Do it make sense that the scandinavians/vikings start with most backwards military technology?

[Denkt]

Given the successes of vikings and ability to organize large raids and invasions, it don't seems fair to give them the most backwards military technology levels, less than maybe the kingdoms they so effectively raided and if you add in the normans and their successes, you can maybe say that Scandinavia should maybe start at level 1 or even level 2 on military technology.

I think that would make the vikings a bit more fearsome in the early game Before the western feudal states Catch up to same military technology.

 

[Arko]

Raiding wasn't exactly military advanced "technology" (killing village people or monks and loot what they have).
Invasion is different BTW but not due to advanced technologies like war machines or such, more upon numbers and tactics I'd say.

 

[Denkt]

Raiding wasn't exactly military advanced "technology" (killing village people or monks and loot what they have).
Invasion is different BTW but not due to advanced technologies like war machines or such, more upon numbers and tactics I'd say.

The Scandinavians at time controlled quite large amount of territores in the British Islands and the Frence king gave Normandy to a Group of vikings to prevent further raids and these became the normans who in turn managed to conquer England, Southern Italy and Sicily.

Also the Scandinavians hade quite great successes to the east and managed to reach all way to Constantinople.

Raiding wasn't exactly military advanced "technology" (killing village people or monks and loot what they have).
Invasion is different BTW but not due to advanced technologies like war machines or such, more upon numbers and tactics I'd say.

Organization is a military technology in CK2 and it is hard to say that vikings was at the bottom level here when they could organize fleets with hundreds of ships and reach distant lands. Also their understanding of tactics was pretty decent, not bottom level by any means since there are probably many examples from the time period that had less organization and such than the Scandinavians.

 

[Ezumiyr]

Absolutely. Success in war isn't only attributable to tech levels. It's relatively easy to fight using raid (or guerilla) tactics, no matter your tech levels, and in fact that often what less miltiary advanced people relied on against more advanced enemies.

From a gameplay perspective, vikings weren't exactly underpowered in CK2, especially in the earlier start dates.

Now, they should probably have a higher military tech level than say, slavic or finnish tribes, but compared to France or the ERE?

 

[Denkt]

Now, they should probably have a higher military tech level than say, slavic or finnish tribes, but compared to France or the ERE?

Hard to tell but the vikings did have some great successes against France such as Paris 845 which is pretty close to the first start date. I say around equal with maybe different advantages and disadvantages such as Scandinavia laggin behind in stuff like cavalry technology but equal/ahead in maybe shipbuilding and infantry technology.

Technology is both Equipment but it is also stuff like organization and understanding in how to use stuff the best way. So even if two sides use the exact same Equipment, one side can still have a technological advantage due to knowing better how to use the Equipment.

Also this probably apply to other areas such it maybe don't make sense for middle east/Byzantines to be ahead of rest of europeans in Everything about military technology either. This could maybe lead to realms focusing on certain aspect in which their technology is good like Scandinavians don't build large cavalry armies because their Tech is bad here compared to their infantry Tech while in France you can make the opposite with better cavalry technology compared to infantry technology.

But Scandinavians did manage to get Control over large amount of territories in parts of the CK World which is a bit more than just some guerilla tactics and even guerilla tactics do indicate sophistication, not lack of it.

Now it is not clear how technology will work, it don't look to be on county level anymore if you look at the screenshot and from what I have heard (don't know there) it will be based on character/dynasty or something, like how technology is tied to your nation in EUIV.

Spoiler: Screenshot

 

[Limbojack]

It depends on which start date we're talking about. In the 867 date, the military prowess of the vikings should be illustrated by better technology in atleast shipbuilding and light and heavy infantry technology because the shieldwall was great

 

[Denkt]

It depends on which start date we're talking about. In the 867 date, the military prowess of the vikings should be illustrated by better technology in atleast shipbuilding and light and heavy infantry technology because the shieldwall was great

Yes, they should not be most backwards in Everything especially given their successes. Also technology is not just about hard stuff but tactics and organization is also technology and the vikings seems superior to many others in these areas which is a reason why they could be so successful Before others reached the same level.

Places like England should probably start with less military technology in 867 since they seems to have copied from the vikings and once they did that they started to be able to fight off the vikings and same seems to apply to Ireland.

So if you can find cases of societies that had more lackluster military technology than the Scandinavians did in 867, that is a good case for the Scandinavians to not have the lowest level of technology.

At 1066 I don't know how military technology should be but I think Normans should be pretty advanced in certain areas due to their successes and the normans is related to the Scandinavians which is perhaps a bit telling that the Scandinavians was not military backwards.

 

[Krajzen]

They should be between military tech level of Slavic tribes and Byzantium IMO

I mean, let's not downgrade these guys too much, they wouldn't dominate rivers of an entire Rus, almost conquer Anglo-Saxons, attack Paris and become goddamn Varangian Guard in Constantinople, the most elite force od a Roman Empire, if they didn't know how to handle contemporary warfare.

 

[Arko]

I mean, let's not downgrade these guys too much, they wouldn't dominate rivers of an entire Rus, almost conquer Anglo-Saxons, attack Paris and become goddamn Varangian Guard in Constantinople, the most elite force od a Roman Empire, if they didn't know how to handle contemporary warfare.

I don't think it was said they would be downgraded. One cannot say they weren't underpowered in CK2, at least technology didn't affected them much, technology didn't affect anyone much in fact.

 

[DPS]

Yes, they should not be most backwards in Everything especially given their successes. Also technology is not just about hard stuff but tactics and organization is also technology and the vikings seems superior to many others in these areas which is a reason why they could be so successful Before others reached the same level.

Places like England should probably start with less military technology in 867 since they seems to have copied from the vikings and once they did that they started to be able to fight off the vikings and same seems to apply to Ireland.

So if you can find cases of societies that had more lackluster military technology than the Scandinavians did in 867, that is a good case for the Scandinavians to not have the lowest level of technology.

At 1066 I don't know how military technology should be but I think Normans should be pretty advanced in certain areas due to their successes and the normans is related to the Scandinavians which is perhaps a bit telling that the Scandinavians was not military backwards.

Scandinavia was absolutely a backwater technologically in 867; they had been so successful against England because the English (well, actually, Anglo-Saxons at the time) were just as backward and were disunited and the Norse had much better leadership until Alfred started uniting England (basically by re-taking much of what the Norse had taken and keeping it for himself instead of giving it back to the other Anglo-Saxon "kings".

And while we don't know yet exactly how raiding will work in CK3, in CK2's 769 start, sacking Paris is easily within the capability of the Vikings, despite Scandinavia having low military tech. Actually, raiding is so overpowered in CK2 that if you can raid, you can successfully raid just about anything on the map.

As for 1066, at that point the William wasn't operating out of Scandinavia, but rather out of France, so the relative military tech level was that of France, not Scandinavia. And even then, I don't see any reason to think William had a tech edge over the Anglo-Saxons, it was just that William was a good leader and the Normans got a bit lucky 'cause Harold bought it.

 

[Aemr]

As for 1066, at that point the William wasn't operating out of Scandinavia, but rather out of France, so the relative military tech level was that of France, not Scandinavia. And even then, I don't see any reason to think William had a tech edge over the Anglo-Saxons, it was just that William was a good leader and the Normans got a bit lucky 'cause Harold bought it.

Well, the Normans did have the edge in 'mixed unit tactics'. That is to say they had archers and lots of cavalry, though of course this was more due to their Frenchness than their Norse heritage. Still stands though that Hastings was a very close fought battle and the Normans only won because the Anglo-Saxons broke from their near-impenetrable shield wall in order to chase down their enemy, who they thought were fleeing, and to then be surrounded and cut down by the enemy cavalry.

 

[Rubidium]

A lot of the Viking success came down to mobility and smash-and-grab raids, not technological advantage. The image of the Viking as an unstoppable warrior is largely a myth. They benefited mainly from the fragmented nature of their opposition (the British Isles and Baltic being divided up into many tiny, feuding states, while the major powers such as the Franks and Germans being too focused on fighting each other to invest as heavily in fighting off raiders who showed up, looted a bit and then left).

The Varangian Guard's main advantage was that they were foreigners (and thus not tied to any specific Byzantine faction besides the emperor), not that they were especially awesome warriors (although the "barbarian warrior coming from distant lands to serve the emperor" obviously had a propaganda value that was played up), and in the later period most "Varangians" were actually English anyway.

It's worth remembering that when they attempted to colonize Vinland, they came off poorly in fights against the natives, who were literally using Stone Age technology.

And the Normans mainly used French equipment and tactics, as they were essentially French by the time they did their various conquests in Britain and the Mediterranean.

 

[Denkt]

A lot of the Viking success came down to mobility and smash-and-grab raids, not technological advantage.

Technology is not just about equipment but also stuff like organization.

And the Normans mainly used French equipment and tactics, as they were essentially French by the time they did their various conquests in Britain and the Mediterranean.

However the organisation, disicipline and other important areas may be more similar to Vikings. See how poorly France did in a number of battles in hundred years War due to lacking in organisation compared to English.

So a more organized army, no matter if it was the Vikings in 800s or English in 1300s often defeated/captured large amount of territories from less organized foes and organization is a technology in CK2.

 

[noknok]

Scandinavia was absolutely a backwater technologically in 867; they had been so successful against England because the English (well, actually, Anglo-Saxons at the time) were just as backward and were disunited and the Norse had much better leadership until Alfred started uniting England (basically by re-taking much of what the Norse had taken and keeping it for himself instead of giving it back to the other Anglo-Saxon "kings".

And while we don't know yet exactly how raiding will work in CK3, in CK2's 769 start, sacking Paris is easily within the capability of the Vikings, despite Scandinavia having low military tech. Actually, raiding is so overpowered in CK2 that if you can raid, you can successfully raid just about anything on the map.

As for 1066, at that point the William wasn't operating out of Scandinavia, but rather out of France, so the relative military tech level was that of France, not Scandinavia. And even then, I don't see any reason to think William had a tech edge over the Anglo-Saxons, it was just that William was a good leader and the Normans got a bit lucky 'cause Harold bought it.

Scandianvia was generally a backwater in most ways at this time.

But they had strong metalworking, strong small unit tactics, strong fighting technique with the weapons they used, strong in mixing naval and land tactics etc. all this stuff is martial tech.

I don’t really know much and I am not trying to say that Helsingborg was as advanced as Milan, but the sense I get from reading about the Middle Ages in Europe, to me Scandinavia did not seem to be lacking in military technology at that time.

 

[Gurkhal]

One thing that I've been thinking about is that perhaps an alternative system could be developed where individual realms don't research technology but there's a global progress of technology and your access to wealth and communication links decides to what degree you can partake in new military upgrades?

So that a duke in France could probably swiftly take part in new stuff, but a small cheiftain up in the taiga may not.

 

[Dragatus]

It's a moot point because by the looks of it CK3 isn't going to have the various technologies we know from CK2 and instead provinces will just have a generic development score.

 

[Axis89]

I think the Vikings should neither be over overdeveloped or underdeveloped. They used to serve the Romans, had a warrior culture, used guerrila/commando tactics etc.
Vikings... or Norse people of Norway, Sweden and Denmark(+Iceland sorry) grew up being tought to fight. Also they used trell/thralls a lot(Slaves) to fight with them. If the thralls proved their worth they would become freemen, so the motivation was superb. Then we have the old guys who didnt want to die in bed(Sotteseng), which wasnt optimal... They wanted to die in combat to reach Valhalla, so they sniffed some shrooms, dressed like wolfs, howled like wolfes and felt little to no pain because of narcotics(Some speculate if this is where the origins of the werewolf is from). Anyways they were the berserkers, going off with a pension a la warriors death.

Then you have physical activity.. Who here goes to the gym a lot?
Rowing makes a strong upper body, and English scripts describe a taller well buildt people, which was the norsemen.
Even today you can see that, sorry but most scandinavians are taller and in avarage better shape(Personal experience).

So, I think the Vikings knew they were fewer, so they had to preserve manpower at all costs. But they were, one on one on avarage better. Except for knights/men at arms, who were few, but probably equally trained and in shape because of their 24/7 soldier life.

PS: I am talking about the levies vs vikings, the difference in physical shape and training I believe was big.

 

[Rubidium]

However the organisation, disicipline and other important areas may be more similar to Vikings. See how poorly France did in a number of battles in hundred years War due to lacking in organisation compared to English.

In this case, it really wasn't. The Normans at Hastings were a fairly standard French army in terms of organization/discipline/etc. (which makes sense, because William had been fighting other French lords for most of his life, and much of his army came from other French lords who were his allies). While Rollo and his closest followers may have been Vikings, the majority of the inhabitants of Normandy were the same French folks who had always lived there, and between the influence from them and the influence from the king and other nobles (with whom the rulers of Normandy interacted regularly), any Viking influence was more or less gone by the time Hastings shows up 150 years later.

Norman armies were traditionally centered (like the French) around heavy cavalry, whereas Viking armies (as you'd expect for sea raiders) were almost strictly infantry-based; when the Great Heathen Army invaded England in 865, they had to extort horses from the East Anglians, and mainly seem to have used them for transportation rather than in-combat.

And of course, to the issue of Viking organization: the same Anglo-Saxon army that lost to William had just previously crushed a Norwegian army in the North shortly beforehand, if we want to get at a "pure" Viking army (to the extent it makes sense to talk about such things).

The Hundred Years War is a different matter, being fought between two Late Medieval armies with little to no resemblance in terms of organization, equipment or logistics to the armies that fought for and against the Vikings (and it's worth remembering that even though the English won several major battles, they generally came off worse in the war as a whole, in part due to those organizational constraints).

 

[Gurkhal]

In this case, it really wasn't. The Normans at Hastings were a fairly standard French army in terms of organization/discipline/etc. (which makes sense, because William had been fighting other French lords for most of his life, and much of his army came from other French lords who were his allies). While Rollo and his closest followers may have been Vikings, the majority of the inhabitants of Normandy were the same French folks who had always lived there, and between the influence from them and the influence from the king and other nobles (with whom the rulers of Normandy interacted regularly), any Viking influence was more or less gone by the time Hastings shows up 150 years later.

I think that saying it was "more or less gone" in 150 years is selling the Norse influence in Normandy a bit short. Now I do agree that they didn't leave much in terms of political legacy which was different from more conventional French ways. But I would think that there were cultural and perhaps some social stuff that were indeed left as a mark. For example in terms of language and, it seems, to some degree in place names.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Norman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_language

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_toponymy

 

[Denkt]

It's a moot point because by the looks of it CK3 isn't going to have the various technologies we know from CK2 and instead provinces will just have a generic development score.

CK3 will have techologies as far as I know but it will work different from CK2, like being tied to character or something like that which more sound like how it work in EUIV.

But they had strong metalworking, strong small unit tactics, strong fighting technique with the weapons they used, strong in mixing naval and land tactics etc. all this stuff is martial tech.

The martial technology in CK2 is also not just about Equipment which you can even hear from their names such as organization and techniques. It is hard to find good information about how advanced areas should be in military technology since it is not just about the Equipment used/produced in that area.

One thing that I've been thinking about is that perhaps an alternative system could be developed where individual realms don't research technology but there's a global progress of technology and your access to wealth and communication links decides to what degree you can partake in new military upgrades?

So that a duke in France could probably swiftly take part in new stuff, but a small cheiftain up in the taiga may not.

It is quite interesting. Given all trade and Connections, technological advantages would probably not be much about Equipment anyway since it could often be copied or simply purchased and there are probably good reasons why not for example plate armor was used everywhere. Sure there was some stuff like greek fire but these are maybe exceptions.

The duke of France would probably be alot more connected to the rest of the World than the taiga chieftain so it would be easier for the duke to find out if some sort of technological advancement had been made somewhere and copy it but how to represent is not something I know since technology will probably not work the same way in CK3 as in CK2.

The Hundred Years War is a different matter, being fought between two Late Medieval armies with little to no resemblance in terms of organization, equipment or logistics to the armies that fought for and against the Vikings (and it's worth remembering that even though the English won several major battles, they generally came off worse in the war as a whole, in part due to those organizational constraints).

The fact that the English side was able to achieve these successes against an on paper far stronger enemy and doing so on the offensive is pretty impressive. Much of their success seems to be based around having a better organized and disciplined army than their enemy rather than some sort of Equipment advantage other than perhaps the longbow. Don't know how such advantage can be represent other than giving the English side higher military technology levels than france side and let the france side Catch up.

I don't think it was said they would be downgraded. One cannot say they weren't underpowered in CK2, at least technology didn't affected them much, technology didn't affect anyone much in fact.

If raiding was overpowered in CK2 it should probably be less powerful in CK3.​

​