vikings ,......
- Thread starter gsfgaz
- Start date
It seemed to work well enough for the Romans. And better still for the Greek phalanxes.
But that is what is is, fantasy, entertainment etc and judging by the reviews from critics and Joe Public its a well made, directed and acted series.
The point, literally, is that even phalanxes in close order were attacking as well as defensive formations. The Greek Spears projected forward of their shields and could stab their opponents who remained visible. Ragnar's lot mostly had axes and their shields obscured sight of their enemies. See "A Storm of Spears" by Christopher Matthew for what seems a reasonable exposition of the uses of the phalanx. Romans in their classic legionary phase always allowed room for swords and pilum to be deployed except possibly for the testudo formation.
The acting quality of the drama etc. is a matter of opinion.
I'm pretty sure that was the plan, well that's the way they explain it in the fantasy program anyway
For those amongst us who are concerned about the historical accuracy of this cracking piece of television; you do know that it's based upon a legend don't you? Ragnor wasn't real http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar_Lodbrok he's just a folk story, just like this telly program
Cheers,
Stuart.
So it is fantasy but as Lindisfarne is at about 55 degrees 40 minutes of latitude then they came from the lovely sandy beaches of western Denmark. Check this on Google Earth. Danes certainly knew about Britain. Lindisfarne sacked 793 AD, King Aelle died 867 AD. Just no excuse for any pretence by the producers that it can tell anything about the Vikings or history but I bet somebody will regurgitate something about them that they have "learned" from the series.
One of my all time favourite films is Zulu which is full of historical inaccuracies but they don't stop it being wonderful entertainment.
Fair enough points as far as they go. But your initial comment was that a formation close enough for interlocked shields seemed dangerous. Apparently they worked.
They obviously have dangers if use defensively, true. Today's parallel would be the "bunker mentality." Pure defense only buys time until you can be relieved; if the attacker has enough time to wait you out, they'll always win.
But they're not using it purely defensively. They allow the power of a charge to break against it, dissipating it. A couple of guys fire arrows over the top at choice targets, while overs part to allow some attackers to be pulled through to a kill zone in the rear where some choice fighters are awaiting them. The point of a shield wall is that it's to be a fluid mechanism that gives defence while allowing you to grind an opponents force down. Axes when used as a melee weapon are nice in that they allow you to hook and pull a opponent in while retaining an offensive ability. A bit like the pikemans blades used in latter formation work.
In your opinion boatman. When you say 'it was better acted' your making a statement of fact when in reality its only your opinion so perhaps your posts would be better received by some here if you added three simple words...'in my opinion' rather than just blanket slating a show enjoyed by the fast majority of those that have seen it.
IMHO the acting in Vikings is certainly on a par with Zulu as is the script, cast and direction, but thats just my opinion of course.
Interesting little read http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...=onepage&q=viking shield wall tactics&f=false
I always thought the Anglo Saxons were the biggest shield wallers and therefore the Brits the Vikings met would have known how to fight like this. Also I don't think comparing a viking sheild wall to a roman professional army sheild formation is useful, a few hard, tough pirates are unlikely to have had the same well drilled tactics and ability to stick to those tactics in battle. However I'm enjoying the tv and am slightly in love with the shield maiden.
I always thought the Anglo Saxons were the biggest shield wallers and therefore the Brits the Vikings met would have known how to fight like this. Also I don't think comparing a viking sheild wall to a roman professional army sheild formation is useful, a few hard, tough pirates are unlikely to have had the same well drilled tactics and ability to stick to those tactics in battle. However I'm enjoying the tv and am slightly in love with the shield maiden.
Last edited:
Agreed. Said "pirates" could likely never reach the professionalism of a Roman legion. And in turn that legion could hardly be expected to match the lifetime of training of a Spartan soldier.
I never meant to compare the two. Just a response to Boatman's contention that interlocking shields seemed to be a dangerous formation.
That reference to Harald Hardrada planting spears to counter horsemen could well be a bit of embroidery by Snorri Sturluson confusing the action at Stamford Bridge with the Battle of Hastings where cavalry in conjunction with archers were used as opposed to Stamford Bridge where they were probably not.
"Lo there do I see my mother and my sisters and my brothers.
you should also check out Ironclad Vladimir Kulich is in that too"
It's good then? Or bad-good like 13 Warrior?
you should also check out Ironclad Vladimir Kulich is in that too"
It's good then? Or bad-good like 13 Warrior?
See the disputed shield wall on you tube and judge for yourselves http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTYz439cA5w
Similar threads
