk is useless in a duel because most attacks are directed at the hands and lower arms and face. And in a duel a viking would use an axe or a sword.

Semenship

@tufftraveller4784

6 жыл бұрын

🙄

@umbrellastation25

6 жыл бұрын

It has to be a weaboo right

@trip2439

6 жыл бұрын

ᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚᅚ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ........I admit, I did look down here specifically to see if someone was gonna comment about this. And you did not disappoint lol

Metatron, im sure you have some Roman ancestry, haha you very interested in Latin/Roman culture. Quoque amo cultura Romana! Im sure many geeks and uncultured people would say that the viking wins, because they are the hero in tv shows.

What about the axe? Is much better against armour and hooking advantage?(With shield ofcourse)

Poul Anderson wrote a historical fantasy series titled "The King of Ys". In the first novel, a Roman centurion had to fight a duel with a Celtic chieftain. The centurion nearly lost. The author made the point that Roman gear and training was specialized for organized group fighting, not single combat. But the habitual training makes a big difference. Bear in mind that as a rich guy, the Celt had armor and good weapons, and confidence.

The Norseman would win. He's used to fighting one on one and doesn't have to rely on his buddies as much as the Roman. He probably bigger, stronger and more courageous than the Roman as well so more than likely the Roman would just run away. LOL And don't forget he has Odin and the other Gods and Goddesses on his side. :)

@ericolsen5592

2 жыл бұрын

Based

@ericolsen5592

2 жыл бұрын

In a 1v1 the Viking would most definitely win, especially since they had a high emphasis on single combat. And the Viking's warrior culture and beliefs were nothing to mess around with. But in a large scale open-field battle, the Vikings would be facing EXTREME numerical superiority. Plus ballistas, catapults, war elephants, pilums, it would ultimately overpower the Norsemen. They wouldn't surrender, but Valhalla would recieve some fine guests. Now that's what would happen in an open field. In a forest or city, I'd give the Norsemen the upper hand. In a forest, they'd be harder to spot than the Romans with their shiny armor. And with the way vikings used archers as marksmen, they could do some serious damage to the Romans. Any formations started would be small, and Norsemen definitely have advantages when fighting in smaller numbers. In cities and buildings, it would come down to chaotic house-to-house fighting which vikings were used to because of their raids. Not only that, but I predict that the nature of that kinda fight would come down to lots of 1v1 encounters, which we both know gives the Norsemen another advantage. The biggest issue they face is the Roman's numbers, discipline, strategy and technology. Vikings on the other hand were "ballsier" on average due to their culture, usually stronger, and had decent enough strategy and technology and I bet they could face the Romans in multiple situations. But a large open-field battle wouldn't go well for the Norsemen, that's for sure.

@hildolfrdraugadrottin7279

2 жыл бұрын

@@ericolsen5592 Agreed!

reminds me of stormcloak vs imperial

Hey Metatron, Who would win between a knight and a Spartan? The main attribute of the Spartan Hoplite I would say is his shield, and I’m not sure how a knight would be able to contend with it. Obviously guard breaking with a blunt force weapon seems like the only option as I doubt a longsword would be able to penetrate it.

Metatron:their artistry Recalls the stone with a carving the roof of a building saying "this is really high"

I love how you forgot to mention a few key factors. Firstly, physicality. The average 8th century Scandinavian was nearly a foot taller than the average legionary. Then you're assuming that the Viking was a noon, based on his equipment and tactics. Any Viking who'd been on a few raids would have invested in a proper hauberk. And they knew how to disable shields, it was part of their shelling tradition, odds are the Viking would try to imbed his spear into the Romans scutum then switch to his seax, which wasn't much smaller than a Gladius. Just a few things you missed.

@emintey

4 жыл бұрын

" The average 8th century Scandinavian was nearly a foot taller than the average legionary." Oh? where did you get that number from? I find that to be VERY hard to believe. A present day Dane is about 5'11, a present day Italian is about 5'9 1/2 to 5"10 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_human_height_by_country People in general would have been shorter then but I see no reason why the differential would be greater now than it was then especially by such a large number. Further, it seems to me that the diet of a Roman would probably have been better and more consistent in childhood than a Viking, and further still it's possible that while being shorter a Roman would have been more powerfully built by musculature.

@ericolsen5592

2 жыл бұрын

Amen dude

@johnirby8847

2 жыл бұрын

@@emintey There are numerous accounts by both Roman and Arab historians about the size of Scandinavian people in both time periods. Nearly everyone was in agreement that they were larger than most Roman and Arab people.

Roman Soldiers trained themselves carrying full armor and weapons with the triple of the weight and becaming quick and reactive with them. After it they passed to real equipment to became efficient machines of death. A roman soldier was used to march 60 km a day with full equipment on his shoulders and after it build the Castrum camp. Roman soldiers subdue the vast majority of ancient world conquering the most different civilizations for centuries. A single roman soldier, like a veteran of Caesar legions, would take a viking and make a quite nice carpet with his skin.

@herrakaarme

6 жыл бұрын

No, in this video we are talking about a Viking who apparently raided places all by himself. He was a one man army. So, he would have a decent chance against the professional Roman soldier.

@svarogbg

6 жыл бұрын

Roman soldiers were pussies!

@saguntum-iberian-greekkons7014

5 жыл бұрын

Don't talk, you were defeated by the Franks, Imperial Rome could have crush you like an insect, vikings were aiming innocent civilians and monks, then to quickly run to their drakkar to not face the enemy garrison, such pussy norsemen

@anormaldudewhowasattackedb9864

5 жыл бұрын

@@saguntum-iberian-greekkons7014 i mean i wouldn't call the guys who conquered england, sack paris, discovered america, and whose descendants will conquer england again pussy but eh each to their own oh and one more point the reason that the Vikings Targeted monastery is because picture this the monastery are a pretty much a piggy bank guarded by a bunch of monks that can't fight to save their own lives they're easy target if the romans have the choice to raided monastery they would've done so no questions ask

@alexanderbarkman7832

5 жыл бұрын

They never manage to conquer the Germanic, but they tried. This is about a duel not a battle.

I'd like to see equally skilled fighters on each side. A Norseman who has been on many raids, an experienced legionnaire who has either been on a long campaign or several. A Norseman in full mail armor with padding with a bow, spear, shield, Axe, Seax. A fully kitted legionnaire. If we take away ranged attack methods and its down to axe and shield vs. Gladius and shield, in my humble opinion the Norseman has the advantage. Both are reasonably quick but with his shield I believe the Norseman is more mobile and it's said their shields were meant to catch axes and swords to control and move their opponent. I see a few traded blows blows until the Norseman gets a good parry and strikes down with his axe on the neck, shoulder, shield or sword arm. After that strike lands, even if it doesn't necessarily kill the legionnaire he will be extremely dazed or near incapacitated. From there all the Norseman has to do is land another blow. Just my opinion.

@harringtonmartin

2 жыл бұрын

Agreed. There's a fair amount left out of this video. Small Roman enthusiasts - with less reach and arm length than the average northman - are adorable.

I like comparisons between warriors who never met but exsisted during the same time period generlly.

don't forget that the Norse controlled about half of England at one point as well as Dublin and the Orkney islands

@crowmagpie

4 жыл бұрын

And rome controlled half the world

@MrShirial

3 жыл бұрын

Not even near half the world

@fintytin8528

3 жыл бұрын

The Danes controlled half of England, the Norse had the hebrides and Dublin

1 on 1 Viking win army vs army Roman win

@stevenleslie8557

4 жыл бұрын

Exactly! With the Roman is was group efficiency. With the Viking it was individual combat prowess. The Romans must have known they could not win against the northern barbarian in his style of fighting. The Germanic warriors were just bigger and taller than the Romans. The Romans adopted a modified Greek style of fighting that gave them a huge advantage.

@strengthisabsolutestrength8215

3 жыл бұрын

Steven Leslie agree also i think the physique of the Norse Viking could possibly not always be more imposing (height strength) plus it is known that Vikings where good at wrestling people to the ground it’s was quite a loved sport back then for Norse people and still is.

@tristan9680

3 жыл бұрын

@@strengthisabsolutestrength8215 your talking about Glima there's two different forms regular Glima which is the wrestling part and everyone learned this even the women. Then there's combat Glima which is like a martial arts it's more of a grappling form tho but they also trained with sword,axe's,shields,spears, and fist and they normally started this practice around 7 for the men. He doesn't understand Vikings trained how to fight at young ages. I think a viking would win just because his just has brute strength and speed he would come so fast and hard the Roman should be shocked. And I'm sure they'll make a circle or a square so all the Vikings can watch in entertainment they would obviously make the fight fair both would have the same weapons.

Just as in modern day Martial arts and use of Martial arts weapons, the debate rages which is the "Best" and who would win? My answer is that WHOMEVER IS THE BEST FIGHTER AND THE MOST EXPERIENCED with their individual weapons and tactics. I would give the advantage to the Roman IF HE WERE FIGHTING AS HE TRAINED, part of a group with comrades in good order on either side of him. The Romans proved this in their battles with the Germanic tribes, cousins of the Norse who probably used similar weapons as "Vikings" But an 1 on 1 duel could go either way depending in the skills of the individuals. Don't sell the Northmen short due to their lack of "Armour" or because they were "Poor". A man without armour can move faster, and a "Spear" would have greater length to stab at legs, face etc over or under the Roman shield and out of range of the gladius. Love your Vids Metatron, keep up the good work!

Even with all your points explained, I have to say that I can't give the edge to one or the other. Like Dakota Warrior said, the round shield with center grip is more effective for "duelling". Considering Romans were quite developed militarily, it would make sense to take a more "professional" warrior norseman and compare him to a Roman soldier.

I believe the viking would win. The viking shield would excel on the legionary in reach, making it both safer and easier to disarm the legionary by injuring his exposed limbs. I just don't think the roman would be capable of covering enough of his exposed areas vs a viking if you compare their shields.

@chocoman45

6 жыл бұрын

Shields are attached to articulate arms you know, they can move it around. And a legionary worth his salt would never expose a limb unintentionally. Reach would only factor in if they are using a long weapon, even so they are always at a striking distance.

@chrismarker6890

6 жыл бұрын

I agree but for different reasons. In a duel, assuming equal skill, the viking wins because he is likely physically larger by several inches and most likely carrying a spear which has a far longer reach than a gladius. Or he has an axe which can hack a scutum apart. Both are very experienced fighting enemies with shields and using their own to defend. The roman would have a defense advantage with the Lorica segmentata but its very, very, very hard to get around the sheer reach advantage of a spear in a duel. Is nowhere as easy as you think to just bat a spear aside and charge in because a spear wielder can very, very quickly choke up on the haft and use it at shorter ranges, faster than a man can advance on him. A double handed longsword loses most duels to a spear in HEMA practice so I can't imagine a short gladius with 1/3rd the reach could manage it. Army on army the roman's vastly more organized, better equipped, and disciplined legions would curb-stomp viking armies. Not to mention it would be astonishing if an alliance of multiple Jarls could even bring up as many housecarls and seasoned raiders as there were men in even a single Roman legion.

The problem is, a Roman Legionary is a soldier, trained to fight as part of a unit. The viking is a warrior, used to less-organized combat, including single combat. Without a formation to back it up, the scutum, being so large, could be grabbed and wrenched around from his left side, since he has no one protecting his flank.

Would you be able to do a video on Nordic/Mediterranean people? I am a Nordic/Mediterranean mixed girl and it would be interesting to see stuff about that.

bro your the best

I think the viking would end up offering the legionary a spare shield, and the two would come to a mutually acceptable agreement.

i think in a one on one fight you have to look at the size difference, this can't be underestimated as most accounts of Saxon's always reference the sheer size of the Norse Raiders. As a sports fan i can tell you size is extremely important in combat. Also Vikings don't have a history of trained soldiers but they do have a history of weight and strength training. Of the attacks the Norseman is able to land you'd have to assume more force would be generated weather with his shield or weapon. I ain't saying this would change the result but it has to effect its difficulty. If any of this is wrong please don't debunk too hard.

@Handsy13

Жыл бұрын

The average height for Saxons AND the Norse was 5'8". It's also nearly impossible to tell a 'Viking' skeleton from a Saxon one as they are nearly identical genetically.

@bluesz1bluesz17

Жыл бұрын

@@Handsy13 the Saxon chronicles document how big the Vikings were

@Handsy13

Жыл бұрын

@@bluesz1bluesz17 it does but historical documents, especially ones written by Christians tend to exaggerate and demonise Pagans to make them sound like monsters. The best evidence for the height and size of Danes and Saxons are skeletons and grave finds. The 'Vikings' that attacked England were mainly Danish and genetical cousins to the Angles, Saxons and Jutes that settled centuries earlier so there's no reason why they would be significantly taller. They may have been a bit more lean and muscular though due to rowing and eating slightly more protein like fish and seafood.

@bluesz1bluesz17

Жыл бұрын

@@Handsy13 true. i think the Vikings trained lifting rocks and things so the Saxons may have meant big and in muscular

Metratron A Roman Centurion with a shield and who has fought in the east and west etc, winner no doubt. BUT, given the way Roman's faught, I would think more of a century vs. an equivalent group of Vikings. I would LOVE to see videos about centuries, cohorts, legions,etc. fighting....

Can you do a missile cruiser vs a northman longship?

Watching this after playing in Skyrim Civil war lol

Real Vikings had the equivalent of paper tissues as their armour, Mat Pat educated me about that topic alot! XD

@Hunter1393B

3 жыл бұрын

I hope you are being sarcastic because damascus steel is no joke when it comes to metal quality

You should do battle simulations between the Assyrian Empire vs the Roman Empire… arguably the 2 biggest militaristic and militaristically versatile nations to exists

personally i would have prefered to have the duell with both contenders at the hight of what would have been possible to them. so the roman decked ou twith lorica segmentata, gladius, pilum, shield and all that good stuff. the viking with a spear, a proper sowrd or axe, mail and perhaps even a second shield on his back in case his first one broke (it was not uncommon during the viking era for people to bring more than one shield to a duell) in any case i'D give the advantage to the viking, but as you increas ethe number of soldiers on each side, the advantage will slowly shift towards the romans. in fact i'D go as far and say that having a gladiator fight a viking would be an interesting scenario, vikings did duell one another and gldiators where also more focused on fights involving lower numbers.