Your chance to vote in a settigs poll that will...

[atgxtg]

But all Celts think themselves warriors, indeed. And I had the impression all you had to do to make a Viking dangerous was get him away from the wife and/or drunk...

Nah, the wife makes him more dangerous! (It is funny, but historically true in Viking culutre. The "wifey" expects him to either come back carrying his shield in victory, or on it.Then again dangerous varies depending on just who you are. A wolf is dangerous to an average person, but not much of a threat to armed, skilled warrior.

Technically, the "all Celts think themselves warriors" is about as accurate at the horns on a Viking's helmet. The Celtic culture was divided into several different social classes, and most people were not part of the warrior class.

But, since they wren't playing D20, that didn't mean that "Sean the Farmer" couldn't pick up a sword, or (more likely) spear, axe, club, or farm tool and beat an attacker over the head with it. Espeically in numbers, and when the typical raider wasn't much different.

 

[Archer]

Nah, the wife makes him more dangerous! (It is funny, but historically true in Viking culutre. The "wifey" expects him to either come back carrying his shield in victory, or on it.Then again dangerous varies depending on just who you are. A wolf is dangerous to an average person, but not much of a threat to armed, skilled warrior.

Ouch, Ouch, Ouch. How my poor ancestors scream in their grave. So many myths surrounding the vikings, but so few truths in the eye of the general population.

A dead viking warrior was not being carried on his shield (a viking round shield is too small for that). If he was of high status, he would have been put in a grave where rocks would have been laid out to form a ship, surrounded by things he would need in the afterlife.
For the more common man or warrior, the body would be put on a pile of wood and lit on fire if they were in foreign lands, or simply buried him along with his belongings in a mound if he was at home.

Seeing only the plundring viking archetype (and disregarding a lot of the mythical nonsense) is seeing just the tip of the iceberg.
Movies, RPG supplements, etc. have all contributed to the vikings being percieved in a very weird way, with more myths than fact surrounding them.
That is all I wish to add to this discussion (a historical discussion about vikings is better held in another forum, so I will end it here).

 

[SteveMND]

Ouch, Ouch, Ouch. How my poor ancestors scream in their grave.

I always rather took that "quote" to be metaphorical, not literal. As in "you better succeed or die trying!"

Seeing only the plundring viking archetype,

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but that is sort of where the term 'viking' came from, isn't it?

 

[homerjsinnott]

Nah, the wife makes him more dangerous! (It is funny, but historically true in Viking culutre. The "wifey" expects him to either come back carrying his shield in victory, or on it.Then again dangerous varies depending on just who you are. A wolf is dangerous to an average person, but not much of a threat to armed, skilled warrior.

I think you may be confusing them with the Spartans, great race the Spartans ( but what have they ever done for us? I hear you cry).

It's true, the Vikings they did do a lot of RPP.

Is it me, or does that Northman appear to be levitating in his grave? maybe he's getting ready to spin in it.

 

[andakitty]

Post was tongue-in-cheek. Not meant to hijack the thread and spark off a debate. :wink:

 

[homerjsinnott]

Post was tongue-in-cheek. Not meant to hijack the thread and spark off a debate. :wink:

Really???...

 

[andakitty]

No!!! I'm innocent! Really!

 

[atgxtg]

A dead viking warrior was not being carried on his shield (a viking round shield is too small for that). If he was of high status, he would have been put in a grave where rocks would have been laid out to form a ship, surrounded by things he would need in the afterlife.
For the more common man or warrior, the body would be put on a pile of wood and lit on fire if they were in foreign lands, or simply buried him along with his belongings in a mound if he was at home.

THe burial is what happens after the body has been brought back to the stead from whereever he died. But the come back in victory or come back dead was a big part of the culture. Better to die bravely in battle and go to Valahalla that to live a coward.

The point that I'm trying to make and that doing seem to be getting across is that there is a big difference between a trained, professional combantant and someone who isn't. Most cultures only had a small core of trained warriors (like the Viking Huscarls). The Roamns had one of he first professional standing armies, highly trained and hightly disciplined. Something that you really don't see elsewhere until centuries later.

 

[Archer]

Ouch, Ouch, Ouch. How my poor ancestors scream in their grave.

I always rather took that "quote" to be metaphorical, not literal. As in "you better succeed or die trying!"

Hmm, it might be a bad idea to translate sayings.

Seeing only the plundring viking archetype,

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but that is sort of where the term 'viking' came from, isn't it?

Yes, but that was not the only thing they did. It was a small part of what they did. Traders, farmers, mercenaries, explorers, and sometimes plunderers. There are more than one side to the vikings.
Unfortunately, it seems in the mind of most people, vikings were people wearing horned helmets (which they did not) and were bloodthirsty warriors that did nothing else but fight.

 

[Archer]

THe burial is what happens after the body has been brought back to the stead from whereever he died. But the come back in victory or come back dead was a big part of the culture. Better to die bravely in battle and go to Valahalla that to live a coward.

That is true. Cowards did not get to enjoy the afterlife in Valhalla.

The point that I'm trying to make and that doing seem to be getting across is that there is a big difference between a trained, professional combantant and someone who isn't. Most cultures only had a small core of trained warriors (like the Viking Huscarls). The Roamns had one of he first professional standing armies, highly trained and hightly disciplined. Something that you really don't see elsewhere until centuries later.

I got that point. And I agree. But comparing viking warriors to roman legionares might be like comparing apples to oranges. Both were excellent warriors, with differences in training.
In the long run, roman legionares would probably be more effective in organized combat, while viking warriors would be best at surprise raids.

There were very few warriors cultures at that time which were able to stand against the might of the roman legions. The romans had the advantage of training, manpower, and superior equipment.

As for huscarl, I do not know how that term has come to be. The swedish term is Huskarl, which basically means man of the house, or house man.
Huscarl sounds very much like an english-ification of the term, but perhaps it comes from the norweigan language, I am not as familiar with their spelling, so that might be it.

 

[atgxtg]

That is true. Cowards did not get to enjoy the afterlife in Valhalla.

Considering that the "ideal" Norse (inspead of Viking?) afterlife considing of fighting each day until you were killed and ptying all night, I'm not sure if a coward would have enjoyed it half the time had he somehow managed to get in, anyway.

In the long run, roman legionares would probably be more effective in organized combat, while viking warriors would be best at surprise raids.

No "probably" about it. We have a lot of histroy to back that up. On the ther hand, if you can get them fighting man to man all bets are off.

As for huscarl, I do not know how that term has come to be. The swedish term is Huskarl, which basically means man of the house, or house man.
Huscarl sounds very much like an english-ification of the term, but perhaps it comes from the norweigan language, I am not as familiar with their spelling, so that might be it.

Husclars, or House-carls, were those carls (freemen) who lived at the chielftain's (Jarl's) house (or hall) and served as his body gurd. THey were also the ones who would have swords (a rare thing back then) and armor. These were the real professional warriors.

 

[Archer]

That is true. Cowards did not get to enjoy the afterlife in Valhalla.

Considering that the "ideal" Norse (inspead of Viking?) afterlife considing of fighting each day until you were killed and ptying all night, I'm not sure if a coward would have enjoyed it half the time had he somehow managed to get in, anyway.

Well, that is true. However, somehow Loki managed to stay in Valhalla. Of course, he was a god, but a coward and a trickster nontheless.

In the long run, roman legionares would probably be more effective in organized combat, while viking warriors would be best at surprise raids.

No "probably" about it. We have a lot of histroy to back that up. On the ther hand, if you can get them fighting man to man all bets are off.

Yes, we have a lot of historical evidence. But we can also speculate, since we have warriors in history at that time that did not actually fight against the romans. As such we do not know if they could have been a match against them or not.
I strongly suspect that any of the chinese kingdoms would have been a good match. But as far as we know, their soliders never met on a field of battle, or off it for that matter.

As for huscarl, I do not know how that term has come to be. The swedish term is Huskarl, which basically means man of the house, or house man.
Huscarl sounds very much like an english-ification of the term, but perhaps it comes from the norweigan language, I am not as familiar with their spelling, so that might be it.

Husclars, or House-carls, were those carls (freemen) who lived at the chielftain's (Jarl's) house (or hall) and served as his body gurd. THey were also the ones who would have swords (a rare thing back then) and armor. These were the real professional warriors.

Yes, I know. But I was more refering to the word stemming from swedish, norse, or danish origin, in it's meaning.
Karl (old swedish) means man (or in this historical context, free man).
It was as far as I know, in the swedish language, never spelled with a "C".
That is what I was reacting to.

 

[Archer]

...a "good D&D setting" because it would be nice for the poor, hapless D&D'ers to have an easy way out of their predicament

AD&D's Dark Suns may be a very good fit for RQ.
- Piece armour
- magic lite
- ancient roman/egypt feel

While Dark Sun is not a generic fantasy setting in the sense of a "good D&D setting", it would be a very nice setting for RQ. RQ would suit it's "grim&gritty" feel better.

 

[SteveMND]

While Dark Sun is not a generic fantasy setting in the sense of a "good D&D setting", it would be a very nice setting for RQ. RQ would suit it's "grim&gritty" feel better.

While I agree it does have more of a RQ 'feel' to it, I'm certain we'll never seen an actual published work of it. However, it would be neat to see a 'fan-conversion' of DS to RQ rules on the 'net one day, maybe...

 

[atgxtg]

Well, that is true. However, somehow Loki managed to stay in Valhalla. Of course, he was a god, but a coward and a trickster nontheless.

Odin adopted him. It helped. Although, if you look at the norse myths, as opposed to the MArvel Comics, Loki also managed to save the Aeisr's butt a lot of the time. True, he was usually responaible for the predicament in the first place, but he was very clever.

Yes, we have a lot of historical evidence. But we can also speculate, since we have warriors in history at that time that did not actually fight against the romans. As such we do not know if they could have been a match against them or not.
I strongly suspect that any of the chinese kingdoms would have been a good match. But as far as we know, their soliders never met on a field of battle, or off it for that matter.

Oh definaely, If we mix & math cultures and time periods we can certainly find people who could fight and even defeat the Romans. They weren't supermen. In fact, even in thier own timefram we find people who did so. Hannabal pretty much marched around the Empire for over a decade unchallenged. The Parthians were always a big problem for the Romans too.

I was just pointing out how despite D20's claim of being able to use it to run anything, they rules are geared toward the "big brute with a sword" and makes it difficult to use effectively in other settings. Practically the entire concept for the Roman Legion does not translate well into D&D terms.

Yes, I know. But I was more refering to the word stemming from swedish, norse, or danish origin, in it's meaning.
Karl (old swedish) means man (or in this historical context, free man).
It was as far as I know, in the swedish language, never spelled with a "C".
That is what I was reacting to.

I think the word is Saxon, but there are equvialent terms. As for being speeled with a "C", in the days before dictionaries we even had worlds like "knight" spelled with a "C". The world carl is actually "Old Engiish" (Anglo-Saxon-Jute). Depending on where you look you can see everthing from House-carl to Huscaerl.

Which is just as well as most refereces we get to the culture are written after the fact.

I wonder what it would look like in Futhark?

 

[Archer]

While Dark Sun is not a generic fantasy setting in the sense of a "good D&D setting", it would be a very nice setting for RQ. RQ would suit it's "grim&gritty" feel better.

While I agree it does have more of a RQ 'feel' to it, I'm certain we'll never seen an actual published work of it. However, it would be neat to see a 'fan-conversion' of DS to RQ rules on the 'net one day, maybe...

Well, I think getting the rights to Dark Sun, would as you say be extremely tough. And I also suspect that WoTC would hunt down any such fan conversion on the net as well.

 

[Archer]

Well, that is true. However, somehow Loki managed to stay in Valhalla. Of course, he was a god, but a coward and a trickster nontheless.

Odin adopted him. It helped. Although, if you look at the norse myths, as opposed to the MArvel Comics, Loki also managed to save the Aeisr's butt a lot of the time. True, he was usually responaible for the predicament in the first place, but he was very clever.

Well, I do not read marvel comics (very few comics at all actually), and it has been a very long time since I read the texts regarding viking mythology (edan etc.). But as you say, Loki is the clever one.

Yes, we have a lot of historical evidence. But we can also speculate, since we have warriors in history at that time that did not actually fight against the romans. As such we do not know if they could have been a match against them or not.
I strongly suspect that any of the chinese kingdoms would have been a good match. But as far as we know, their soliders never met on a field of battle, or off it for that matter.

Oh definaely, If we mix & math cultures and time periods we can certainly find people who could fight and even defeat the Romans. They weren't supermen. In fact, even in thier own timefram we find people who did so. Hannabal pretty much marched around the Empire for over a decade unchallenged. The Parthians were always a big problem for the Romans too.

Well, I think the basic principle would be that it would have to be of the same point in time (which is why I used the chinese as an example).
Hmm, if I remember correctly, did not the romans have great problems with the celts or visigoths? I do not remember exactly which people it was, but I remember reading about some people that in anger marched all the way to rome, and gave the roman empire quite a match.

I was just pointing out how despite D20's claim of being able to use it to run anything, they rules are geared toward the "big brute with a sword" and makes it difficult to use effectively in other settings. Practically the entire concept for the Roman Legion does not translate well into D&D terms.

So very true. Very few RPG systems that do. Big brutes with a big sword tend to be the most powerful combination in most of them.
Only game I can think of, where the raw muscle and size of the weapon plays less of a role, and the training and fighting style plays a more vital role, is Arrowflight.

Yes, I know. But I was more refering to the word stemming from swedish, norse, or danish origin, in it's meaning.
Karl (old swedish) means man (or in this historical context, free man).
It was as far as I know, in the swedish language, never spelled with a "C".
That is what I was reacting to.

I think the word is Saxon, but there are equvialent terms. As for being speeled with a "C", in the days before dictionaries we even had worlds like "knight" spelled with a "C". The world carl is actually "Old Engiish" (Anglo-Saxon-Jute). Depending on where you look you can see everthing from House-carl to Huscaerl.

Which is just as well as most refereces we get to the culture are written after the fact.

I wonder what it would look like in Futhark?

Ok, thank you for clearing that up for me. As I suspected, it was a modified version of the swedish word (can't say how norse or danish versions are spelled though).
Point about different spelling over time not withstanding, I was refering to the modern version of the word Huskarl (that is what you find in modern history books written in swedish).

 

[SteveMND]

Well, WotC's weird about stuff like that; sometimes they don't care, sometimes they go after them with tooth and nail. I'm fairly certain the phases of the moon and the GNP are involved somewhere in the decision-making process.

I suspect a fan conversion -- so long as it kept clear of the 'flavor' stuff and just described pure game mechanics -- would probably be okay...

 

[Adept]

Even one on one, if the barbarian didn't have a shield they were usually toast. Mr. Legionaire could hide behind that big old shield, close, and thrust. Still, that short chop technique you mention I do believe I have heard of, used with axes as well. Instead of the roundhouse swing you see in movies. Speaking of Conan, how about Valeria's technique with that sword of hers? Shudder. Hey, you know about weapons. What was that thing, anyway. Any historical precedent you know of?

Sorry it must be over ten years since I've seen the movie. I have no memory of the character.

Incidentally I like the conan novels quite a bit. Howard's writing has energy.

 

[Adept]

The point that I'm trying to make and that doing seem to be getting across is that there is a big difference between a trained, professional combantant and someone who isn't. Most cultures only had a small core of trained warriors (like the Viking Huscarls). The Roamns had one of he first professional standing armies, highly trained and hightly disciplined. Something that you really don't see elsewhere until centuries later.

The Celts vs. Romans thing is interesting on many levels. The celts were the romantic and heroic warrior culture, where as Rome's greatest strengths were effiscient administration, infrastructure and mass production.

The gladius is a good example. The celt's made extraordinarily beautiful leaf bladed shortswords, which the romans copied into the extremely simplified, mass produced gladius. The romans also copied chainmail and the use of soap from the so-called barbarians. The celts even raided Rome herself early early in her future, and after a long siege were payed to leave by giving them practically all the valuables in the city. One does tend to wonder what the world would be like if the celts had destroyed Rome utterly then.