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

[Denkt]

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.

This is true and is a big problem to saying how advanced areas actually was. The Scandinavians was well connected to the World and probably had very good knowledge about people like the romans and thus if they did something better they could simply try to copy it and military stuff is not straightforward that something is better or worse. Like light infantry can do very well against heavier armored enemies in rough terrain like at battle of Roncevaux pass in which lighter equipped Basques defeated the Franks which was Charlemagne's only defeat.

Often it is probably more like cost, tactics and suitability rather than lack of technology that encourage or limit the use of certain Equipment and troop formations.

Like France could have recruited large amounts of longbowmen during the hundred year war if they had really focused on it, it was not that they lacked the technology to make longbows, but there was other problems and issues that maybe did not make that Worth it.

Here it is mentioned that cost was a factor for the setup of a medieval army https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/agincourt/0/steps/8842

 

[Axis89]

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).



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).

I know, it is true what you are saying, but that is common knowledge about Vikings. Recent studies show a more nuanced picture. Yes they were still people who went viking(Viking is a thing you do btw, if you called Nordic peoples viking you might insult them as you accuse them of pirating. Yeah I know, it is weird)
They did earn their share of DREAD, I totally agree, and Christians also tend to get a lot of undeserved slamming.
BUT, a lot of modern day common knowledge still rely heavily on the older picture we paint, that of the modern christian.
I understand where it comes from, but all I am saying is that recent studies show them less and less as savages after blood, and more and more as a overpopulated people, who is increasingly feeling the pressure from the hvitekrists(Christians).

Nuance, thats all I want.

 

[Rubidium]

I know, it is true what you are saying, but that is common knowledge about Vikings. Recent studies show a more nuanced picture. Yes they were still people who went viking(Viking is a thing you do btw, if you called Nordic peoples viking you might insult them as you accuse them of pirating. Yeah I know, it is weird)
They did earn their share of DREAD, I totally agree, and Christians also tend to get a lot of undeserved slamming.
BUT, a lot of modern day common knowledge still rely heavily on the older picture we paint, that of the modern christian.
I understand where it comes from, but all I am saying is that recent studies show them less and less as savages after blood, and more and more as a overpopulated people, who is increasingly feeling the pressure from the hvitekrists(Christians).

Nuance, thats all I want.

There's not a lot of evidence that Scandinavians felt particularly threatened by Christianity as a motivation for their raiding; that's more a modern neopagan interpretation. To the extent they hit churches, it's because that's where the money was. Norse overseas tended to adopt Christianity fairly rapidly (or the local religion in other places they settled, e.g. Russia), and large-scale invasions (as opposed to small raids) were, if anything, more common after Scandinavia proper converted (e.g. Svein Forkbeard's and Cnut's conquests of England: Cnut was devoutly Christian and Svein was at least nominally so; you could also draw comparisons with e.g. the Wendish Crusades).

Overpopulation was certainly more a concern, but so was the political situation at home. In the 700s and early 800s, you had a fairly stable Danish state (strong enough for Charlemagne to treat diplomatically as a major power not worth conquering, as opposed to how he treated e.g. the Saxons), and fairly limited Viking activity. Strong states tend to discourage their citizens from forming private armies and launching raids on their neighbors, both because it complicates things diplomatically and because those private armies tend to inspire those citizens to use them for domestic rebellions as well. Note that raiding isn't a uniquely Norse activity, but tends to be fairly much the norm for any society where the local powers are either unable or unwilling to control it. Certainly e.g. the Irish had a long, storied tradition of raiding each other before they first encountered a longship (as in the famous Cattle Raid of Cooley), but you see similar examples in pretty much any culture, from Homeric Greece to the present day.

In the 810s, this strong state falls apart into succession crisis and civil war, and now there is a major up-tick in raiding (both because there is no strong state to stop them, and because various ambitious claimants find establishing a warband and going raiding a good way to build up prestige and power for a later attempt on the throne, as at least one such claimant later pulled off). Add in that the various Christian powers are now in a much more fragmented and unstable state on there own (making them less able to repel raids). Some of these warbands carve out their own little states in places like the British Isles that are too weak and divided to stop them. It's wrong to see this as some sort of unified Norse response to Christendom or outside pressure, and more individuals doing their own thing with varying levels of success. The Great Heathen Army, in this case, is merely one of the larger of these warbands, which happened to be particularly successful (again, the size of the Great Heathen Army is a matter of great dispute, and note that we know that its success attracted later groups of raiders to join it). This situation lasts into the mid-900s, when Harald Bluetooth establishes a stronger Danish state (and solidifies his rule by converting to Christianity and taking advantage of the resulting diplomatic capital and existing Church infrastructure), and the various Christian powers are now on a more stable footing. Now we move away from the smaller warbands (although they still exist) and towards larger armies and even kingdoms.

 

[Nortrix]

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.

Yes there is much ignorance, and probably much due to movies and series made by people who have an image of "Vikings" that of the savage barbarian. Something more animal than human.

Here is from an festival in Spain, most for fun but many actually have this image when they think Vikings:

Many would be surprised that this would be real(from a museum with tourists in the background) and an painting showing quite accurate war-gear:

Not to mention the ships, think many should see the real deal(here from a voyage from Norway to New York some years ago:

The positive however is that games are improving. Take Total war Britannia for example. Not bad considering:

Crusader kings 2 is not bad either even if you can`t see much details. Don`t know how far they will go into details in the third.

 

[Nortrix]

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.

Using the name Viking as it is used today(All with cultural ties to Scandinavia), i have some suggestions to martial technology for the game:

I will try to use my personal knowledge and opinion to rank by Very strong to very weak as a comparison to the European average.

1. Skirmishers: Medium. Often mentioned but as in most of western Europe a supportive role.( Longbows/Throwing axes and spears. No slings or horse archers by my memory)
2. Cavalry: Weak. Now Post viking Sweden (Vendel age) cavalry had according to sagas a good reputation. But by the Viking age most mention of cavalry is land transportation. Probably due to the importance of ships. Usually horses were taken on the same lands they invaded or raided for local use. Get somewhere fast and dismount to fight as infantry.
3. Infantry: Very strong. Huscarls/Hird (heavy infantry) were probably the best infantry in Europe. Smaller in numbers due to small population of culture but reputation like for example the Varangian guard.
4. Artillery: Very weak. Simply no culture for it. Developed in city states were it was relevant. No mention of use.
5. Siege engines: weak, maybe medium. Something little or no use for in Scandinavia, but used around in Europe due to its larger populations. One example of its use were the Siege of Paris. Built upon ships. Great shipbuilders they knew how to work wood. But there were more learning by doing than any cultural experience to it.
6. Ships: Very strong. Over the Atlantic to America and the Rivers to Iran these ships sailed. They ruled both waves and rivers. Greek fire however was something Vikings learned quickly to avoid. Most battles in Scandinavia during the Viking age were decided on the sea.
7. Castles: Weak. There were some "borgs" (small scale castles) around Scandinavia. But not something commonly built.
8. Organization: Medium. Blacksmiths, sailworkers, woodworkers etc has proven to have followed larger armies. In a sense there were something nomadic over the Vikings when large fleets/armies worked together. However depending on the situation it often were different leaders(sea kings) working in alliance more than as an united force(Great heathen army).
9. Discipline: Strong. Strong use of formation (Skjoldborg/shieldcastle), Seaxes, Dane axes, spears etc used depending on the position in the shield-wall. Wedge formations commonly used to break enemy shield-walls etc.

Simplified suggestion to your thread.

 

[Denkt]

Using the name Viking as it is used today(All with cultural ties to Scandinavia), i have some suggestions to martial technology for the game:

The list seems quite decent, not overpower nor underpowered from what I can tell.

This may also help the scandinavinas a bit since I suspect their terrain types will boost their armies a bit:

Will there be unique cultural buildings?

• No. The main factor for which building you are able to build in a barony will depend on the terrain. For example, the difference between Farmland and Desert is quite significant. Farmland will have a higher economy output, while Desert allow for more hardy warriors.

 

[Nortrix]

The list seems quite decent, not overpower nor underpowered from what I can tell.

This may also help the scandinavinas a bit since I suspect their terrain types will boost their armies a bit:

Probably could add Moral defence and Moral damage that would be high up on Viking strengths, but i dont know how detailed technology will be in the game.

Yes Scandinavian landscape never were much for cavalry. Mountains, forests and swamps, deforestation and farmlands was quite new in Viking times.
Also much of Europe would be forested at this time, probably a reason why cavalry were more important late than early.

 

[eatme]

Often it is probably more like cost, tactics and suitability rather than lack of technology that encourage or limit the use of certain Equipment and troop formations.

True that. In the same token, it always bothered me in vanilla CK2, that whatever province/nation/age the game starts with tier 1 tech/tier 1 buildings by default. It should be given an option to start game with as tier 1 across the map or with more historical setting with pre-developed certain locaitons

 

[Denkt]

Probably could add Moral defence and Moral damage that would be high up on Viking strengths, but i dont know how detailed technology will be in the game.

Yes Scandinavian landscape never were much for cavalry. Mountains, forests and swamps, deforestation and farmlands was quite new in Viking times.
Also much of Europe would be forested at this time, probably a reason why cavalry were more important late than early.

Cavalry is also super expensive compared to infantry and Scandinavian kingdoms with their small population don't have the resources to support large cavalry armies anyway.