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

[Axis89]

Ok, well Harald Hardråde served many years as an Varangian guard, and later captian of that guard defending the Eastern Roman Emperor. He served 4 emperors, buildt a large treasury, and had tons of experience. I dont think his army was in any bad shape, also in terms of warfare the Scandinavians did quite well, and had many experienced people who served abroad and came home battle hardened.

I would rather see a manpower problem, because Scandinavia is harsh, and there are fewer people living there, so their weakness should be that they cant take too many losses before the war isnt worth fighting anymore.

 

[Chlodio]

I mean, what is military technology? I don't think tactics and organization are something that can be measured like that, rather I reckon they were dependent on the individual commander's ability. I reckon, only thin that might be able to measure in military technology would the armor, the Irish and Welsh remained lightly armored as far as the 13th century.

Far as the thread question goes, we have evidence of Norsemen wearing impressive armor for the time period, so regarding armor technology, they should be on par with the Franks.

 

[Atalvyr]

The Vikings were fairly proficient at shipbuilding, metalworking and commerce. They sailed were others could not go until much later, their weapons were of decent quality (impressive given the lack of concentrated industry) and they made a lot of interesting "deals" with the people the fought. They estalished the Danelaw and inserted themselves in interesting ways into the societies of foreign lands, largely based on their pragmatic approach to life and their tradition for commerce.

In CK2 the first is modelled by their early access to ships, while their military success is left mostly up to an overpowered Norse religion. I would much rather they be represented for the proficiencies they had. They should be decently advanced in shipbuilding and on par in metalworking/warfare. But mostly they should be a pragmatic people who have no problem making deals for profit when sailing in one directiona nd looting anything not nailed down when passing by in the other direction. It is telling that when Christianity came to the norse, you see a prevalence of combined hammer-of-Thor and cross pendants. Better to keep your options open - and what is another god when you already have several.

 

[Denkt]

Far as the thread question goes, we have evidence of Norsemen wearing impressive armor for the time period, so regarding armor technology, they should be on par with the Franks.

It could also be bought rather than produced at home but it also tell it is quite hard to tell what technology level nations was at and from what I have heard it will be based on character or dynasty or something like that rather than being tied to county. Maybe you will have smith, architects and such developing techologies and you can invite them to get access to these Technologies for your realm.

commerce

I think it was at Birka there they had found alot of coins from the muslim states of the time of the vikings but not sure if Commerce can be represented in CK3.

In CK2 the first is modelled by their early access to ships, while their military success is left mostly up to an overpowered Norse religion

The ship technology don't really mean much in CK2. Argubly everyone should be able to get access to norse shipbuilding and the advantages should maybe be faster/cheaper sea travel and maybe ability to navigate on rivers, also there is a good argument for allowing everyone to raid in some form but maybe give boost to norse and other specific raiding Cultures/religions.

I mean, what is military technology? I don't think tactics and organization are something that can be measured like that, rather I reckon they were dependent on the individual commander's ability. I reckon, only thin that might be able to measure in military technology would the armor, the Irish and Welsh remained lightly armored as far as the 13th century.

The melee/skrimish techinques Technologies affect chance to get good tactics and one technology is called organization or something like that.

I reckon, only thin that might be able to measure in military technology would the armor, the Irish and Welsh remained lightly armored as far as the 13th century.

Heavy Armor is not Always that useful and can even be a liability in certain situation. Armies probably would develop to what is suited for their terrain and situation which make it hard to talk about technological superiority/inferiority.​

 

[Atalvyr]

The ship technology don't really mean much in CK2. Argubly everyone should be able to get access to norse shipbuilding and the advantages should maybe be faster/cheaper sea travel and maybe ability to navigate on rivers, also there is a good argument for allowing everyone to raid in some form but maybe give boost to norse and other specific raiding Cultures/religions.

I think most realms should be able to raid in some form, yes. In CK2 everyone also loots the countryside during a siege, as was to expected at the time. I don't think any cultures should get specific boosts to raiding - its not something you can really do "better". Some cultures/faiths might be more inclined to do so (prestige bonus), and some might shy away from such acts as dishonorable (opinion malus).

The vikings were exceptional seafarers for their time, which is what really allowed them to raid on such a scale. Their ships were well both quick and versatile, allowing them to quickly go where they wanted, raid/trade as needed and get back home safely. Like with the nomadic tribes, their mobility made them successful raiders (and merchants), not some sort of advanced plundering techniques. Their pragmatic nature allowed them to often make the most of a lot of situations. Trading with realms too powerful/difficult to raid, raiding where possible (why buy what you can just take) and profiting on any opportunity that came their way during their travels.

I don't know quite how, but modelling how this culture/religion was so happy to play a variety of roles in a lot of realms both near and far would be interesting. Perhaps make their characters more likely to "wander", functioning as raiders, traders or mercenaries depending on the local opportunities. Before the vikings sacked Paris, the Franks were perfectly happy to trade with the norsemen. After Rollo they became "neighbors" and eventually assimilated them.

 

[Axis89]

Well yes the Vikings loved trade, but had troubles trading with Christians, as Christendom increasingly operated like a trade union a la E.U. They made it difficult for fair trade for the pagans, pushing them to resort to more raiding.
But some "traders" were quite creative, as Scandinavians dont have a ton of resources back home, so they could raid one place and then sail around trading their looted goods even in the same country.
Also the Vikings in war used a lot of psychological warfare, sometimes they would kill all but one in a village so that the survivor would run and tell the tale to the neighboring villages.
What happened then? Well, the vikings didnt have to kill or raid the neighbours at all, they were too afraid and gave what they had willingly.
Viking raids operated like commandos, they were well trained, motivated and equipped. They had training before going west, to England, France, Ireland and Iberia, using the baltics and Finland often as training grounds for younger crews.

One important detail though, the Norsemen(A.k.a Nordmenn, a.k.a Normans, a.k.a Norwegians), Danes and Swedes didnt stop with their warrior traditions on the first day of Christendom(After conversion).
THE FIRST CRUSADER KING, was the Norwegian King Sigurd I "Jorsalfar"(Jerusalem traveller), the Crusader, Magnusson (1089-1130).
He led the Norwegian crusade, using longboats. He wintered in England before travelling down the Portuguese-Moorish coast, raiding Lisbon to liberate Chrsitians, but couldnt see the difference between Muslims and Christians, killing and looting both sides(Mistakes where made).
His forces kept on sailing south until the straits of Gibraltar when they ships got stuck due to no wind.
When they saw a Muslim fleet approaching them they according to the story, celebrated happy because they were saved, thinking that they only had to defeat the enemy and use their ships to help their own out of the situation.
They won, and the travels continued raiding Iberia, Belearics and continuing to Sicily where they where welcomed by Roger II, a Norman.
Then he went to the Levant, Acre, and Jerusalem, aiding in the crusades, having a good time with Baldwin, helping him here and there etc.
Lastly, when it was time to return home Sigurd travelled to Constantinople with his fleet, where according to sagas "King Sigurd approached Miklagard(Constantinople), a city so tall, majestic that it swallowed his army whole". The Saga continues to describe the Byzantine Emperors perspective "The fleet was so large, that it was like if a giant dragon approached our dear city" (Something along those lines, its from memory).
He then left most of his army, and all his ships as gift to Emperor Alexios, beefing up the Varangian guard. He stayed for a while before getting horses to treasuries to bring back home to Norway.
Most of his men stayed in the varangian, but they returned slowly, richer and more experienced than ever before.

So, they werent under par I would say.

 

[JonathanViking]

I love playing as a viking so i think yes vikings shoulld be low tech BUT they should have higher tech when it comes to boats since they are known for their boats and raids. Also cheaper for them to to get boats since raiding is the only way for vikings to make money since their economic is so weak.

 

[Denkt]

Also cheaper for them to to get boats since raiding is the only way for vikings to make money since their economic is so weak.

What about other tribals with as weak economies and less ability to raid?

 

[Arko]

I think most realms should be able to raid in some form, yes. In CK2 everyone also loots the countryside during a siege, as was to expected at the time. I don't think any cultures should get specific boosts to raiding - its not something you can really do "better". Some cultures/faiths might be more inclined to do so (prestige bonus), and some might shy away from such acts as dishonorable (opinion malus).

The vikings were exceptional seafarers for their time, which is what really allowed them to raid on such a scale. Their ships were well both quick and versatile, allowing them to quickly go where they wanted, raid/trade as needed and get back home safely. Like with the nomadic tribes, their mobility made them successful raiders (and merchants), not some sort of advanced plundering techniques. Their pragmatic nature allowed them to often make the most of a lot of situations. Trading with realms too powerful/difficult to raid, raiding where possible (why buy what you can just take) and profiting on any opportunity that came their way during their travels.

I don't know quite how, but modelling how this culture/religion was so happy to play a variety of roles in a lot of realms both near and far would be interesting. Perhaps make their characters more likely to "wander", functioning as raiders, traders or mercenaries depending on the local opportunities. Before the vikings sacked Paris, the Franks were perfectly happy to trade with the norsemen. After Rollo they became "neighbors" and eventually assimilated them.

Wasn't one of their motivation/need for raiding the fact they inhabited quite poor lands ?

 

[Gurkhal]

Wasn't one of their motivation/need for raiding the fact they inhabited quite poor lands ?

Not really to my knowledge. Overpopulation has been suggested as a reason for the later colonization and settlement drive but in regards to raiding I can't see overpopulation, or poor lands, would be a reason.

Another reason that I've heard as a reason for why the Norse went out was that the Frisians got hammered so hard by the Franks that their previous control over the North Sea trade was broken, which opened the window for the Norse to head out across the waves. Another possible suggestion is also of course that with Frisian trade control diminishing, the Norse went out to take by force the wealth their elites needed/wanted which they had previously gained by trade through Frisian middle hands and no way for their targets to retaliate against said Norse.

But that's just my potentially ignorant speculation.

 

[Nortrix]

There is a lot of ignorance about Vikings, by many so called experts.
I wil not go deep into details here. But Vikings in general was just one of many names given to Scandinavians of this time.

In the east they were also called Rus, Varyars, Varangians. In the west Vikings, Norse, Northmen, Danes, Nordmands, Dubgaill and Findgaill. Among Scandinavians we had other names for each other.
In the west Dubgaill and Findgaill (in Ireland) mixed with the Irish and became an hybrid "Ostmen(men of the east)" and Gallowglasses(foreign warriors).
Nordmands in France became Gallo/Roman/Frakish/Norse hybrids. Vikings in England absorbed into the Danno/Anglo/Saxon/Roman/Celtic/ Normand mix.

Atlantic islands like Iceland became colonised with Vikings and British slaves. While the colonies in Greenland and America nobody knows if they died out, gone native or went home. But climate change has bin among the top arguments.

In the East The Rus became an Scandinavian/slavic mix while Varyars and Varangians continued as a name for scandinavians also by the later hybrid Rus.

My point is that Scandinavians were among if not the most travelled people of Europe around the Viking age, tonns of different European and Arabic coins, including buddhist statues, american indian DNA on Iceland, central asian metal in weapons and ingots etc(Ulfberth swords, steel quality equal to modern industrial steel) is a testament to that. Their influence were far spread.


Can go on an on, but my point is that there is no easy answer to "Vikings" as some isolated hillbillies some here including hollywood etc tend to make "them" look as.

 

[CageyMoose]

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.

Good point, though raiding was the quintessential viking strategy.

 

[JonathanViking]

What about other tribals with as weak economies and less ability to raid?

yeah with tribals their main thing is to raid offcourse with their bad economic so the ships has to be very cheap for them to be able to raid and stuff like that im cinda worried how the old ship system worked back in ck1 since i dont reeally know how that works

Once vikings go feudal they whil still raid offcourse but once the economic for them gets better the raid whil be less and less sortof

 

[noknok]

Wasn't one of their motivation/need for raiding the fact they inhabited quite poor lands ?

wasn’t the inheritance tradition and overpopulation the main reason scandinavians went Viking?

also may have had something to do with once they found out how susceptible to raiding feudal Europe was, they went all in on the raiding as it was so profitable.

 

[Axis89]

There is a lot of ignorance about Vikings, by many so called experts.
I wil not go deep into details here. But Vikings in general was just one of many names given to Scandinavians of this time.

In the east they were also called Rus, Varyars, Varangians. In the west Vikings, Norse, Northmen, Danes, Nordmands, Dubgaill and Findgaill. Among Scandinavians we had other names for each other.
In the west Dubgaill and Findgaill (in Ireland) mixed with the Irish and became an hybrid "Ostmen(men of the east)" and Gallowglasses(foreign warriors).
Nordmands in France became Gallo/Roman/Frakish/Norse hybrids. Vikings in England absorbed into the Danno/Anglo/Saxon/Roman/Celtic/ Normand mix.

Atlantic islands like Iceland became colonised with Vikings and British slaves. While the colonies in Greenland and America nobody knows if they died out, gone native or went home. But climate change has bin among the top arguments.

In the East The Rus became an Scandinavian/slavic mix while Varyars and Varangians continued as a name for scandinavians also by the later hybrid Rus.

My point is that Scandinavians were among if not the most travelled people of Europe around the Viking age, tonns of different European and Arabic coins, including buddhist statues, american indian DNA on Iceland, central asian metal in weapons and ingots etc(Ulfberth swords, steel quality equal to modern industrial steel) is a testament to that. Their influence were far spread.


Can go on an on, but my point is that there is no easy answer to "Vikings" as some isolated hillbillies some here including hollywood etc tend to make "them" look as.

Yes that is very true, a lot of the images people have of vikings are completely wrong, especially Americans.
I saw a documentary about Scandinavian immigrants in America who emigrated from Scandinavia in the 19th century. They still celebrate their ancestry, but WOW, how wrong they could be. They dressed up as half naked people in fur clothings, and had helmets with big horns etc.
If this, and the tv series Vikings is how many see the Vikings then there is no wonder they would believe Vikings were low tech wild warriors.

But the fact is that they were well travelled, accumulated a lot of experience abroad, brought home knowledge and riches.
Like I mentioned, Harald Hardråde of Norway, and many others served the Byzantine/East Roman Emperor as Varangians.

No, they didnt only have the best ships, they could navigate using the stars, used shield wall tactics reminiscent of Roman tactics, "commando" tactics, were great traders, often had pragmatic attitude towards faith and thought Christians were zealots.

Christians(I am one, so no biased hate intended) however made a lot of stories we would call demonizing propeganda at the time, and painted them as savages.
Of course I understand the monks who experienced the raiding, but Chrstians continued the tradition of Roman us, the civilized, vs them, the barbarians.
The christian perspective dominates even today how we see Vikings as backwards savages who kills and plunders, and if they only were good Christians then all would be well.

 

[SigurdStormhand]

I find it a little off that people can talk about the Vikings conducting highly mobile raids over land and sea, over long distances, and not see that as "military technology". The same technology the Vikings used in raids would have allowed them to efficiently keep a large army supplied by sea, which helps to explain how the Great Heathen Army was able to stay together so long whilst operating in foreign territory and conducting fairly high-intensity warfare. Vikings arms and armour, especially swords, were at least as good if not better than anything you could get anywhere else at the time.

If the Vikings had weaknesses it would be the difficulty in controlling and administering a large army over a long period of time, and trouble maintaining control during large battles, because they were an illiterate culture. Hence no written orders, written casualty reports etc. This sort-of "machro-organisational" weakness is what Alfred used against them and why all his commanders apparently had to be literate in English.

 

[Nyrael]

Hard to say. Especially since we don't know what kind of tech system CK3 will have. They should definitely be advanced in naval organisation and a bit in arms (their tradition of mixing bones with iron accidentally created tougher swords). But for most part, their strength should be based on morale: Vikings were so good because they REALLY loved their job. Whereas to others raiding was a means to an end, to Vikings it was the point of life. And happily for them, it paid off big time (until it stopped paying off that is).

Christians(I am one, so no biased hate intended) however made a lot of stories we would call demonizing propeganda at the time, and painted them as savages.
Of course I understand the monks who experienced the raiding, but Chrstians continued the tradition of Roman us, the civilized, vs them, the barbarians.
The christian perspective dominates even today how we see Vikings as backwards savages who kills and plunders, and if they only were good Christians then all would be well.

Yeah, religion was the reason for it. Not the fact that they actively targeted and robbed their Churches and badly defended towns, turned entire countrysides into wastelands in order to keep themselves supplied, hunted for slaves, were very hard to negotiate with, and did all this for several centuries without as much as a pause. Vikings didn't do much to earn hate from everyone nearby for any other reason than being of different religion, definitely.
Christians that did not suffer their attacks did not even have a negative opinion of them (some liked them even). People who hated on them were generally from the lands they raided the most (and they raided them for a long, long time).

 

[LunarBahamut]

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?

You are talking like "tech level" is something that exists as an actual term in the real world, instead of coming up with a good counter or supporting argument you just say "hurt durr tech level", what is the point in typing something if you don't even have a proper opinion ready.

 

[Rubidium]

I find it a little off that people can talk about the Vikings conducting highly mobile raids over land and sea, over long distances, and not see that as "military technology". The same technology the Vikings used in raids would have allowed them to efficiently keep a large army supplied by sea, which helps to explain how the Great Heathen Army was able to stay together so long whilst operating in foreign territory and conducting fairly high-intensity warfare. Vikings arms and armour, especially swords, were at least as good if not better than anything you could get anywhere else at the time.

If the Vikings had weaknesses it would be the difficulty in controlling and administering a large army over a long period of time, and trouble maintaining control during large battles, because they were an illiterate culture. Hence no written orders, written casualty reports etc. This sort-of "machro-organisational" weakness is what Alfred used against them and why all his commanders apparently had to be literate in English.

Sending a small, independent raiding party (most Viking raids) is very different than staging a large-scale invasion. We don't know (and it's hotly contested) how big the "Great Heathen Army" was, but we do know that they broke up fairly quickly (Alfred was only fighting a rump contingent of it, and by the time Edward the Elder was conquering the Danelaw, the Danes seem to have broken up into a bunch of small, independent city-states, which were easily picked off individually). It also had the advantage of targeting the greatly divided and militarily quiet weak British Isles (it's worth noting that Vikings established significant presences throughout the British Isles and Russia, but only seem to have established themselves in continental western Europe through invitation by the local Carolingian ruler).

Viking raiding parties seem to have been essentially independent warbands; indeed one reason that has been suggested for the rise in Viking activity in the mid-800s was the collapse of centralized Scandinavian authority, which left various ambitious local leaders free to organize their own raids (whereas a strong central government tends to discourage private armies running around collecting wealth that they might eventually use to challenge said central government: indeed, a Viking raider returning from abroad played a major part in shattering the old Danish monarchy in the 800s).

It's notable that you don't see something similar to the Great Heathen Army again until the late 900s, when it was a centralized kingdom (Svein Forkbeard and later his son Cnut) doing it with the king leading the armies in person.

 

[Atalvyr]

Wasn't one of their motivation/need for raiding the fact they inhabited quite poor lands ?

Poor in some respects, yes. The northern lands did not produce a lot of food, so they could on sustain a modest population compared to their size.

Not poor in an absolute sense though. After all, to be successful merchants you must generally have something worth trading for in the first place. The amber trade was a primary source of wealth, but fur and honey were also significant "exports". The near monopoly on amber in the northern lands meant that it was more valuable the farther you traveled. So naturally they would seek far-away lands to trade at the highest prices and bring home the most exotic goods to their home markets.

An example often used in danish museums is how a trader would trade amber to merchants from the as close to the Mediterranean area they could travel, in return for high quality iron goods and fabrics which would then fetch good prices in the home markets of Scandinavia. Though viking ironworking was of good enough quality, the limited access to iron ore and craftsmen meant that such things were generally much cheaper in foreign markets. "Viking-made" swords were mostly for the fairly wealthy, while there is a several "deposits" from large battles with roman era swords that crafty Italian merchants unloaded on the vikings in bulk. Its a fun mental image that the rank-and-file viking was, at least at one time, equipped with "army-surplus" gear from the Romans.