If Charles the great lived longer would there still be a viking age?

[Serathion]

What was the actual number of soldiers Charles the great could field?

Surprising to myself, the newest science says that the armies of Charles were between 30k and 60k men big, with a total of potential 100k "conscripts", people who had to follow his call to arms.
Source is the work of Stefan Weinfurter from this year.

 

[KingNothing]

Someone seems to hold a grudge on vikings?

Its actually pretty accurate, and I'm a big Viking fan, especially in game. When it comes down to it though, their bows were generally hunting bows, they usually had very little if any horse (I believe they did procure some from East Anglia when they invaded England), and the majority of their army was lightly armed and armored.

 

[Hunteromega]

I know one of the first things I'm going to do as Charlemagne is to conquer all of Scandinavia and try to hold it long enough to make it de jure Francia.

 

[scelestus13]

It's not like it's untrue.


Mongols won because they fled from battle until the enemies lines fell apart, then crushed them by turning around.

Honor means less than Victory.

Not really the same. They did a feigned retreat, a tactic which had been done numerous times before (Hastings, Arab invasion of Byzantine empire, etc.) the key difference was the incredible mobility of the Mongol warriors.

 

[User29]

Not really the same. They did a feigned retreat, a tactic which had been done numerous times before (Hastings, Arab invasion of Byzantine empire, etc.) the key difference was the incredible mobility of the Mongol warriors.

Doesn't change the fact that everyone who fought them(and lost) called them cowards and dishonorable, much like the vikings.

 

[Ashagar]

Not really the same. They did a feigned retreat, a tactic which had been done numerous times before (Hastings, Arab invasion of Byzantine empire, etc.) the key difference was the incredible mobility of the Mongol warriors.

Honestly it wasn't that different than what the Huns, the Avars, the Maygars and others did other than the sheer numbers, it was also dependent on fighting in areas that allowed them to pull of such maneuvers. I suspect if they had gotten that far they might have ran into some difficulty in hills mountains and dense forests of the HRE which also would have been capable of raising a large army to fight against them, especially if they paid attention to what Otto the great did to deal with enemies who used such tactics.

 

[User29]

Honestly it wasn't that different than what the Huns, the Avars, the Maygars and others did other than the sheer numbers, it was also dependent on fighting in areas that allowed them to pull of such maneuvers. I suspect if they had gotten that far they might have ran into some difficulty in hills mountains and dense forests of the HRE which also would have been capable of raising a large army to fight against them, especially if they paid attention to what Otto the great did to deal with enemies who used such tactics.

Mongols were outnumbered in like every war they ever thought, at least that's what I took from your "except for sheer numbers" Mongols didn't have that.

 

[Ashagar]

Depends by either the old or new estimates of their numbers they out numbered the forces against them though the biggest power in Europe, the HRE never really raised its full forces to deal with them, the Russians princes, the Hungarian and polish kingdoms fought and got the full brunt of the invasion.

 

[User29]

Depends by either the old or new estimates of their numbers they out numbered the forces against them though the biggest power in Europe, the HRE never really raised its full forces to deal with them, the Russians princes, the Hungarian and polish kingdoms fought and got the full brunt of the invasion.

And the Mongols were outnumbered each and every time.

 

[magritte2]

On the original subject, I don't see why it would make a difference. Even if you assume he was a strong enough king to prevent them from settling in his empire, I can't see how he would stop all the raids unless he conquered all of Scandinavia. Which seems unlikely, especially given that he didn't exactly die prematurely. How much longer would you expect a man who was already around 70 to live?

 

[Ashagar]

I could be misremembering but I seem to recall them massively out numbering the Russian princes who either capitated, got wiped out or fled and they certainly outnumbered the poles at the battle of Legnica where the modern estimates list the polish forces between 2,000 and 8,000 at most against a force of between 10,000 and 20,000(current estimates) Mongols. Though apparently they didn't outnumber they Hungarians at the battle of Mohi but had equal numbers by modern estimates.

 

[User29]

On the original subject, I don't see why it would make a difference. Even if you assume he was a strong enough king to prevent them from settling in his empire, I can't see how he would stop all the raids unless he conquered all of Scandinavia. Which seems unlikely, especially given that he didn't exactly die prematurely. How much longer would you expect a man who was already around 70 to live?

He was a pretty... zealous king If you could convince him the Viking Age was about to go down, he might have marched north.

 

[Ashagar]

He was a pretty... zealous king If you could convince him the Viking Age was about to go down, he might have marched north.

Yah if he wasn't tied up elsewhere he most certainly would have launched a campaign at against at the Norse of Denmark if not further into sweden.

 

[Talq]

He died at around age 71. How many more centuries were you expecting him to live?

Short answer - of course. Especially given most early viking activity was nowhere near his empire & raiders are least likely to be diverted by your standing army size (and for various reasons Charlemagne wasn't big on fortifications).

The 'vikings raided because they were pagans responding to x interpretatio'n is basicly a 'viking age interpreted as religious war' interpretation of trying to smash the facts into a Christian narrative. Leaving aside such exercises are basicly self-referential & consequently shed no light on real causes, theres basicly no proof of it (and lots of major problems, like if they didn't like Christianity so much why didn't they more actively disrupt the christian religious establishment?), and the more basic 'they wanted nice things, and had invented the boats to do it' theory carries more weight.

 

[KingNothing]

He died at around age 71. How many more centuries were you expecting him to live?

Short answer - of course. Especially given most early viking activity was nowhere near his empire & raiders are least likely to be diverted by your standing army size (and for various reasons Charlemagne wasn't big on fortifications).

The 'vikings raided because they were pagans responding to x interpretatio'n is basicly a 'viking age interpreted as religious war' interpretation of trying to smash the facts into a Christian narrative. Leaving aside such exercises are basicly self-referential & consequently shed no light on real causes, theres basicly no proof of it (and lots of major problems, like if they didn't like Christianity so much why didn't they more actively disrupt the christian religious establishment?), and the more basic 'they wanted nice things, and had invented the boats to do it' theory carries more weight.

While I don't put much credit in the first theory, I thought I have read that they were indeed actively targeting monasteries. Although I think that was because they were often places of concentrated wealth.

 

[Ashagar]

While I don't put much credit in the first theory, I thought I have read that they were indeed actively targeting monasteries. Although I think that was because they were often places of concentrated wealth.

That would be it, they were places with wealth that weren't guarded and fortified, religious icons made from gold, silver and other metals and silver candlesticks could be stolen and melted down later, not to mention other goods they might garner. Monasteries were also often away from areas that might have armed forces that could respond quickly so they could strike them and be long gone before any response could be made.

 

[Labrynian Rebel]

Mongols were outnumbered in like every war they ever thought, at least that's what I took from your "except for sheer numbers" Mongols didn't have that.

Mongols fought with their psychic powers!?

 

[klopkr]

He might have stopped any danes from viking but certinly not the norwegians and sweeds.

 

[VolitionNewlove]

Doesn't change the fact that everyone who fought them(and lost) called them cowards and dishonorable, much like the vikings.

It's strategic when done by one's own side, and dishonourable when done by an enemy.

 

[yonderTheGreat]

I always find it entertaining when people say "fighting honourably" when they mean "fighting stupidly" at least from a tactical point-of-view. The Brits/English often accused their enemies (the Zulu for example) of doing this.

... so? Who won the fight? Okay... shaddup then.

Yes, there are sometimes recognized rules (such as Geneva Conventions) for warmaking but most of the time... whatever the victor did in order to win eventually becomes considered legitimately acceptable.



As for the original topic... it's the age old "naval superpower" versus "land/army superpower". Sure, the Vikings weren't united as a naval superpower, but they didn't need to be. And all throughout history, it's the NAVAL superpower who usually won, from the Greeks thru the Vikings on to English and up to America today. Sure, there were exceptions, but generally speaking... if it's a land superpower vs a naval superpower... the land superpower is likely to lose.

And that means that I doubt Charlemagne would have beaten or prevented the Vikings.