Vikings or Celts

Celts or Vikings?

  • Celts

    Votes: 78 38.6%
  • Vikings

    Votes: 108 53.5%
  • None or other (explain)

    Votes: 16 7.9%


log in or register to remove this ad


Unless it's England: Other. BIG OTHER (Except that vikings appeared every where, even Byzantium, but I'm rambling...)

In an Early Middle Ages setting/ Dark Ages, I'd actually go with the Magyars (Hungarians). They pretty much combine all the elements a scourge of epic proportions rampaging out of control across Europe.

( On a side note, this historically wouldn't work after the first millenium due to the fact that their army was broken by the Germans and Lechfield in 955.)

In the High Middle Ages, I'd go with the golden horde for obvious reasons.

In the Late Middle Ages, things get mor complicated. In the west I would say the Burgundians, though for all their cultural and military advancement, they exhibited many of the same qualities we would associate with an "out of control" or barbaric faction.

( Believe me the Burgundians are to France what the the Danish were to England. A huge problem!)

For the east I would have to say either the Teutonic Knights in Prussia and Livonia or the Wallacians. Though a knightly order, the Teutonic Knights wrecked great havoc in the nations of Lithuania and Poland under shady (or no) pretexts following the withdrawl of the Mongols.

The Wallacians are well known for their untrusworthy nature as allies, habits of switching sides in the middle of battle (Varna anyone?) and random inprisonment of foreign Warlords, along with stunning acts of brutality against the enemy and their own. (Dracula) an easy "barbarian choice", in my opinion.

Well, there are some of the less obvious choices. They all work well, even if some are rather, unorthedox.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top