Thread: Raping Pillaging Plundering Vikings were scared of Scotland!

Largs must make a effort to visit next summer once the sun reappears.

Right, Vikings or Knights Templar: who was the most Nails? :D

Originally Posted by tiger stacker

Largs must make a effort to visit next summer once the sun reappears.

I've got a week off in November. I might visit then.

Originally Posted by Werewolf

Right, Vikings or Knights Templar: who was the most Nails? :D

I was wondering when you'd bring that up WW :D

Originally Posted by rampant

Originally Posted by Werewolf

Right, Vikings or Knights Templar: who was the most Nails? :D

I was wondering when you'd bring that up WW :D

One does'nt like to disappoint, old boy! :D

I anyone is passing, pop in and ill buy you a beer

Originally Posted by Werewolf

Right, Vikings or Knights Templar: who was the most Nails? :D

[marq=down][align=center]Pagan Vikings Vs Christian Templars
OR

Christian Vikings Vs Pagan Templars[/align][/marq]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86RFkme1VNU

[align=center]OR[/align]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWL7HTfMa88


The first person to mention that incestious town that holds Number 0 gets to donate to RBL

Thanks for the links, Tiger. But as far as I'm aware, there were no "pagan Templars". The Templar's were accused of Devil worship, but that was just an excuse by the King of Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys(and the Pope)to get their hands on the Templars land and money.

Originally Posted by Werewolf

Thanks for the links, Tiger. But as far as I'm aware, there were no "pagan Templars". The Templar's were accused of Devil worship, but that was just an excuse by the King of Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys(and the Pope)to get their hands on the Templars land and money.

Nice to know some people read their Malcolm Barber, these days. Try telling that to some people in this world Freemasons - Templars wtf? I know there is one on this site somewhere but haven't seen any posts of his as of late.

In answer to your question earlier I would go with the brotherhood, later technology and refinements in armour, incredibly effective on horse back, disciplined military tacticians.

Also regarding the swords, by the time the Templars were about sword design had improved, most significantly the replacement of the walnut shaped pommel for the round or spherical with allowed for more fluid movement of the wrist in the thrust and parry :D

Originally Posted by rampant

Originally Posted by Werewolf

Thanks for the links, Tiger. But as far as I'm aware, there were no "pagan Templars". The Templar's were accused of Devil worship, but that was just an excuse by the King of Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys(and the Pope)to get their hands on the Templars land and money.

Nice to know some people read their Malcolm Barber, these days. Try telling that to some people in this world Freemasons - Templars wtf? I know there is one on this site somewhere but haven't seen any posts of his as of late.

In answer to your question earlier I would go with the brotherhood, later technology and refinements in armour, incredibly effective on horse back, disciplined military tacticians.

Also regarding the swords, by the time the Templars were about sword design had improved, most significantly the replacement of the walnut shaped pommel for the round or spherical with allowed for more fluid movement of the wrist in the thrust and parry :D

Even most Freemason admit that any connection between the Templars and the Masons is just wishful thinking on their part. There is not a single shred of hard evidence linking the two.

There is some circumstantial evidence, for example the fact that all Masonic Lodges are set out to represent the Temple of Solomon. But this is almost certainly synchronicity.

Oh, and in a straight fight, I'd probably back the Templars; better training, discipline and weapons.

On a lighter note this thread made it to the newsletter.

Cheers to the letter writer uppers.

Originally Posted by rampant

Originally Posted by Werewolf

Thanks for the links, Tiger. But as far as I'm aware, there were no "pagan Templars". The Templar's were accused of Devil worship, but that was just an excuse by the King of Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys(and the Pope)to get their hands on the Templars land and money.

Nice to know some people read their Malcolm Barber, these days. Try telling that to some people in this world Freemasons - Templars wtf? I know there is one on this site somewhere but haven't seen any posts of his as of late.

In answer to your question earlier I would go with the brotherhood, later technology and refinements in armour, incredibly effective on horse back, disciplined military tacticians.

Also regarding the swords, by the time the Templars were about sword design had improved, most significantly the replacement of the walnut shaped pommel for the round or spherical with allowed for more fluid movement of the wrist in the thrust and parry :D

All valid points, Rampent, but I'm afraid I must disagree. Or at least state that the outcome would not be quite as clear-cut.

The Knights Templar were, first and formost, elite cavalry. Yes, Templars could fight on foot, and did so with great courage and skill during the Crusades. But like all Knights, the Templars were the "officer class". Gentlemen rode into battle. Only peasants fought on foot.

This is one reason Knights hated the English and Welsh Longbow Archers; bad enough to be killed, but to be slotted by one's social inferior...

For a Knight Templar, then, fighting on foot would always be his SECOND choice.

The Norsemen, by contrast, were Infantry. Usually only the Jarls(lords)could afford horses anyway. The vast majority of Vikings fought on foot, either on land or when taking a ship. The Danish had cavalry when they invaded England, but most of the fighting was done in the Shield Walls.

Knights Templar on horseback against a Norse Shield Wall? Almost certainly the Templars. The only way for infantry to stand against a group of charging knights was the Schiltron, or "Hedgehog". And this was a Scottish tactic; the Norse would not have had the training or weapons(BFO spears)to make it work. Nor did they have Archers(or bows)to the standard of the English or Welsh.

BUT: Knight Templar against Viking on foot - I'd give that one to the Norseman, simply because of greater experiance and skill in close-quarter battle. The Templar's heavier armour might slow him down as well.

One final point; the Templars were an elite group of Knights, the Medieval equivelent of THEM. Instead of putting them against "normal" Vikings, a truer test would be combat between a Poor Soldier-Brother and a Norse Bersark or Wolfshirt; the elite of the Viking warriors.

Originally Posted by FrankCastle

All valid points, Rampent, but I'm afraid I must disagree. Or at least state that the outcome would not be quite as clear-cut.

The Knights Templar were, first and formost, elite cavalry. Yes, Templars could fight on foot, and did so with great courage and skill during the Crusades. But like all Knights, the Templars were the "officer class". Gentlemen rode into battle. Only peasants fought on foot.

This is one reason Knights hated the English and Welsh Longbow Archers; bad enough to be killed, but to be slotted by one's social inferior...

For a Knight Templar, then, fighting on foot would always be his SECOND choice.

The Norsemen, by contrast, were Infantry. Usually only the Jarls(lords)could afford horses anyway. The vast majority of Vikings fought on foot, either on land or when taking a ship. The Danish had cavalry when they invaded England, but most of the fighting was done in the Shield Walls.

Knights Templar on horseback against a Norse Shield Wall? Almost certainly the Templars. The only way for infantry to stand against a group of charging knights was the Schiltron, or "Hedgehog". And this was a Scottish tactic; the Norse would not have had the training or weapons(BFO spears)to make it work. Nor did they have Archers(or bows)to the standard of the English or Welsh.

BUT: Knight Templar against Viking on foot - I'd give that one to the Norseman, simply because of greater experiance and skill in close-quarter battle. The Templar's heavier armour might slow him down as well.

One final point; the Templars were an elite group of Knights, the Medieval equivelent of THEM. Instead of putting them against "normal" Vikings, a truer test would be combat between a Poor Soldier-Brother and a Norse Bersark or Wolfshirt; the elite of the Viking warriors.

Ahh but you have to remember that the Order was not just knights, but also included serving brothers and Sergeants, William of Tyre estimates the ratio of knights to sergeants to be 1:3, when we consider the huge expense of maintaining knights on horseback this is not surprising, indeed the kinights were the elite cavalry, but they were also supplemented by highly trained sergeants who would have fought on foot. (see pp190-192 Malcolm Barber: "The New Knighthood They also made wide and varied use of bowmen and crossbowmen.

Originally Posted by rampant

Originally Posted by FrankCastle

All valid points, Rampent, but I'm afraid I must disagree. Or at least state that the outcome would not be quite as clear-cut.

The Knights Templar were, first and formost, elite cavalry. Yes, Templars could fight on foot, and did so with great courage and skill during the Crusades. But like all Knights, the Templars were the "officer class". Gentlemen rode into battle. Only peasants fought on foot.

This is one reason Knights hated the English and Welsh Longbow Archers; bad enough to be killed, but to be slotted by one's social inferior...

For a Knight Templar, then, fighting on foot would always be his SECOND choice.

The Norsemen, by contrast, were Infantry. Usually only the Jarls(lords)could afford horses anyway. The vast majority of Vikings fought on foot, either on land or when taking a ship. The Danish had cavalry when they invaded England, but most of the fighting was done in the Shield Walls.

Knights Templar on horseback against a Norse Shield Wall? Almost certainly the Templars. The only way for infantry to stand against a group of charging knights was the Schiltron, or "Hedgehog". And this was a Scottish tactic; the Norse would not have had the training or weapons(BFO spears)to make it work. Nor did they have Archers(or bows)to the standard of the English or Welsh.

BUT: Knight Templar against Viking on foot - I'd give that one to the Norseman, simply because of greater experiance and skill in close-quarter battle. The Templar's heavier armour might slow him down as well.

One final point; the Templars were an elite group of Knights, the Medieval equivelent of THEM. Instead of putting them against "normal" Vikings, a truer test would be combat between a Poor Soldier-Brother and a Norse Bersark or Wolfshirt; the elite of the Viking warriors.

Ahh but you have to remember that the Order was not just knights, but also included serving brothers and Sergeants, William of Tyre estimates the ratio of knights to sergeants to be 1:3, when we consider the huge expense of maintaining knights on horseback this is not surprising, indeed the kinights were the elite cavalry, but they were also supplemented by highly trained sergeants who would have fought on foot. (see pp190-192 Malcolm Barber: "The New Knighthood They also made wide and varied use of bowmen and crossbowmen.

Again, valid points. But we're discussing the KNIGHTS Templar, rather than the Order as a whole. Yes, the Sergeants were very tough, professional soldiers. But so were the Norsemen.

Archers and crossbowmen would have made a real differance, of course. But blade against blade, I'd still give it to the Vikings.

Originally Posted by FrankCastle

Again, valid points. But we're discussing the KNIGHTS Templar, rather than the Order as a whole. Yes, the Sergeants were very tough, professional soldiers. But so were the Norsemen.

Archers and crossbowmen would have made a real differance, of course. But blade against blade, I'd still give it to the Vikings.

Damn semantics


Edited to add:

Sod semantics, if the hypothetical boat load of Norse Hairys beached themselves and a went a rampaging towards a Preceptory, it would have not just been the Knights who came out to face them, it would have been the Order, and as such would be a mix of Cavalry and Infantry (and a few bowmen of some discription), I go back to the point of exceptional military tacticians, they would not have chosen to fight utilising one aspect of their avilable forces.

On the other hand one on one that would be interesting, and I would concede your points (maybe) :P