Romans vs. Vikings

[Maz]

Originally Posted by Dangerious P. Cats

Beyond that I'm wondering how large I should make armies on both the Roman and Viking sides?

The vikings didn't have a a professional army, they relied on a few elites, the kings hirdsmen, and then peasants. In addition they where far fewer. For instance in 1085 King Knut gathered the entire Danish army of 1000 ships (one longboat was about 30-50 men). That's a lot of men, but that also the entire Danish fighting force where the far biggest percentage was leidang "drafted" farmers.

In comparison The romans seems able to field anywhere from 30k to 70k in various great battles.


But, since this isn't a "deadlies warrior quasi-historical duel", but supposed to be the setup for a game, I think you by all means should just pick the numbers you feel comfortable with. Screw historical correctness. ;)


This article might be of interest to you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_infantry_tactics (especially check out the "Roman infantry versus Gallic and the Germanic tribes"-part)

[JaJH]

Wiki does have a lot of great information (as has already been stated) but I'm reproducing a bit here as I already had it written out for a campaign I'm working on.

Based on a bit of research and using Dacia (modern Romania) as an example, I believe the Empire fielded between 2-4 legions when actively trying to conquer the area. A Legion contains 5,120 legionaries at full strength and about an equal number of auxiliaries. The Auxiliaries would be used to garrison forts and provide combat support that the Romans didn't have in great skill (cavalry, archery), though many auxiliaries would also be similarly equipped to their Roman counterparts. The Legion is divided into 10 Cohorts with Cohorts 2-10 having 480 men and the First Cohort (the most senior) 800 men. A Cohort was further divided into Centuries of 80 men, each led by a Centurion. The leader of the First Century in each Cohort lead the entire Cohort while in battle. This made him about equal to a modern day Full Colonel, while ordinary Centurions work out to a Captain in modern terminology.

Each Centurion could appoint an Optio, a second in command that would be paid twice the average wage of a legionary (modern Lieutenant). A Century would also have a Tesserarius, third in command and equal to a modern Staff/First Sergeant. Finally, a Decanus commanded an 8-10 man tent party (Corporal or Sergeant). There are further special duty posts including standard bearers, career soldiers, and Immunes (engineers, logistical specialists) and the like that were also paid more.

Above a Centurion were:
Imperial Legates: Governors of a province where 2 or more Legions are stationed (like Dacia), also commanders of those legions.
Legion Legate: Commanders of Legions and governors of provinces with only 1 Legion. Typically of the Senator class and appointed by the Emperor
Broad Band Tribune: Second in command of a Legion. These were almost always young men of the Senatorial class wanting to get their start in politics or the military. He would typically have very few important duties thanks to his inexperience.
Camp Prefect: Third in command, and typically of a lower social class. These men were old veterans who have served for more than 25 years in the Legions and are now in charge of training legionaries.
Narrow Band Tribunes: Each legion had five lower ranking tribunes who were normally from the equestrian class and had at least some years of prior military experience. They often served the role of administrative officers.

I disagree with the statements made that the Roman Legions would be hampered by an unfamiliarity with Viking fighting styles. Throughout Roman history they encountered fighting styles and technology they had never seen before. Chain mail in Gaul, Elephants from Carthage, The Falx in Thrace and Dacia, and Horse Archers in Parthia and each time they rapidly adapted their tactics and utilization of available technology as fit the situation.

Each legionary would have DR 3 armor and be well armed and trained. In contrast, Viking Warriors were very rarely armored (with the exception of the cultural elite), and poorly disciplined. I understand that they utilized a shieldwall in pitched battle, a tactic that the Romans would have seen much more refined versions of in fighting Macedon and the Seleucids.

Can't speak too much about ships, but, while the Viking ships would have had greater versatility, been more seaworthy, and their crew probably better in boarding actions. They did indeed lack the rams and artillery the Romans had. (I'm basically rehashing what someone else already said here) I think climate and the general hostility of the Scandinavian geography (no offense to the Scandinavians on these forums) are the only two real things the Vikings would have going for them.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by JaJH

Can't speak too much about ships, but, while the Viking ships would have had greater versatility, been more seaworthy, and their crew probably better in boarding actions. They did indeed lack the rams and artillery the Romans had. (I'm basically rehashing what someone else already said here) I think climate and the general hostility of the Scandinavian geography (no offense to the Scandinavians on these forums) are the only two real things the Vikings would have going for them.

Those are huge advantages, though.

The Romans have no realistic way of invading Norway, Sweden or Denmark, because they don't have much in the way of ships seaworthy on the Atlantic.

The most plausible way to get an alternate history like this is assuming that the Romans never abandoned Britain, but even then, the Romans won't have ships that can sail the Channel in bad weathers unless we change something else.

They could ship over the occasional replacement legionaries and officers, but they didn't regularly rely on crossing the Channel for any sort of large-scale logistics operation. When they did, it was risky in the extreme, the sort of thing that could cost you whole armies. So, unless the weather bids fair to be nice for the next couple of days, Roman ships in Atlantic ports don't like to leave harbour.

Seeing as the state of meteorology didn't exactly encourage confidence in long-term weather forecasts, that also means they are effectively barred from any long journeys on the Atlantic ocean, as the risk of encountering bad weather gets progressively more unacceptable the longer your journey will take. So, unless the Romans have developed new kinds of ships they didn't have in our history, or more likely, have adopted the Viking vessels, any encounters between the groups will happen at a time and place of the Northmen's choosing.

The Vikings would probably find a Roman Britain considerably harder to raid than a Saxon one, however. But unless the Roman Empire in this alternate history is mind-bogglingly different and much more powerful than our Roman Empire, the Romans will have to rely on making these raids harder and occasionally punishing raiders, because they have no effective way of following them home with any kind of military expedition.

[JaJH]

I totally agree, the logistics would make a campaign like this completely impossible and there is historical precedent in Roman attempts to conquer Parthia. They had the military might at a few points, but simply couldn't manage to sustain the force projection. Since the OP suggested that this was more of a mash-up campaign, though, I figured he would already have an idea of how he wanted to handle the logistical problems (or simply ignore them completely).

Perhaps the best way of handling this whole setting would be to assume that the Danelaw came into existence much earlier in England. As Rome pushed into Wessex, and Murcia, they eventually came into contact with the Danes/assorted Viking types at the Thames river and shenanigans ensue from there. (I'm saying this with almost no knowledge of the history of the Roman conquest of Britain...)

[Figleaf23]

As for the practicalities of having the two groups ever meet, there is a little matter of about 300 years of intervening history.

If we can ignore that, we can certainly diddle with the geography of the Empire a little. Icelander correctly identifies the problem, but rather than Britannia as a base, I think it's more reasonable to posit geographic growth of the empire through Belgica, along the shores of the Heligoland Bight, skirting the bulk of deep dark Germania to reach Jutland and have the encounter there.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Maz

The vikings didn't have a a professional army, they relied on a few elites, the kings hirdsmen, and then peasants. In addition they where far fewer. For instance in 1085 King Knut gathered the entire Danish army of 1000 ships (one longboat was about 30-50 men). That's a lot of men, but that also the entire Danish fighting force where the far biggest percentage was leidang "drafted" farmers.

Harald Hardrada, according to Wikipedia, had 9000 men at the Battle of Stamford Bridge. That would be roughly equivalent numbers to an early Imperial Roman legion (including Auxilia). Contrary to popular belief, the Auxilia were not all skirmishers and light cavalry. It included infantry as good as a legionary cohort, differentiate only by being made up of non-citizens.

While the best equipment of the Norse will be better than that of the Romans, given the TL advantage, pretty much every Roman soldier is going to be in mail, scale, or segmented plate.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by RyanW

While the best equipment of the Norse will be better than that of the Romans, given the TL advantage, pretty much every Roman soldier is going to be in mail, scale, or segmented plate.

Yes. I think the legionnaires will have a lot more than DR 3.

[Polydamas]

I am going to back away slowly here, politely suggesting that people read a few books before they post.

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Longships would murderize triremes.

How do you figure? Seaworthiness has nothing to do with naval battle between galleys, since neither side can fight in bad weather (Norse fleets usually chose sheltered water for their fights, and at one battle in Harald Hardrada's day the defenders tied their ships together).

Europeans have been using longbows since the Neolithic. The Romans introduced several types of composite bows to western Europe, so clearly in their view their traditional kinds of bows were better. No doubt the northerners felt the same about their own bows!

The Roman galleys have rams, catapults, and higher decks but the Norse ships carry more fighters.

[JaJH]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Yes. I think the legionnaires will have a lot more than DR 3.

I based my statement off of Low Tech p.115

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by JaJH

I totally agree, the logistics would make a campaign like this completely impossible... I figured he would already have an idea of how he wanted to handle the logistical problems (or simply ignore them completely).

I see two options for allowing all-out wars between the Nordic kingdoms and Rome, both of which require a massively more successful Roman Empire and both of which would probably change all Northern Europe out of all recognition.

One would be for the Romans to have successfully conquered all the Germanic tribesmen outside of Scandinavia, turning the wild forests into civilised provinces. They'd then have a land border with the surviving Germanic tribesmen in Denmark and could have built up massive port cities on the Baltic and the North Sea, which could become bases for their further expansion. In this case, the Romans would have had hundreds of years to incorporate Germans, Slavs and Wends into the Empire and would build ships for the Baltic using the shipbuilding technologies there, which would have a lot of similarities to the Vikings.

The primary challenge here is explain why the Romans expended massive resources on building up some of the least appealing real estate accessible to them, instead of further developing some nicer province. It would be really hard to do and it would yield poor rewards compared to almost any other military campaign they could contemplate. Even if they won every battle against Germanic tribesmen, the necessary pacification and multi-generational nation building would be unimaginably expensive in resources and manpower.

The other option is a much stronger (and more Romanised) Roman Britain, one which is never abandoned and where the Romano-British have developed a robust Atlantic ship-building and sailing tradition entirely absent in our world.

Originally Posted by JaJH

Perhaps the best way of handling this whole setting would be to assume that the Danelaw...

I would personally run it, at least initially, as a war over the territory of the British Isles between invading Viking warlords and a strong Roman Empire which never fell. Of course, the Roman Empire would first have had to fight a seemingly endless series of Saxon invasions in order to hold on to Brittania*, who would have been very similar to the Vikings in culture, technology, strategy and tactics. So the world would be one where Germanic peoples had tried to invade Roman provices and been beaten back for hundreds of years.

If I needed Rome to potentially be able to invade Scandinavia, I'd have the Brittania province in this alternate reality be a center of a thriving Atlantic sea trade between Roman provinces, whatever remained of the free Germanic people on the mainland and the Nordic kingdoms. It would thus have more ports and a large merchant fleet of alternate history Romano-cog roundships.

In this alternate history, invasions or raids on this much stronger Britain would not be very profitable by the time the Nordic peoples had the requisite technology to do so, so the Nordic kingdoms would instead expand by the Baltic into whatever 'wild' tribal territory that the Romans had left unconquered north of their Germania and Dacia provices.

In our history, obviously, they did raid, trade and explore all over Northern and Eastern Europe and down the Russian rivers all the way to the Black Sea and finally Constantinople. But in this history, much greater emphasis would be on that route of expansion and profiteering than on raiding the coasts of Britain and France, or what in this history are still Roman provices.

As a consequence, the Baltic might even have developed its own rich ports and trading posts earlier than in our history. It would be a place where the cultures would meet and merchants would make their fortunes. There might be a Wendish kingdom ruled by the descendants of Germanic/Nordic adventurers and conquerors and it might be incredibly rich and powerful.

I'd say that the politics around the Baltic Sea would be very important in this game, at least. Anyone who controlled most of the ports there would be in a key position and wars could be fought over who should hold sway over one 'free' city or another.

If we want the two peoples to have a history of warfare, we could say that there were short-lived Viking kindoms in the north of Brittania which finally fell to the legions and that a series of Roman invasions of Hibernia have ended in bloody failures as Viking kings or warlords sent fleets to aid the local kings.

Obviously, the Vikings will also have warred with those local kings, with the surviving non-Roman Britons in the Highlands, with whatever became of the Saxons, etc. Basically, all the territory beyond Hadrian's Wall would have been a perpetual battleground, but the Roman Empire, with a strong and Romanised Brittania province to the south, had some time before the begining of play managed to finally conquer most of the modern-day UK, excepting only areas which it makes little economic sense to waste military strength on.

We'd have a Britano-Roman trading power, trading along the Gaulish coast and down to Hispania, loyally paying taxes back to Rome. They'd also trade into the Baltic, but perhaps mostly rely on local shipping there to take their wares further into the North. There would be independent powers in the Baltic and along the rivers in Eastern Europe and Russia, some small, some powerful. I'd have the Baltic be fragmented between a lot of different local polities, some of which would be 'anachronistic' merchant city-states.

And finally, there would be a number of 'Viking' kingdoms in modern Scandinavia. Personally, I'd make them even richer and more successful than in our history. While they lacked the easy prey Vikings found in disorganised post-apocalyptic Europe after Rome, there would be compensations. Worldwide trade would be much higher in volume and the size of the markets available would dwarf anything in our medieval era. And if we are to have any 'Viking' kingdoms at all, they pretty much have to be based on their advanced sailing and navigation technology.

While it could be possible for such a successful Rome to have developed highly advanced ship designs, effectively reaching TL4 much earlier than Europe did in our history, if I wanted the Nordic powers to have any kind of chance, I'd say the Romans were mostly using improved roundships adapted to Atlantic conditions.

That would be enough to make scheduled runs over the Channel in good weather and sail down the Gaulish coasts to Hispania and through the Pillars of Hercules down into Mare Nostrum (or vice versa), but they'd still be pretty scared off being caught in the open sea in any weather less than perfect. Some would be big and efficient ships for bulk transport, allowing fairly long-distance trade to be profitable even in foodstuffs, but Roman shipping would be very season dependent, with winter effectively bringing it to a standstill in the Atlantic.

The threat of war would arise when individual Vikings and petty warlords could not resist all the juicy Roman shipping within easy raiding distance, mostly unprotected by effective Roman warships while anywhere outside the ports. The shipping would need to be unprotected for the setting to make sense, again, because if Rome had adopted effective warships adapted for the Atlantic in any great numbers, it wouldn't much resemble any kind of Roman Empire. Presumably they were allocating their resources to land wars against Germanic tribes, which would have been plenty big enough to justify having allowed the fleet to atrophy and grow out of date.

Viking piracy would stir up the Roman hornets' nest and eventually the war machine would start grinding out warship designs more effective on the Atlantic ocean than they ones they historically used in the Mediterranean. Probably direct copies of Viking warships and/or those of the Baltic powers. Most likely simply ships bought from the Baltic powers; complete with mercenary crews.

The Romans in Brittania would probably have settled some nice and advanced port cities beyond Hadrian's Wall by this time in our alternate history. Modern-day Hull and Grimsby, at least, and probably Aberdeen and Leith.

While Scotland and the north of England would have remained un-Romanised for much longer than the rest of Brittania and would likely have been Saxon and/or Viking spheres of influence before Rome finally managed to pacify the whole of the modern UK, they'd have had to secure it before it makes any sense they'd threathen the Nordic countries. For similar reasons, if they haven't made the coastal areas of the Low Countries provinces, these will be at least reliable trading partners and friendly ports and more likely dependacies.

From their North Sea and Channel ports, then, and with their new warshps, the Romans would start anti-piracy patrols in sufficent numbers to threathen any petty warlord and they would not be shy about violating the territories of Norse kings in finding the culprits.

I guess from there it's not too implausible to assume that the political situation would deteriorate to the extent that an invasion seemed likely through some combination of Roman Imperial cultural chauvinism and desire for further conquest with Norse obstinence, political short-sightedness, general belligerence and the genuine inability of medieval Norse kings to prevent their subjects from raiding.

*Not to mention all the other Germanic tribes to hold onto the rest of their northern European possessions (and a good chunk of the rest of Europe).