Pirates and Ninjas!

Vikings were pirates, but the classification of 'Vikings' and the classification of 'pirates' are very distinct from one another.

And I'd hardly say knights are the same as Vikings. In armaments, maybe, but it most likely ends there. Vikings were very sea-faring, and expert raiders, when knights were trained in direct, hand-to-hand combat.

From what I'd imagine, pirates would have most commonly hugged the coastline, simply because the chances of finding another ship in the middle of the ocean would have been extreme small, and while Vikings would have been similar, they made it to Great Britain often enough. Though that said, if the only thing going in the pirates' favour was that they could flee to deep waters, then I'd hardly call them the victors.

 

Seriously? You're resorting to pirates running away? Besides, longboats were seafaring.

 

They were seafaring but they weren't as capable as pirate vessels. Also what if they fought on land who do you think would win? Considering there is no water to put the fire powder in danger.

 

It's one of the oldest and noblest of pirate traditions, don'tcha know.

EDIT: Not that I know how long it takes for gunpowder to dry, but wouldn't the dampness still present a problem anyway? It's not like the Vikings would be gentlemanly enough to wait until the pirates are "ready."

 

By fighting on land you take away the pirate's biggest advantage, climbing a mast and throwing stuff.

A Viking charge is pretty much unstoppable. I mean, pirates aren't exactly known for orderly attack volleys.

 

To whom ever said the argument is over and gave me an - 1 rep... It's over when I say its over.

Pirates weapons would still pwn as they could use almost all their weapons at this point. I mean it doesn't even have to be volleys they just gotta keep shooting. Also seeing as how again most pirates were trained navy men they would be able to fight rather well on land using volleys.

 

A few things wrong.

First off. One volley. No time to reload.
Second. They volley for a reason. If you're randomly shooting, you waste your shot.
Three. Most pirates were NOT trained by the navy. You're mistaking a pirate for a privateer. Generally, most pirates were shippers who got fired for being drunk on the job or for theft.
Fourth. Fighting on land and fighting on sea is completely different, even more so back then. Just because you're used to fighting on a boat doesn't mean you are on land. In fact, learning to fight on the open seas would probably be a detriment to landbased battles.

 

A lot of pirates were former navy men to turned to piracy because it was profitable.

 

You gotta remember most Vikings were farmers too. I would imagine most pirates would have received more 'training', or 'credentials' if you will, than Vikings, though I'd still say the Vikings would have the advantage.

 

Sure if the vikings could get close to enough to swing an axe or a sword.

 

Well one shot would have to be lucky to take down a Viking, especially in those days, so in a battle of even numbers, someone's going to have to advise me on the approximate size of Viking and pirate raids, most of them are going to combat.

What have you got against Vikings, anyway? You a Pom or something?

 

Well, at the time around the beginning of the thread. Fenix made a post of a viking saying it was more pwange. Then I said nay, and thus began the infamous battle of vikings and pirates.

 

The big Viking ships (knarr) could carry up to 24 tons. The smaller ones (karves) were up to 70 feet in length. I'd imagine both could carry a pretty hefty force.

 

The ships the pirates used were much larger.

 

I was actually answering Itza's question.

Lemme see if I can find hard numbers.

The best thing I found was the following:

"The size of the raiding parties varied. A small raiding party is described in chapter 46 of Egils saga. Egill and Þórólfur led separate groups of twelve men each from their shared longship. A larger party is described in chapter 29 of Njáls saga. Gunnar and Hallvarður began their raiding party with two ships, one with forty oars, and one with sixty. At the end of the summer, they returned from their raids with ten ships. One of the largest raiding parties was the Great Army which harried in England and the Continent and which probably numbered in the few thousands."

 

Also, has anyone taken into the account that vikings would have never seen a firearm in use before this battle occurred? I mean most of them would probably freak out and think its magic or something.

 

Magic that doesn't do anything.

 

stop making excuses. you just don't want to admit you're wrong and keep dancing around proof and points.

 

I think we should present the following examples:

Sea battle:

1 pirate ship with about 200 crew members vs 1 viking vessel with 200 raiders

Pirates would first fire their cannons, and If they have grape shots, that could really hurt vikings, at least until they manage to board them.
So I'd say by the time pirates are boarded vikings will have suffered about a 40% of losses in terms of numbers.
Let alone the fact that there is a small, but possible, chance of the viking ship sinking due to heavy cannonfire or even being rendered completely useless by destroying the mast (don't remember if viking ships have masts or people with paddles or something)
So I think on a sea battle pirates would win, not a huge win, but good enough.

Land battle:

200 pirates equipped with cutlasses and their capt with a pistol, and wearing only plain clothing, no armor at all

vs 200 vikings, wearing light armor and anything from swords to axes

Pirates would be pwned on this one, plain and simple.

 

A Viking longboat could be propelled either through a mast or oars.

40% incapacitation is...Generous. Remember, they do wear armor. Grapeshot had an extremely limited range. As I said, it's similar to a shotgun. At point blank, it's devastating, but at medium to long ranges, it's like throwing gravel.