Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, they weren't Vikings. Almeria was a "Slavic" Taifa.
For Muslims, "Slavs" were people from North Europe hired as mercenaries.
By then, Spain was very rich and received many mercenaries from Northen Europe.
They didn't have any qualms converting to Islam and becaming Emir themselves.
But of course, I might be wrong.
The only Viking settlers I remember were near Seville, but that was much earlier, during the IXth Century.
OK, thanks for correcting me. I was on another history board and referred to the "Slavic Kingdom of Almeria" and some non-Spanish medieval history buffs claimed that the "Slavs" were actually Vikings. So it turns out I was right. Thanks.
There were no Picts when the Vikings arrived.
"Celtic" culture had been replaced at that time by Christian and Western Faith and Culture.
You can't consider Scots at that time as Celts, since their Druidic culture was a thing of the past and they were Christians.
Again, Celts are not a race.
Vikings did not exist during Classical Times.
Romans would have wiped them for good.
Any tribe during Classical Times would have wiped them for good.
They were opportunist raiders with very primitive equipment.
The success of Vikings relied in the following factors:
1. High Middle Ages - Western Europe was in shambles
2. No naval powers in Western Europe
3. Communications were very difficult, so it took a lot of time to send armies to meet Vikings.
4. They weren't different from Colombian "Sicarios". Many of their strikes were commissioned jobs for disaffected noblemen, rivals, etc.
Vikings are not important in Western Europe, they became important during Romanticism. They could only attack remote, scarcely populated areas such as England or Scotland at that time. They were beaten or commissioned as mercenaries elsewhere.
Considering that the Gaels often had to deal with people who called themselves "Picts" into the 10th century, I'm going with the theory that they were, in fact, Picts. Further, religion is an element of culture, but not the only element. We can pretty quickly run into a "real Scotsman" fallacy by stating that "All Picts were Celts, no Celts were Christians, so there is no such thing as a Christian Pict", which is what you appear to be doing here.
As far as the Romans wiping Vikings for good, how are you so certain of this? What is the context of the battle? You're awfully quick to judge people for jumping to conclusions, but you're definitely jumping to conclusions on this one. The same applies to any tribe during the Classical Times. What is your evidence of this? If there were 5,000 Vikings fighting 5,000 Romans on an open field, the Romans would rout them. Put the same thing in a region where the Romans would be unable to properly arrange their formations, and it would be a different matter. I'm basing this on the relative lack of success that Rome had in Germany, and the difficulties that they had in other battles against the Celts. But, of course, it's conjecture because, as you stated, there wasn't the same Roman army in 900AD. How did the Romans get brought into this anyway?
Finally, their "Primitive Equipment" was basically equal to what their neighbors in that time had; swords, axes, spears, bows, mail, etc...
Jumping in with some actual facts here, probably the biggest tactical weakness that the Norse had on the battlefields was their general hesitance to employ cavalry.
Going a bit further with this, you seem to have a bone in your craw about anything related to any Germanic peoples, and it seems to adversely effect the actual accuracy of your claims.
I have nothing against Germanics. I look Germanic all the way, but I don't know where my Germanic blood comes from, my brother looks Mediterranean. When I studied in the US, they always said that I look like a "mean redneck". Not that I care.
Spain is a Latin country founded on Gothic (Germanic) principles. We fought 800 years to restore the Spain of the Goths.
Oh, yes. A Roman Legion would have wiped out 10.000 Vikings.
Romans routed Germanics whenever they dared to put a fight, but Romans, being Mediterranean, were scared of German forest and "Germanic" guerilla and ambushes, such as the one perpretated by Arminius.
You must take into account that Vikings were not warriors, but opportunistic thiefs and scoundrels that took advantage of a barren world.
I believe this Thread is "Vikings vs Celts"
If anyone wants to do "Vikings vs Roman Legions" starting a new Thread would be in order.. and it could be interesting
Thanks
Problem is that there were no Celts when Vikings appeared in history.
Again, Celts was a culture replaced by Christianity.
There were no Angles and no Saxons, no Goths either.
The only barbarians that preserved some entity were Franks, but it's quite discussable that "Franks" during the IXth Century preserved any resemblance with Franks - Germanic Tribe.
Germanic barbarians in Western Europe lasted a few generations before melting into a very large population of latinized or celtified people in which they always felt culturally inferior.
Druidic religion, that was what identified Celtic culture, not language.
Vikings fought against Irish Catholics.
When Vikings invaded Gaelecia in Spain, they fought against Gaelecian Catholics.
Both crushed Vikings.
Catholic Church repressed and assimilated Celtic culture.
Of course, there's no Celtic DNA.
Last edited by Leovigildo; 08-08-2009 at 04:07 AM..
The viking terrorized the irish who were true celts so I'd go with the vikings.
If you watch the world strongmen contests, probably 3/4 are swedes, norwegians fins or germans or poles with a few americans mixed in.
Thats because the best athletes in bigger countries aint wasting their time on a contest that pays 25k and a bag of doughnuts.
'Celt' refers to a suite of cultural characteristics mainly comprised of certain art styles pre-historically and language in historic times. These classifications span a 3,000 year history and a geographic area spanning Asia to the Isles.
The Vikings were a sub-class of sea-faring Scandinavian farmers who opportunistically raided communities, primarily in northwest Europe during their summer holidays (when the crops were in the field) for a period of 250 years.
This makes the question nonsensical. It is like saying, Who is tougher, my brother or Asians?
I was curious as to who everyone thought was tougher the celtic warriors or the vikings...who would be more feared..etc..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
