Romans vs. Vikings

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

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.

The difference between mid'ish TL2 and early TL3 is often not great, though. Both have the same quality swords, mostly the same types of armour, medicine isn't much improved either.

I've also come across the idea that the Norse weren't on the cutting edge of sword-making technology, but imported good swords from Germany. And probably didn't have good armour-making tech either. And while it would be unreasonable to assume that they were retarded in medicine, since they did fight a lot, it's quite possible that the Romans were slightly advanced. Or given that GURPS treats TL2 medicine much as TL3 medicine, that might not matter.

GURPS Middle Ages 1 does suggest that at arund 1000 AD, ways were figured out to consistently produce decent steel, so that it was easier and cheaper to produce Fine and Very Fine swords, because it was no longer necessary to use the elaborate, difficult-to-master and time-consuming pattern welding method. So the Viking might have better metallurgy than the Romans. Not enabling them to make better weapons in an absolute senes, because the Romans could make VF weapons too, but possibly enabling the Vikings to consistenty produce Fine or even VF swords.

Except as stated above, I suspect it was mainly the more southern Germanics who made most of the Very Fine swords, then they got imported into the lands of the Norse.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

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.

Or it could be a translation convention. The characters in the world use some other word, but when we players and GMs speak for the characters, we use the word "barbarian", because to us it has the correct connonations of primitive wildness?

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

The difference between mid'ish TL2 and early TL3 is often not great, though. Both have the same quality swords, mostly the same types of armour, medicine isn't much improved either.

I've also come across the idea that the Norse weren't on the cutting edge of sword-making technology, but imported good swords from Germany. And probably didn't have good armour-making tech either. And while it would be unreasonable to assume that they were retarded in medicine, since they did fight a lot, it's quite possible that the Romans were slightly advanced. Or given that GURPS treats TL2 medicine much as TL3 medicine, that might not matter.

GURPS Middle Ages 1 does suggest that at arund 1000 AD, ways were figured out to consistently produce decent steel, so that it was easier and cheaper to produce Fine and Very Fine swords, because it was no longer necessary to use the elaborate, difficult-to-master and time-consuming pattern welding method. So the Viking might have better metallurgy than the Romans. Not enabling them to make better weapons in an absolute senes, because the Romans could make VF weapons too, but possibly enabling the Vikings to consistenty produce Fine or even VF swords.

Except as stated above, I suspect it was mainly the more southern Germanics who made most of the Very Fine swords, then they got imported into the lands of the Norse.

Oh, I wasn’t thinking much about TL 3 sword-making. I was thinking more of agronomy, shipbuilding, navigation, and pratical things like that. And of course, political organization and religion. Think about Christian and pagan Norse cooperating for Viking raids on the pagan Roman Empire!

[Fionn The Otaku]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

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.

True, but at the same time there was a diferance in how the Romans dealt with and saw Carthage or Eagypt or the Persian Empire as opposed to the various Celtic and later Germanic peoples/tribes they encountered.
Also as i kinda pointed out the Romans did most of there copying while still a Republic, as a mature Empire there would be far less perceved need to copy from other especialy a group like the Vikings.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by Fionn The Otaku

True, but at the same time there was a diferance in how the Romans dealt with and saw Carthage or Eagypt or the Persian Empire as opposed to the various Celtic and later Germanic peoples/tribes they encountered.
Also as i kinda pointed out the Romans did most of there copying while still a Republic, as a mature Empire there would be far less perceved need to copy from other especialy a group like the Vikings.

Was there a major difference, really?

The Parthians beat Roman rear-ends into the dirt at Carrhae. Ditto Arminius and his German tribesmen at Teutoberg.Roman aggression and territorial expansion were checked.
The Gauls fought but ultimately lost. Massacres and slavery followed. The Carthaginians lost, massacres and slavery followed. The Jews rebelled and lost, massacres and slavery followed.
And in OTL, the Romans certainly did copy some things from Gauls and Germans.

[ShdwWolf7]

Originally Posted by JaJH

I based my statement off of Low Tech p.115

Same page: Lorica Segmentata has a DR of 5... Just a wee bit higher than 3 :)

[Michele]

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.

Uh... you do remember that fast patrol craft that the Romans had, the liburna. It's the one they used against pirates. The one that would chase the Vikings. The one that had a length/width ratio of 6.6:1, i.e. roughly the same of a longship.

Well, its name, liburna, comes from the barbarian people that used it, the Liburni. Romans routinely adopted successful design, wherever it came from.

[Michele]

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.

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.

1. Romans did not use only galleys. The liburna had rows and a sail.
2. Longships aren't more seaworthy than a liburna, actually maybe less. Low freeboard, very shallow draft.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I'm presuming that the OP meant what he said in his first post.

I think he meant this part too:

...a historical mash-up campaign ... 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.

[Figleaf23]

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.

This clashes with reality a bit, I think. I would rank absorption of new ideas, technologies and people as a defining characteristic of the Roman civilization.