2007-09-20 02:26:50 · 12 answers · asked by Woodstock 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
It is a difficult question to answer. they were hundreds of years apart for one and fought completely differently. but lets say they fought a pitched battle. the Huns would prefer the bow and their horses while the vikings would form a shield wall on the their own two feet. the Huns wore mostly light Armour (leather, or light metal), the vikings wore also leather and/or chain mail. the vikings were not the most unified group of people, while on the other hand, Huns were. Viking- as some definitions say means raiding, and they were clearly raiders. while the Huns often fought large heated battles against the Romans and various others. if i had to pick one or the other, it would probably be the Huns. not only were the Huns experienced in large battle field tactics (the largest viking battles were in the low thousands), they also had their large hordes of Calvary and archers where the vikings were very limited in horses and would ride the few they had to battle and then dismount. the Huns would win because they were trained to fight other armies, while the vikings mostly fought locals and plundered villages.
2007-09-20 03:10:28 · answer #1 · answered by Calder 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
On Sea the Vikings, on land the Huns.
Vikings were very good shock troops, best at close combat. The Swords of the Vikings were very strong and some of the first Iron weapons.
The Huns were Great on open land were they could use their mobility and archer to bear and close with the enemy at their choosing.
The Huns prefered the plains, and open terrain, the avoided marsches and deaply wood forest, the Viking fought best on foot and in restricted areas.
Put a Hun and a Viking in the ring it would depend upon the individual.
Where and how the fought would make the difference.
2007-09-20 04:32:06 · answer #2 · answered by DeSaxe 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Most likely the Huns, for they could fire arrows from horseback against the foot soldier Vikings. If it ever got into an infantry slugging match, the Vikings would have a better chance.
2007-09-20 02:29:41 · answer #3 · answered by Bob Mc 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Vikings will tend to fight as individual warriors, en mass, although they would be able to employ the shield wall. Attilla used horse archers and cavalry. Think cowboys and inidians.
A better example of armoured infantry vs cavalry happened during the Crusades - Christian troops (Heavy infantry) vs mounted archers. In this instance the Knights won, However, both ;methods are effective and with the right commanders....
Luck
2007-09-20 02:46:45 · answer #4 · answered by Alice S 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I like the Huns in this one. They were uncivilized animals with no respect for anyone. The Vikings might not have been mean or ruthless enough. It would have been a great game to watch!
2007-09-20 02:33:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think of you're watching this in an basic easy and the international is lots greater complicated than you're perceiving it. that's no longer meant to insult you yet i choose you to appreciate what i'm asserting (so please forgive me in case you're taking this as an insult in view that I disagree with you). i'm a veteran, 8 years; approximately 24 months of that for the duration of conflict time territories (one theater the place we've been in an surely skirmish the place weapons have been actively and purposely discharged). i'm no longer against conflict yet i'm by contrast conflict. The reasoms for it did no longer, and nevertheless no longer, make experience to me. there have been multiple intelligence that instructed the administration that there have been no longer WMDs (or have been very scarce and not approximately to enhance). all people who is conscious something with regard to the middle East is conscious the adaptation between a Sunni and a Shiite and Al-Quaeda (Sunni) and Saddam (Shiite, no longer even a working in the direction of one) have been enemies via distinctive characteristic of those changes of their faith. And yet this administration implied a number of situations that there exchange right into a connection. you are able to somewhat help the troops and disagree with the Pentagon and the commander-in-chief. it is your marvelous to question the management and that's actual American to take action. thinking our leaders isn't comparable to thinking the troops. we don't question the production unit workers that are layed off in Detroit yet we question the executives. as far as demoralizing the troops... nicely, i exchange into in teh provider and that i easily on no account had conversations with different squaddies approximately society's concept persons. We have been rugged and person adult males who did no longer easily care a whit approximately society's concept. We did the activity and did no longer anticipate popularity and/or parades and tears. individually, I actual have on no account extremely seen all people no longer help the troops... on the same time whilst i exchange into interior the provider we did no longer care. Its fantastic yet no longer mandatory.
2016-11-05 22:47:04 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd say the Vikings, especially now that they've got Adrian Peterson.
Boomer Sooner baby!
2007-09-20 02:29:17 · answer #7 · answered by samans442 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
mobile forces usually won the battles, especially the Huns and the Mongols.
2007-09-20 02:50:41 · answer #8 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Huns!! They were better organised and arrows and horses>>men on foot welding axes and the like
2007-09-20 02:39:24 · answer #9 · answered by Johnny D 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The huns were as vicious as the vikings as well as being organized.
2016-03-25 08:23:55 · answer #10 · answered by s.gregory78 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋