Hypothetical Battles: How Vikings Would Have Fared vs Historic Armies

Hypothetical Battles: How Vikings Would Have Fared vs Historic Armies

june 27, 2023

We're all guilty of it... Who hasn't imagined how one historic force might have fared fighting against another empire from a different time and place? Today, we are going to indulge and imagine some epic battles between the Vikings and other famous groups of fighters from history. How would they fare against each other? Who would win and why? So, grab your axe and shield and join us for the top 5 imaginary Viking battles!

Join Our Clan

1. Vikings vs Spartans

This would be a clash of two legendary warrior cultures, both known for their courage and skill in combat. The Spartans were famous for their phalanx formation, where they fought as a tight-knit unit with long spears and bronze shields. The Vikings were more individualistic and flexible, using a variety of weapons such as swords, axes, spears and bows. They also had an advantage in mobility and naval warfare, as they could sail their longships to raid and plunder coastal settlements.

The outcome of this battle would depend on the terrain and the numbers. If the Spartans could hold a narrow pass or a fortified position, they could use their phalanx to repel the Viking attacks. However, if the Vikings could outflank them or lure them into open ground, they could use their superior speed and agility to break their formation and overwhelm them. The Spartans were also outnumbered by the Vikings, who had a larger population and more resources.

Therefore, we think that the Vikings would have a slight edge over the Spartans in many hypothetical scenarios.

EDGE: Vikings

Most Popular Blog:

The Real History Of The Viking Drinking Horn

April 26, 2020

Read The Blog

Recent Blogs:

VIKING CHRISTIANITY

October 20, 2022

Read The Blog

PETROGLYPHS AND THE REAL “AGE OF THE VIKINGS”

July 31, 2022

Read The Blog

VIKINGS: HISTORY'S MOST BAD-ASS JEWELERS

May 22, 2022

Read The Blog

2. Vikings vs Romans

The Romans were one of the most powerful and influential civilizations in history, conquering most of Europe, Africa and Asia with their mighty army. The Romans had a professional and well-trained army, equipped with iron weapons and armor, siege engines and cavalry. They also had a sophisticated system of roads, laws and administration that allowed them to maintain their empire. The Vikings were more of a loose confederation of tribes and clans, who raided and traded across Europe and beyond. They had a fierce and fearless reputation, but they lacked the organization and discipline of the Romans.

The outcome of this battle would depend on the time period and the location. If the Vikings faced the Romans at their peak, they would have little chance of victory. The Romans had superior technology, tactics and logistics that would allow them to crush any Viking invasion. However, if the Vikings faced the Romans during their decline, they might have a better chance. The Romans were plagued by internal strife, corruption and barbarian invasions that weakened their empire. The Vikings could exploit these vulnerabilities and raid their lands with impunity. Therefore, we think that the Romans would have a clear advantage over the Vikings in this hypothetical scenario.

EDGE: ROMANS

3. Vikings vs Samurai

This would be a battle of two very different but equally fascinating cultures from opposite ends of the world. The Samurai were the elite warriors of feudal Japan, who followed a strict code of honor called Bushido. They were masters of swordsmanship, archery and horseback riding. They also had access to some exotic weapons such as katanas, naginatas and shurikens. The Vikings were the adventurous explorers and raiders of Scandinavia, who followed a pagan religion based on Norse mythology. They were skilled in various forms of combat, but they preferred to fight on foot or on sea.

The outcome of this battle would depend on the environment and the style of fighting. If the Samurai could fight on horseback in open terrain, they could use their speed and precision to cut down the Vikings.

If the Samurai had the benefit of fighting from a fortress or castle, they would have likely done the Vikings in with their superior archery skills and armor.

However, if the Vikings could fight on land or on water, they could use their strength and endurance to overpower the Samurai. The Samurai were also bound by their code of honor, which could limit their options in battle. The Vikings were more pragmatic and ruthless, willing to use any means necessary to win. Therefore, we think that the Vikings would have a slight edge over the Samurai in this hypothetical scenario.

EDGE: It depends

4. Vikings vs Greeks

This would be a battle of two ancient civilizations that shaped the course of Western history. The Greeks were renowned for their culture, philosophy and democracy, as well as their achievements in art, science and literature. They also had a formidable army that consisted of hoplites (heavy infantry), peltasts (light infantry) and triremes (warships). The Vikings were notorious for their raids and pillages across Europe and beyond. They also had a formidable army that consisted of berserkers (frenzied warriors), huscarls (elite guards) and longships (versatile vessels).

The outcome of this battle would depend on the era and the scale. If the Vikings faced the Greeks during their golden age, they would face a tough challenge. The Greeks had a more advanced and diverse army that could match the Vikings in land and sea. They also had a more unified and stable society that could resist the Viking attacks. However, if the Vikings faced the Greeks during their dark age, they might have an easier time. The Greeks were divided and weakened by wars, invasions and migrations that eroded their power. The Vikings could take advantage of this chaos and plunder their lands with ease. Therefore, we think that the Greeks would have an advantage over the Vikings in the majority of hypothetical scenarios.

EDGE: Greeks

5. Vikings vs Mongols

This would be a battle of two of the most feared and successful nomadic invaders in history. The Mongols were the descendants of Genghis Khan, who created the largest contiguous empire in history by conquering most of Asia and parts of Europe. The Mongols had a fast and flexible army that relied on horse archery, mobility and surprise. They also had a ruthless and efficient leader who could adapt to any situation. The Vikings believed they were the descendants of Odin, and they explored and colonized much of northern Europe, the North Atlantic and parts of Russia. The Vikings had a fierce and fearless army that relied on melee weapons, shields and boats. They also had a daring and adventurous spirit that could inspire them to any challenge.

The outcome of this battle would depend on the geography and the strategy. If the Mongols could fight on open plains or steppes, they could use their superior mobility and archery to harass and destroy the Vikings. However, if the Vikings could fight on forests or islands, they could use their superior melee skills and boats to ambush and defeat the Mongols. The Mongols were also more dependent on their horses and supply lines, which could be vulnerable to Viking raids. The Vikings were more independent and self-reliant, which could give them an edge in survival. Therefore, we think that the Mongols would have a slight edge over the Vikings in this hypothetical scenario.

EDGE: Mongols

That's it for today's Viking blog! We hope you enjoyed our imaginary battles and learned something new about these amazing warriors. Which one was your favorite? Who do you think would win in other matchups?

Let us know in the comments below.

And don't forget to subscribe to our newsletter for more Viking content.

Until next time, skål!

Recently Released by norse tradesman: