Slitherine

I am about to complete some Viking Hirdmen. I did a search and can't find much discussion on the Vikings.

How does FoG classify Vikings, as MF or HF?

I have been operating under the assumption that Hirdmen would be superior MF, armored, impact, swordsmen. And that Bondi would be average MF, protected, impact, swordsmen.

Any help would be most appreciated so as to avoid the need to rebase in the future.

Basically HF Offensive Spearmen for all.

Nik, I do hope you noted who you were disagreeing with here. To have such an authority on the list...

timmy1 wrote:Nik, I do hope you noted who you were disagreeing with here. To have such an authority on the list...

Given all evidence Nik is correct with the statement that most Vikings fought in a dense formation relying on a shield wall with heavy spears- Other weapons (axe and swords) are incidental in Viking tactics

I may have reservation on other bits, from what Nik has said elsewhere, but this is correct here.

Spike

timmy1 wrote:Nik, I do hope you noted who you were disagreeing with here. To have such an authority on the list...

Given all evidence Nik is correct with the statement that most Vikings fought in a dense formation relying on a shield wall with heavy spears- Other weapons (axe and swords) are incidental in Viking tactics

I may have reservation on other bits, from what Nik has said elsewhere, but this is correct here.

Spike

timmy1 wrote:Nik, I do hope you noted who you were disagreeing with here. To have such an authority on the list...

Given all evidence Nik is correct with the statement that most Vikings fought in a dense formation relying on a shield wall with heavy spears- Other weapons (axe and swords) are incidental in Viking tactics

I may have reservation on other bits, from what Nik has said elsewhere, but this is correct.

Spike

Huscarls armored with heavy weapon? Maybe?

It doesn't appear that Vikings will be that much different than Saxons:

HF, Armoured, Superior, Heavy Weapon for Huscarls.
HF, Protected, Average, Offensive Spear for Select Fyrd.
HF, Protected, Poor, Offensive Spear for Great Fyrd.

There seems to be some conflicting evidence regarding Viking tactics. Offensive spearmen is one interpration of the shieldwall. But given that Saxon and Rus armies will likely have more options, it seems these may be the more preferable armies.

And we do accept (mild) disagreements

So the FoG interpretation of a Viking army is Classical Greek?

Lycanthropic wrote:So the FoG interpretation of a Viking army is Classical Greek?

By the same argument you could say that the DBM one is either irregular Romans or Sea Peoples......

Of the various FoG capabilities a Viking shield wall would seem best represented by offensive spearmen. They are definitely not pikemen, light spear really requires that they throw a lot of missiles before impact (not exclusively but that is the gist), defensive spearmen are both negative and an army primarily made up of defenisve spear is going to be poo. That leaves offensive spear and heavy weapons. Not all vikings waded in with big axes so a mix of offensive spear and heavy weapon seens appropriate.

Out of period the Bondi masses will be identical to Greek hoplites. Had there ever been combat between Vikings and Greeks then there may be need to change things. As always clasification of troops needs to get the right battlefield behaviour, in this case willingness to get stuck in and some relliance on solid formation.

FWIW there are significant differences between the Viking list and Classical Greek but the core troops are much the same.

A suprise view of the Viking masses, I presume you'll tell us they never had horned helmets either next ?

Scrumpy wrote:A suprise view of the Viking masses, I presume you'll tell us they never had horned helmets either next ?

My view of the main part of a Viking army seems to fit fairly well with undrilled offensive spear.

A load of blokes, some with armour, most without, packed fairly closely together behind locked shields. OK, they didn't all have spears but the spear was AFAIK a very common Viking weapon.

Horned helmets however .....

Spearmen also gives them what we feel is the correct interaction with the mounted they faced in Europe.

The arguments around their classification were almost exactly the same as those around the Arab Conquest infantry who also ended up as Offensive Spearmen.

BTW IIRC there is an option for HW hirdsmen

Scrumpy wrote:A suprise view of the Viking masses, I presume you'll tell us they never had horned helmets either next ?

Well they didnt so im not so surprised they are greeks in wolfskin.

But even if Off.Sp seems pretty good out of battelfield behavior i do beleve that on indivual basis they did deserve to be graded "Swordsmen". Vikings vere individualists, and prownes with handweapons was widespread. The flipside of Off.Sp. (as itsn not compatible wiht swordsmen) is that they loose combat prowness when unsteady. I do beleve that the vikings were pretty good at handling dificult terrain (swedish anyways), and kept on fighting pretty good even under though conditions - most part of sweden was "bad terrain" and the vikings were hardy people who didnt easly turn tail.

The spear was a common weapons and history/sagas often describes combats when spears are thrown. An option to regrade some of the HF Off.Sp to of "MF, Lt spear/impact foot(?), swordsmen" should be present to represent looser (raiding) formations.

Fulgrim wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:A suprise view of the Viking masses, I presume you'll tell us they never had horned helmets either next ?

Well they didnt so im not so surprised they are greeks in wolfskin.

But even if Off.Sp seems pretty good out of battelfield behavior i do beleve that on indivual basis they did deserve to be graded "Swordsmen". Vikings vere individualists, and prownes with handweapons was widespread. The flipside of Off.Sp. (as itsn not compatible wiht swordsmen) is that they loose combat prowness when unsteady. I do beleve that the vikings were pretty good at handling dificult terrain (swedish anyways), and kept on fighting pretty good even under though conditions - most part of sweden was "bad terrain" and the vikings were hardy people who didnt easly turn tail.

The spear was a common weapons and history/sagas often describes combats when spears are thrown. An option to regrade some of the HF Off.Sp to of "MF, Lt spear/impact foot(?), swordsmen" should be present to represent looser (raiding) formations.

If you class the Vikings as say light spear swordsmen then when fighting saxons or any other spear unless the Vikings can manage to disrupt their opponents at impact being swordsmen won't help them at all

As for spear losing combat effectiveness when disrupted they lose no more combat effectiveness than any other troop from disruption. Grated their opponents may benefit from an extra POA but strictly that is the opponent of the spear getting better not the spear geting worse

Also as light spear sword the Vikings would be rather too vulnerable to armoured cavalry lancers (even at impact and a POA down in melee rather than the POA up at impact and even if still steady in melee that spearmen get)

If you class Vikings as impact foot/swordsmen then they are exactly the same as Visigoths and Franks which is not really right IMO.

You can't class Vikings as Offensive spear/spearmen/swordsmen because there is only one melee capability allowed, that is just the way the rules work.

So in game terms as spearmen at impact they are better than light spear because they negate enemy lancers and in melee they pretty much always get a POA for spear rather than only getting a POA for swords if their spear or pike armed opponents are not steady.

As for looser raiding formations I am not entirely sure of where these fit historically and / or if they were ever big enough forces to justfy a FoG army. I realise that DBM allows Viking armies entirely of Bd(F) (or just like Sea Peoples) but my history knowledge isn't up to finding an instance where an 'army' of such troops took the field. They would also be really really bad against armoured lancers.

This whole thread started out via a question by "Delbruck", who, judging by "timmy1"'s comment, may be an expert on these army types.
If Delbruck is an expert [world-class?] on these armies, seems like his advice on these armies would be a valuable addition for validating the selected descriptors in the army lists.
For historical armies, expert opinion seems to hold more weight than various "AFAIK", "IMO" and IMHO"-based judgement and comments.

Claudius wrote:This whole thread started out via a question by "Delbruck", who, judging by "timmy1"'s comment, may be an expert on these army types.
If Delbruck is an expert [world-class?] on these armies, seems like his advice on these armies would be a valuable addition for validating the selected descriptors in the army lists.
For historical armies, expert opinion seems to hold more weight than various "AFAIK", "IMO" and IMHO"-based judgement and comments.

IMOH "Expert opinion is only judged by other experts".

I only fought in the 1991 re-enactment of the battle of Malden, and the 1990 re-enactment of the Battle of Hasting - to name just drop 2 of many big events I took part in whilst I was still at university (and interested in early medieval history). I don't do it any more as real life, jobs and other interests took up my spare time and believe me doing this takes lots of time when you are trying to be authentic - I still have pages of photocopies on various aspects of equipment, textiles, leather shoes etc taken from books in the John Ryland's Library.

So whilst my sword and helm may be rusty, my shield had many holes from far too many practice session (I skipped this years ago) and my kyrtle is now too small for my expanded midriff - At least my shoes are still in good order and are still waterproof ( bees wax is a wonderful substance)
So what do I know! (you are the expert)

Spike

Claudius wrote:
This whole thread started out via a question by "Delbruck", who, judging by "timmy1"'s comment, may be an expert on these army types.

I rather think you have missed a joke here (or I've missed something) - I believe Tim was referring to Hans Delbruck the (dead) author of "History of the Art of War" and other works and that the poster was using that name as his forum name.

Fulgrim wrote:
But even if Off.Sp seems pretty good out of battelfield behavior i do beleve that on indivual basis they did deserve to be graded "Swordsmen". Vikings vere individualists, and prownes with handweapons was widespread.

My take on it is that the maintenance of the shield wall was of primary importance to the Vikings in the same was as it was to the Saxons and the breaking of the shield wall usually led to defeat. IMO along with the mounted interaction this means that Spearmen is a much better representation. There is nothing in the Spearmen classification that precludes individual prowess with weapons either BTW.

Nik

'I rather think you have missed a joke here (or I've missed something) - I believe Tim was referring to Hans Delbruck the (dead) author of "History of the Art of War" and other works and that the poster was using that name as his forum name.'

Spot on, as always.
Tim