Romans vs. Vikings

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

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).

Because the galleys can't effectively patrol any area, as they can't stay at sea for long, the only way to stop longships from raiding would be to build fortified ports with a squadron of galleys every few miles. In the absence of that, the longships would always be able to prey on Roman supply ships more or less at will.

Since that sort of thing couldn't be allowed to go on in a war situation, the Romans would have no option but to seek out a naval engagement anywhere they could see a chance of winning. Greater seaworthiness and endurance at sea, however, would mean that the longships would be much more likely to be able to choose where and when to give battle. Even to draw out galleys into sea conditions much more dangerous to galleys than longships.

Basically, the Vikings can use their ships to project power much more effectively than any force stuck with galleys in the Atlantic. While the French used galleys in some wars against the English and the English even adopted them to a limited degree (mostly galleases), the fact is that Mediterranean galleys are a poor fit for Atlantic conditions, even while operating nearly exclusively within the Channel and rarely, if ever, out of sight of land. As for projecting power with a galley force over the North Sea, that's not going to happen. Baltic 'galleys' are fundamentally different vessels from Mediterranean ones, much stronger and more seaworthy.*

Basically, if the Romans want to fight a naval war in the North Sea or the Baltic, they need more-or-less the kind of ships that have historically been used on those seas. Granted, there is no special reason why they should not use their access to nearly unlimited wood and plenty of smiths familiar with building smaller craft for those conditions to develop their own cogs and Baltic galleys, much sooner than in our history. But unless the Viking powers have better sailing technology, I think the setting would not work very well, for one thing because there would be no Viking powers in it.

*Granted, good solid timber was rather more plentiful there than around the Mare Nostrum.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

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.

A much more successful Roman Empire would probably develop ports in the area, as I said in my post above. Either directly administered as provinces or in the hands of puppet rulers or at least under quite a lot of influence.

But unless Rome had some serious economic interests to protect, they'd have no reason to want to invade the Norse countries. They also lack the capability to invade anything other than Denmark, which at the time was a place so miserable that several successive peoples prefered generations of warfare in Britain and elsewhere to living there.

Without a big Roman stake in an Atlantic trade*, what you'd get instead of the proposed setting is a bunch of poor and savage Germanic tribes in what is now Denmark fighting legions primarily interested in stopping them from raiding civilised provinces. As soon as they learned not to do that, the Romans would probably be glad to stop remembering their existence.

And this is just not all that different from either actual history** or the preceding several centuries of an alternate history which would have seen the Roman Empire survive until the Viking eras.

*And thus both a ready-made casus belli and a shipping capacity which allows Rome to even contemplate any such thing.
**If we move the locations of the battles slightly to the south, it could be real Europe any time from the first century BCE to the fifth century CE. Before the development of advanced navigation and sailing by the Norse, there was essentially no meaningful difference between the Germanic tribes that would end up occupying Scandinavia and the ones that would fight all those wars with the Romans, the Britons and all the rest.

[Tzeentch]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Because the galleys can't effectively patrol any area, as they can't stay at sea for long, the only way to stop longships from raiding would be to build fortified ports with a squadron of galleys every few miles. In the absence of that, the longships would always be able to prey on Roman supply ships more or less at will.

The Romans used local shipbuilding techniques, materials, and designs. I'm not clear why people are assuming they would use Mediterreanean galleys. It's ahistorical. They were also familiar with the raiding style used by the Vikings, as it was not that different from any other barbarian group that used light craft for raiding. If they use technologically superior designs the Romans would try and copy them. There may be a significant difference between some of the monoremes employed by the Romans and Viking longships, but they certainly look similar.

Beyond that, the GM needs to decide what kind of threat the Vikings are. Are they just small groups of reavers sacking towns and then heading back home? Are they part of large flotillas that conquer and settle in? What time period of Romans are we talking about exactly? High imperial seems to be the default assumption. Are the Vikings a nuisance threat or can overrun entire provinces? Is magic around?

For the Roman part you should be aware that there is significant divergence academically on factors such as: size and complexity of the Roman economy (which matters if raiders are going after production), organization and role of the auxilia, internal security organization in the western provinces, population of the Empire, effect of various plagues, spatial awareness of Roman leadership, and the size and organization of the tribal units in northern Europe.

Granted, there is no special reason why they should not use their access to nearly unlimited wood and plenty of smiths familiar with building smaller craft for those conditions to develop their own cogs and Baltic galleys, much sooner than in our history.

There is some evidence that they were using such craft. Again, going to pimp my Roman Technology article here :)

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Icelander

A much more successful Roman Empire would probably develop ports in the area, as I said in my post above. Either directly administered as provinces or in the hands of puppet rulers or at least under quite a lot of influence.

You're presuming a "much more successful Roman Empire" is the way the OP intends to go.

But unless Rome had some serious economic interests to protect, they'd have no reason to want to invade the Norse countries.

You're presuming that a Roman invasion of the Norse countries is the only scenario the OP might use as an encounter.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

You're presuming a "much more successful Roman Empire" is the way the OP intends to go.

You're presuming that a Roman invasion of the Norse countries is the only scenario the OP might use as an encounter.

I'm presuming that the OP meant what he said in his first post. The campaign is about the Norse kingdom uniting (or failing to do so) in order to fight offf Roman expansion. Relevant part of his post:

Originally Posted by Dangerious P. Cats

The campaign so far is shaping up to be more game of throne like focussing on political intrigue with sparse but really brutal combat, being about whether the kingdoms of Denmark, Sweden and Norway can unite to fight off Roman expansion.

So a (Western) Roman Empire that lasted until the establishment of these countries is necessary, which certainly makes it much more successful. If Rome is also to have a realistic chance of invading the countries in question, the Empire would also have to have much more of a presence on the Atlantic coast or the Baltic and not be threathened too much anywhere else. Again, this implies to me that not only did it last longer than in our history, but that its northern provinces are also more extensive and powerful at this point in time than they were at the height of the historical Roman Empire.

You could call extrapolating that from the OP's words presumption. I prefer to call it a logical interpretation of what he told us about his setting.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by Dangerious P. Cats

For my next campaign I'm running a historical mash-up campaign built around Vikings (from the Viking period of Scandinavian history) fighting Romans (probably from the early Empire period). The campaign so far is shaping up to be more game of throne like focussing on political intrigue with sparse but really brutal combat, being about whether the kingdoms of Denmark, Sweden and Norway can unite to fight off Roman expansion.

I'm wondering if anyone has experience with historical mash-up campaigns and can offer any advice generally. The Roman Empire in the setting is the Empire as it was a few hundred years before the Viking period even though the Vikings have the technology of the early medieval period. Are there any pitfalls I should try and avoid or problems people can envision?

Beyond that I'm wondering how large I should make armies on both the Roman and Viking sides? I working off the assumption that the Romans will generally win at pitched battles in the open field and sieges, while the Vikings will tend to win ship battles and skirmishes. Also is there anywhere I can get a list of Roman and Roman names?

And yes, I'm well aware that the Romans were around during the Viking period as the Byzantines, but this is a campaign about two empires at their supposed hight, sort of a mix of deadliest warrior and game of thrones, not a historical campaign.

What about----



Time travel
Multiple shiploads of Norse colonists and traders on their way to England, Ireland, or some other place end up Banestormed/time-warped to the 1st Century AD. They find themselves more or less geographically back where they began. Finding that they have landed among their own distant ancestors, the Norse settle, trade, fight, intermarry, and so on. Diffusion of TL 3 tools, agricultural practices, ideas like Christianity, and so on lead to significant changes in the native cultures.


The Empire contacts and clashes with the ‘Norse’ civilization in Britannia and the region of the Low Countries…

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by Icelander

So a (Western) Roman Empire that lasted until the establishment of these countries is necessary, which certainly makes it much more successful. If Rome is also to have a realistic chance of invading the countries in question, the Empire would also have to have much more of a presence on the Atlantic coast or the Baltic and not be threatened too much anywhere else. Again, this implies to me that not only did it last longer than in our history, but that its northern provinces are also more extensive and powerful at this point in time than they were at the height of the historical Roman Empire.

Well, it could be that the empire lasts longer, or it could be that the Norse appear earlier, or it could be that the "Romans" and "Vikings" are thinly disguised as with Turtledove's Videssian Empire and its neighbours. Right now we don't know very much for sure.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

Well, it could be that the empire lasts longer, or it could be that the Norse appear earlier, or it could be that the "Romans" and "Vikings" are thinly disguised as with Turtledove's Videssian Empire and its neighbours. Right now we don't know very much for sure.

A fantasy world with historical analogues or historically inspired civilizations could also work well, sure.

My time travel suggestion allows the Norse to quite literally appear earlier.

‘Bootstrapping’ doesn't have to involve gunpowder. It could be involve people from a TL civilization diffusing stuff to their own TL 2 precursors.

[Fionn The Otaku]

Originally Posted by Tzeentch

The Romans used local shipbuilding techniques, materials, and designs. I'm not clear why people are assuming they would use Mediterreanean galleys. It's ahistorical. They were also familiar with the raiding style used by the Vikings, as it was not that different from any other barbarian group that used light craft for raiding. If they use technologically superior designs the Romans would try and copy them. There may be a significant difference between some of the monoremes employed by the Romans and Viking longships, but they certainly look similar.

Firstly i think your underestimating just how much the advances in boat/ship building tech changed things. For one thing almost all barberian raiders were relative locals or invaiders from Central/Eastern Europe who had little to no need or use for amphibious raids the Vikings are so famous for. I remember reading that small scale "Proto-viking style" raids and ship started along parts of North/Western Europe in the early to mid dark ages.
Anyway the main advantage the Viking had over earlier raiders was speed and striking distance, by useing there superior ships to travel far from home they could strike "behind enemy lines" so to speak and take the Romans by suprise hitting areas that are relatively unprotected.
Also a over look effect of the Viking raides would be to disrupt the trade in cattle from Ireland and likely drive native British refugees into Roman Britian where they would make trouble.

As for the Romans trying to copy the Vikings technologically superior ships, they might or they might refuse out of pride and distain for there "crude", Uncivilized and savage barberian foes.
After all it's one thing for the Republican Romans to copy from worthy foes from the mediterainian like Carthage It's quite other to copy baberian "wogs" from north of the back of beyond.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by Fionn The Otaku

As for the Romans trying to copy the Vikings technologically superior ships, they might or they might refuse out of pride and distain for there "crude", Uncivilized and savage barberian foes.
After all it's one thing for the Republican Romans to copy from worthy foes from the mediterainian like Carthage It's quite other to copy baberian "wogs" from north of the back of beyond.

I'm not sure I buy that.

Based on what I have read, Romans did not use the term 'barbarian' the way you are using it. It really didn't have much to do with technology or perceived 'sophistication.' Barbarian simply meant stranger, outsider, foreigners, anyone who wasn’t a Roman or a Greek. (The term is borrowed from the Greeks, to whom everyone that didn't speak Greek was a 'barbarian' )It included Parthians, Egyptians, Jews, unconquered Celtic peoples, and pretty much everyone else in the world.

But perhaps your ATL Romans have developed a different sense of the term. Cultures change, as well as persist.