Jump to content


Pirate MOC


  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic  – Started by Mister Phes , Mar 19 2005 12:35 PM

#1 Mister Phes

Mister Phes
  • Uncle Sam edit!


    Posts: 20309
    Joined: 19-March 05
    Member: 273

Posted 19 March 2005 - 12:35 PM

Does anybody have any Pirate MOCs to show me?

I've seen ApophisV MOCs he's posted in the Castle Forum and they were awesome!  
Does anyone else have any Pirate masterpieces they'd like to share with the world?

#2 Wolf04

Wolf04
  • Shepherd


    Posts: 570
    Joined: 11-November 04
    Member: 99
    Country: Canada

Posted 19 March 2005 - 03:22 PM

Dude, if there were any other MOCs, people would have posted them, and if they did, look through the previous MOC threads. Now stop making so many useless threads! |-/

#3 Mister Phes

Mister Phes
  • Uncle Sam edit!


    Posts: 20309
    Joined: 19-March 05
    Member: 273

Posted 19 March 2005 - 03:30 PM

Wolf04, on Mar 19 2005, 02:22 PM, said:

Dude, if there were any other MOCs, people would have posted them, and if they did, look through the previous MOC threads. Now stop making so many useless threads! |-/
Dude, I'm new here I don't know what's what yet.

I've looked through the current MOC threads and there's not much there.  I've posted 3 threads, one of which you told me put in the wrong place so the moderator moved it.

And if my threads are useless then get the moderators to close them down.

#4 xwingyoda

xwingyoda

    Posts: 11040
    Joined: 26-February 05
    Member: 255

Posted 19 March 2005 - 03:42 PM

relax dudes ;)

Aren't we here for fun? No need for aggression on a lovely week-end *glasses*

#5 Mister Phes

Mister Phes
  • Uncle Sam edit!


    Posts: 20309
    Joined: 19-March 05
    Member: 273

Posted 19 March 2005 - 03:51 PM

xwingyoda, on Mar 19 2005, 02:42 PM, said:

relax dudes ;)

Aren't we here for fun? No need for aggression on a lovely week-end *glasses*
Hehehehehe!

That was relaxed!  I could have been quite a bit nastier.  Nah, just felt the need to justify the reason for this thread.

Since I'm new I don't know whether people post their MOCs on their own accord or if they wait until someone is interested.  Maybe some people don't even think to post their MOCs? I have no idea so I was checking just in case.

But yes, I'm here for fun! The Big Bad Wolf might be here to antagonise so I'll try really hard to NOT to antagonise back.  Right now I'm tempted to go create a dosen actual useless threads just to annoy him, but that would only annoy everyone else on the board and that's not what I'm here to do.

I'm here to connect with those who have similiar interests!

#6 Jipay

Jipay
  • Steve Wet


    Posts: 8388607
    Joined: 27-January 04
    Member: 1
    Country: France

Posted 19 March 2005 - 04:30 PM

Post what you want to ! In the case of the MOCs you don't have to think : just post. For other threads just be sure that your subject hasnt been started by someone else before.
And welcome here !

#7 ApophisV

ApophisV
  • The Phoenix


    Posts: 3783
    Joined: 12-April 04
    Member: 14

Posted 19 March 2005 - 08:23 PM

My Royal Port...

#8 ApophisV

ApophisV
  • The Phoenix


    Posts: 3783
    Joined: 12-April 04
    Member: 14

Posted 19 March 2005 - 08:24 PM

mister_phes, on Mar 19 2005, 01:35 PM, said:

I've seen ApophisV MOCs he's posted in the Castle Forum and they were awesome!
Thanks!  :$  *satis*

#9 V()()D()()

V()()D()()

    Posts: 130
    Joined: 30-January 05
    Member: 194
    Country: Kanada

Posted 19 March 2005 - 09:39 PM

I'm working on a big Skeleton Viking/Pirate Ship... It's a boat I geuss... I'll post picks when I'm done.

#10 Mister Phes

Mister Phes
  • Uncle Sam edit!


    Posts: 20309
    Joined: 19-March 05
    Member: 273

Posted 20 March 2005 - 08:54 AM

V()()D()(), on Mar 19 2005, 08:39 PM, said:

I'm working on a big Skeleton Viking Ship... It's a boat I geuss... I'll post picks when I'm done.
Vikings were a form of Pirate!  They raped, pillaged and plundered!

Skeleton Viking Ship huh?  That sounds interesting!  I look forward to seeing that.

#11 Bloody Jay

Bloody Jay
  • You know who


    Posts: 2882
    Joined: 03-January 05
    Member: 147
    Country: USA

Posted 20 March 2005 - 04:31 PM

mister_phes, on Mar 20 2005, 02:54 AM, said:

V()()D()(), on Mar 19 2005, 08:39 PM, said:

I'm working on a big Skeleton Viking Ship... It's a boat I geuss... I'll post picks when I'm done.
Vikings were a form of Pirate!  They raped, pillaged and plundered!

Skeleton Viking Ship huh?  That sounds interesting!  I look forward to seeing that.
Actually, pirates were a form of Viking.  Vikings came way, way, way before your puny little privateers and schooners. :P

I can't wait to see that Viking ship, V()()D()().  We should have a Viking contest a couple weeks after their release... maybe Jipay or Apo or someone can arrange that?  :-D

#12 Mister Phes

Mister Phes
  • Uncle Sam edit!


    Posts: 20309
    Joined: 19-March 05
    Member: 273

Posted 21 March 2005 - 12:55 AM

Quote

Actually, pirates were a form of Viking.  Vikings came way, way, way before your puny little privateers and schooners. :P

A Viking was a Scandinavian in the 8th to the 11th centuries, while  A pirate  is someone who robs at sea or plunders the land from the sea without commission from a sovereign nation.  But that's just getting technical!

Quote

I can't wait to see that Viking ship, V()()D()().  We should have a Viking contest a couple weeks after their release... maybe Jipay or Apo or someone can arrange that?  :-D
Who said anything about puny privateers and their schooners?

Coming way, way before the Caribbean pirates denotes that were technologies unavailable to Vikings that were available to Pirates.  Like cannons and fire arms!  So, bring out the 40 gun War Galleons and Imperial Naval Frigates!  The Vikings will be blasted out of the water long before they're in spear throws reach!

#13 Athos

Athos
  • Sloppiness Seeker


    Posts: 3800
    Joined: 31-October 04
    Member: 84
    Country: USA

Posted 21 March 2005 - 02:02 AM

Quote

Actually, pirates were a form of Viking. Vikings came way, way, way before your puny little privateers and schooners.

Actually I think Vikings were a form of pirate would be the more correct statement. In this case, it is not a matter of which came first. It is more a matter of the generality of the term. Pirates would be those who steal (for lack of a better term) on the seas. Vikings (to overly simplify it) are Scandanavians, with pointy horned hats, who steal on the seas. Pirates can come from any geographic area (Caribbean, South Pacific, Barbary Coast), but vikings are pretty limited to Northern Europe. Thus, as all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares, vikings are pirates, but pirates are not necessarily vikings.

Steve, ever the voice of logic and reason... yeah right  :D

#14 Luigi

Luigi
  • Eurobricks Masterbuilder - TAWT


    Posts: 149
    Joined: 05-February 04
    Member: 6

Posted 21 March 2005 - 12:31 PM

Vikings were more exploraters and commercants than stealers from what I heard ... but like Pirates they were on their ships, sometimes violent huhu  |-D
The most important is that we're going to be able to have both of them in Lego  *twisted*

#15 Bloody Jay

Bloody Jay
  • You know who


    Posts: 2882
    Joined: 03-January 05
    Member: 147
    Country: USA

Posted 21 March 2005 - 11:49 PM

Actually, 'Vikings' are not who they were, but what they did.  To 'vike' was to go and raid and pillage and plunder and rape - generally what pirates did.  When they weren't viking, Vikings were called Danes or Northumbrians (the Danes were a faction of Northumbrian population, there were two others, but Danes were the main ones).

So as a 'pirate' is one that pirates, a 'Viking' is one that vikes.  And since viking was the first term, let's assume its superiority by age. ;)

Athos - Vikings didn't have horned helmets.  Also, as master explorers and mappers, they covered a much wider area than pirates, although most of their raiding was consolidated to Western Europe, because the Americas weren't colonized heavily at the time, and were therefore unprofitable to raid.  Otherwise, I'm sure they would have raided that as well.

Mister phes - I've already contradicted your other two points about Vikings, so the only thing left to cover is your weapons argument.  It's a simple matter of the state of the world at the time, just like with the 'area-covered' situation - if firearms had existed, Vikings would have had huge stocks of them.  However, that's part of what made Vikings Vikings - they didn't need firearms to defeat the enemy.  Long-range weapons such as that were not in the Viking style - they preferred hand-to-hand combat.  In fact, if a Viking that believed the religion of Northumbrians did not die honorably in battle (i.e. not showing cowardice such as using long-range weapons), he would not arrive at Odin's corpse hall, the heaven of Vikings (with, as it is told, many beautiful women and lots of meat and ale).

Oh, and wouldn't 'imperial naval frigates' be more of an imperial thing than a pirate thing? ;)


Yours,

Viking Junky

#16 Mister Phes

Mister Phes
  • Uncle Sam edit!


    Posts: 20309
    Joined: 19-March 05
    Member: 273

Posted 22 March 2005 - 09:23 AM

Brilliant!  You've done your research.

Bloody Jay, on Mar 21 2005, 10:49 PM, said:

Actually, 'Vikings' are not who they were, but what they did.  To 'vike' was to go and raid and pillage and plunder and rape - generally what pirates did.  When they weren't viking, Vikings were called Danes or Northumbrians (the Danes were a faction of Northumbrian population, there were two others, but Danes were the main ones).

Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia on Vikings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking

or a similiar article at Answers.com:
http://www.answers.c...viking&method=6


The etymology of "viking" is somewhat unclear. One path might be from the Old Norse word vík, meaning "bay", "creek" or "inlet", and the suffix -ing, meaning "coming from" or "belonging to". Thus, viking would be an activity in creeks, or "creeking". A vikingr is a person engaged in such activity. Later on, the term viking became synonymous with "naval expedition, raid", and a vikingr was a member of such expeditions. A second etymology suggested derives from Old English wíc, ie. "trading city", (cognate to Latin vicus, "village").

The word vikingr appears on several rune stones found in Scandinavia. In the Icelandic sagas, víking refers to an overseas expedition (Old Norse farar i vikingr "to go on an expedition"), and víkingr to a seaman or warrior taking part in such an expedition. In Old English, the word wicing appears first in the 6th or 7th century in the Anglo-Saxon poem Widsith.

In medieval use (eg. Widsith, and the writings of Adam von Bremen), a viking is a pirate, and not a name for the people or culture in general. Indeed, when Scandinavian raiders left their boats, stole horses and rode across country, they were never referred to as "vikings" in English sources.

The word disappeared in Middle English, and was reintroduced as viking during 18th century Romanticism. During the 20th century, the meaning of the term was expanded to refer not only to the raiders, but also to the entire period; it is now, somewhat confusingly, used as a noun both in the original meaning of raiders, warriors or navigators, and sometimes to refer to the Scandinavian population in general). As an adjective, the word is used in expressions like "Viking age", "Viking culture", "Viking colony" etc., generally referring to medieval Scandinavia


Quote

So as a 'pirate' is one that pirates, a 'Viking' is one that vikes.  And since viking was the first term, let's assume its superiority by age. ;)

It would be interesting to read your references...  

However, the definition of "Pirate" remains "A pirate is someone who robs at sea or plunders the land from the sea without commission from a sovereign nation".

Vikings did this, did they not?  Therefore they fit the definition of "Pirate". Pirate also encompasess vrijbuiters, flibustiers, lanuns, etc.   Anyone who fits the above definition. I believe what I'm specifically referring to is Pirates of the Caribbean.


Assumptions are apparently the mother of all truck ups, so lets not assume anything!


Quote

Athos - Vikings didn't have horned helmets.  Also, as master explorers and mappers, they covered a much wider area than pirates, although most of their raiding was consolidated to Western Europe, because the Americas weren't colonized heavily at the time, and were therefore unprofitable to raid.  Otherwise, I'm sure they would have raided that as well.

Which area did the Vikings cover precisely?  

Throughout history Pirates, (under whatever guise you want to refer to them by)  have spanned the entire world!  Obviously the Pirates of the Caribbean were limited to the vicinity of the Caribbean, but some travelled to Northern America, Africa, Asia and even Australia - usually on their way back to Europe and depending on which route they took. 6 out of 7 contients.  Not bad!


Quote

Mister phes - I've already contradicted your other two points about Vikings, so the only thing left to cover is your weapons argument.  It's a simple matter of the state of the world at the time, just like with the 'area-covered' situation - if firearms had existed, Vikings would have had huge stocks of them.  However, that's part of what made Vikings Vikings - they didn't need firearms to defeat the enemy.  Long-range weapons such as that were not in the Viking style - they preferred hand-to-hand combat.  In fact, if a Viking that believed the religion of Northumbrians did not die honorably in battle (i.e. not showing cowardice such as using long-range weapons), he would not arrive at Odin's corpse hall, the heaven of Vikings (with, as it is told, many beautiful women and lots of meat and ale).

You've only contradicted yourself! Really is there a fair comparisson between Vikings and Pirates of the Caribbean?  It's like comparing the Pirates of the Caribbean to modern day Naval Warfare.  Obviously the Pirates wouldn't start a chance against the latest technology.

Most Caribbean Pirates did have an honour code and operated as limited democracies, demanding the right to elect and replace their leaders.  Of course there were unscrupulous rogue pirates, although I'd find it hard to believe there wasn't the ocassional unscrupulous rogue Viking crew.

Quote

Oh, and wouldn't 'imperial naval frigates' be more of an imperial thing than a pirate thing? ;)

I think there been a misunderstand here.  When I refer to Pirate Lego I also include its sub themes which inculde Soliders and Imperial Guards.  But the more successful Pirates did tend to capture Imperial Naval Frigates and use them for their own purposes.  Galleons and Frigates make Viking  Long Ships look puny!  Don't deny that be true!


Regardlesss, great posts!  Too bad we didn't create a different thread for this debate!

#17 ApophisV

ApophisV
  • The Phoenix


    Posts: 3783
    Joined: 12-April 04
    Member: 14

Posted 22 March 2005 - 10:46 AM

Athos, on Mar 21 2005, 03:02 AM, said:

Vikings (to overly simplify it) are Scandanavians, with pointy horned hats
NOOOO!!!! With pointy hornet'ed hats!!!!  :D  :P

#18 xwingyoda

xwingyoda

    Posts: 11040
    Joined: 26-February 05
    Member: 255

Posted 22 March 2005 - 10:50 AM

Yipeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ;)

Another brilliant thesis there Mister Phez ;)
Finally someone writing longer posts than Sweden :-D  :-D

#19 Bloody Jay

Bloody Jay
  • You know who


    Posts: 2882
    Joined: 03-January 05
    Member: 147
    Country: USA

Posted 22 March 2005 - 02:54 PM

Quote

The word Viking is seen on several Scandinavian runic stones in the context of 'one fighting at sea' or 'battle at sea'.

From an unlikely resource - the HC Andersen website!

Quote

Later on, the term viking became synonymous with "naval expedition, raid", and a vikingr was a member of such expeditions.

From your own resource.

Quote

The origin of the word "Viking" is highly disputed. Some experts say it means "pirate."

National Geographic.

Quote

They also developed a tradition for piracy which went back to the time they first settled in Scandinavia - indeed the very word Viking comes from the Old Norse word means piracy.

Stormfront.org.

Quote

The word Viking comes from a Norse word vikingr which means pirate.

Tempknak.home.att.net.

Quote

In medieval use (eg. Widsith, and the writings of Adam von Bremen), a viking is a pirate, and not a name for the people or culture in general. Indeed, when Scandinavian raiders left their boats, stole horses and rode across country, they were never referred to as "vikings" in English sources.

You bold a few words in this sentence - but did you even read it fully? ;)  Viking is not a name for 'the people or culture in general'.  Who's the pointy-helmeted Scandinavian now, eh?

As far as them saying 'a viking is a pirate', this is because you don't hear many people using 'viking' and 'vike' as normal words.  It's a short way to explain what vikings were - since essentially, viking and pirate are synonyms, which is what I have been saying.  But, Vikings undeniably came first. ;)


Area covered by Vikings, you ask?  Well, there was quite a lot of it.  They did, of course, cover Europe, and discover Greenland.  Leif Erikson traveled around Russia and all the way to the west coast of North America five centuries before Columbus - not to mention that they settled midwestern America as well.  They reached the Mediterranean area as well as Italy and the Holy Lands.
And while pirates may have covered more area than vikings, vikings DISCOVERED theirs.  Pirates just sailed through and raided.

As far as your weapons discussion goes, if you think it's an unfair comparison, then you shouldn't have made it before. ;)

Vikings in the isolated sense of the word (Scandinavian raiders, not just raiders) were driven by religion in their honor code, so no - there were no unscrupulous crews, really.  Of course, their idea of scrupulous was fighting, killing, destroying, and taking as much as they could, and if they had to die, doing it honorably was required as well.

And, finally, Viking longboats in comparison to galleons.  The galleons did not dwarf the longboats - the difference between them was about 24' (76-90).  And while galleons were larger in width and height, this gives them a DISADVANTAGE against viking ships.  Longboats sported a unique design that allowed them to sail in extremely shallow waters without trouble, and also to move extremely fast.

Oh, and longboats were sportier than galleons, what with the dragon heads and all that jazz. :P

Can't wait for the next installment... :-D

#20 Mister Phes

Mister Phes
  • Uncle Sam edit!


    Posts: 20309
    Joined: 19-March 05
    Member: 273

Posted 22 March 2005 - 05:04 PM

Bloody Jay, on Mar 22 2005, 01:54 PM, said:

Quote

The word Viking is seen on several Scandinavian runic stones in the context of 'one fighting at sea' or 'battle at sea'.

From an unlikely resource - the HC Andersen website!

Quote

Later on, the term viking became synonymous with "naval expedition, raid", and a vikingr was a member of such expeditions.

From your own resource.

Quote

The origin of the word "Viking" is highly disputed. Some experts say it means "pirate."

National Geographic.

Quote

They also developed a tradition for piracy which went back to the time they first settled in Scandinavia - indeed the very word Viking comes from the Old Norse word means piracy.

Stormfront.org.

Quote

The word Viking comes from a Norse word vikingr which means pirate.

Tempknak.home.att.net.

Quote

In medieval use (eg. Widsith, and the writings of Adam von Bremen), a viking is a pirate, and not a name for the people or culture in general. Indeed, when Scandinavian raiders left their boats, stole horses and rode across country, they were never referred to as "vikings" in English sources.

Quote

You bold a few words in this sentence - but did you even read it fully? ;)  Viking is not a name for 'the people or culture in general'.  Who's the pointy-helmeted Scandinavian now, eh?

Yes, words were bolded to be annoying more than anything! But yes, I did read it fully.  It says "a Vikings is a pirate", no cutures or minority groups implied there.  It just reiterates what I've been saying all along.  Vikings commit acts which allows them to fit the definiton of a Pirate.

Quote

As far as them saying 'a viking is a pirate', this is because you don't hear many people using 'viking' and 'vike' as normal words.  It's a short way to explain what vikings were - since essentially, viking and pirate are synonyms, which is what I have been saying.  But, Vikings undeniably came first. ;)

Yes, undeniably Vikings came first!  However, older words tend to depreciate and become obsolete. Several dictionaries indicate Pirates can be a noun or a verb, while Vikings are used as a noun. We don't hear people use  'Vike' a normal word because its not part of comtemporary English language..  'Vike' isn't even in any of the dictionaries I've seen, though if it were it would appear to be a verb according to you.  Got any online resources definiting 'vike'?


Quote

Area covered by Vikings, you ask?  Well, there was quite a lot of it.  They did, of course, cover Europe, and discover Greenland.  Leif Erikson traveled around Russia and all the way to the west coast of North America five centuries before Columbus - not to mention that they settled midwestern America as well.  They reached the Mediterranean area as well as Italy and the Holy Lands.
And while pirates may have covered more area than vikings, vikings DISCOVERED theirs.  Pirates just sailed through and raided.

You're right as most Pirates were not explorers.  However your original statement was "Also, as master explorers and mappers, they covered a much wider area than pirates".  You didn't say that "their exploration and mapping covered  a much wider area than pirates exploration and mapping".  Besides, by the time of the Caribbean Pirates, a lot more of the world had been discovered than the time of the Vikings.

Quote

Vikings in the isolated sense of the word (Scandinavian raiders, not just raiders) were driven by religion in their honor code, so no - there were no unscrupulous crews, really.  Of course, their idea of scrupulous was fighting, killing, destroying, and taking as much as they could, and if they had to die, doing it honorably was required as well.

The ancient Egyptions were also driven by their religion.  But within hours of the tombs being sealed, no curse or relgious values could deter greedy tomb raiders plundering the tomb.  How can you say there were no unscrupulous Viking crews?  100% of Vikings cannot be driven or could abide to their honor code as    there would have been some that chose to defy it.  Documented or not, it would have  happened in their history. Defiance of power is human nature to - there's always going to some who do it.  


Quote

As far as your weapons discussion goes, if you think it's an unfair comparison, then you shouldn't have made it before. ;)

And, finally, Viking longboats in comparison to galleons.  The galleons did not dwarf the longboats - the difference between them was about 24' (76-90).  And while galleons were larger in width and height, this gives them a DISADVANTAGE against viking ships.  Longboats sported a unique design that allowed them to sail in extremely shallow waters without trouble, and also to move extremely fast.

I never used the word "unfair". I wrote "Really is there a fair comparisson between Vikings and Pirates of the Caribbean?", as I was in a hurry I didn't have time to fully elaborate.

Galleons were not ideal warships due to their bulk, however some were modified for the purpose of combat. Frigates were much better suited to the job as they were faster and more manoeuvrable.

Viking Longboat: 24-28 metres (Not sure how reliable that website was though)
Frigate: 45 metres in length

But as you said, "big" doesn't necessarily mean better for combat.  But it does allow to hold more cannon and more crew...

Quote

If firearms had existed, Vikings would have had huge stocks of them. However, that's part of what made Vikings Vikings - they didn't need firearms to defeat the enemy. Long-range weapons such as that were not in the Viking style - they preferred hand-to-hand combat. In fact, if a Viking that believed the religion of Northumbrians did not die honorably in battle (i.e. not showing cowardice such as using long-range weapons), he would not arrive at Odin's corpse hall, the heaven of Vikings (with, as it is told, many beautiful women and lots of meat and ale).

What would Vikings do with huge stock piles of firearms?  According to what you've written they wouldn't have been able to use them anyway.  So it would be pointless for them to stock pile them in the first place.

And you're definitely right, the Vikings wouldn't have needed firearms to defeat the enemy because the enemy didn't have firearms either!


Point is, if a time port hole opened up and a Viking and Caribbean Pirate vessel were suddenly face against each other, the Caribbean Pirates would have a technological advancement.  The Viking's religious beliefs are  irrelevant to those who wish to defeat them. So cannons and firearms be fired!  Vikings blasted out of the water before they can get anywhere near to do damage.

However, if a modern day pirate  (we haven't even touched upon this yet) came along in their speed boats, they'd make short work of the Vikings and Caribbean Pirates with their AK-47s in seconds.  This is what I meant by its hardly a fair comparisson as the Vikings are limited by their technology and beliefs.

Its not a matter of who could do what, its a matter of what factors were in place at the time.

#21 xwingyoda

xwingyoda

    Posts: 11040
    Joined: 26-February 05
    Member: 255

Posted 22 March 2005 - 05:05 PM

Let the battle of the Vicking thesis continue :-D

Round 2 fight................ :-D  ;)

#22 Bloody Jay

Bloody Jay
  • You know who


    Posts: 2882
    Joined: 03-January 05
    Member: 147
    Country: USA

Posted 22 March 2005 - 07:33 PM

Quote

Yes, words were bolded to be annoying more than anything! But yes, I did read it fully. It says "a Vikings is a pirate", no cutures or minority groups implied there. It just reiterates what I've been saying all along. Vikings commit acts which allows them to fit the definiton of a Pirate.

And pirates commit acts which allow them to fit the definition of a viking, eh?

My resource for 'vike' came from the afterword in The Last Kingdom by Bernard Cornwell (good read, you should pick it up), and since he is a highly respected author in historical fiction (before you use the fiction part as evidence, his afterword explains what was true and what wasn't, and gives several interesting facts about Vikings), I'll trust that as a source.  Perhaps the word did become obsolete, or perhaps it was never ported over to the English language.

As far as exploration and mapping, that's more what I meant in the first place - Vikings got around a lot more than most ships did back then.  And let's not kid ourselves about pirates not having much of the world left to discover - pirates were concerned simply with raiding and looting, while Vikings wanted to settle the lands they conquered as well.  (it's funny how we're now debating both the words and pirates/Vikings as people).

As far as the honor code, I think I can safely assume that there were few, if not none, unscrupulous Vikings - why would they defy it?  Freedom to basically do whatever they want except kill/steal/wrong each other and die dishonorably.  Not really strict enough to disobey.  Sure, there were probably the occassional wrongdoers, stealing another Viking's pig or something, but nothing really serious like Viking crew vs. Viking crew.

The ships - frigates may have been able to down longboats, but that's just technological difference.  Without cannons, Vikings would have won.  It's a simple matter of times changing, as you said.  I'm not trying to compare them with Scandinavian Vikings in a cultural/technological sense in any case.

Besides, how did it get to this point?  My point is that since a viking was a sea raider long before a pirate was, vikings are, in essence, the predecessors of pirates, so long as we take into account that viking means pirate and pirate means sea raider.

I was arguing against your original statement; 'Vikings were a form of pirate'.  Vikings and pirates are essentially the same thing, so Vikings should not be considered a subset of pirates.

#23 Mister Phes

Mister Phes
  • Uncle Sam edit!


    Posts: 20309
    Joined: 19-March 05
    Member: 273

Posted 23 March 2005 - 08:50 AM

Bloody Jay, on Mar 22 2005, 06:33 PM, said:

And pirates commit acts which allow them to fit the definition of a viking, eh? 

Ehhh???  I never wrote that!  You were the one who said Pirates were a form of Viking.  

Quote

As far as exploration and mapping, that's more what I meant in the first place - Vikings got around a lot more than most ships did back then.  And let's not kid ourselves about pirates not having much of the world left to discover - pirates were concerned simply with raiding and looting, while Vikings wanted to settle the lands they conquered as well.  (it's funny how we're now debating both the words and pirates/Vikings as people).

Just add water and that's the definition of a Pirate!  

Yes we can debate pirates and vikings as people as they're both nouns (a noun being a "naming" word).  However, "pirate" can be used a verb (a verb being a doing word). Here's example, a smuggler isn't a pirate if they smuggle their goods using air craft, however if they were to use sea craft then they would be defined as a pirate.

Quote

As far as the honor code, I think I can safely assume that there were few, if not none, unscrupulous Vikings - why would they defy it?  Freedom to basically do whatever they want except kill/steal/wrong each other and die dishonorably.  Not really strict enough to disobey.  Sure, there were probably the occassional wrongdoers, stealing another Viking's pig or something, but nothing really serious like Viking crew vs. Viking crew.

Why does anybody kill/steal/wrong each other?  Many many reasons.  Unfortunately its human nature and no amount of honour, religion, discipline or threatening can prevent 100% of people from commiting those crimes.

Quote

The ships - frigates may have been able to down longboats, but that's just technological difference.  Without cannons, Vikings would have won.  It's a simple matter of times changing, as you said.  I'm not trying to compare them with Scandinavian Vikings in a cultural/technological sense in any case.

Without cannons Caribbean Pirates would have resorted to other means.  And why would Vikings have won? Over 1000 years later the art of sword play would and battle strategies undoubtedly improved.  Caribbean Pirates would have had an intellectual and tactical advantage with 1000 years plus knowledge over the Vikings.

Its not possible to say one could have beat the other unless professional historians actually succifiently researched the comparison.

Quote

Besides, how did it get to this point?  My point is that since a viking was a sea raider long before a pirate was, vikings are, in essence, the predecessors of pirates, so long as we take into account that viking means pirate and pirate means sea raider.

Actually it got to this point by your comment "Actually, pirates were a form of Viking.  Vikings came way, way, way before your puny little privateers and schooners".  I thought you might bite and sure enough you did.  So I kept feeding it to you and you kept biting.  I wanted to see how far you'd take it.


Or I could have just replied with this...

Privateers and pirates are different.  There were no "privateers" in the Pirate Lego theme, so that voids that part of the statement.  Secondly the largest schooner ever built was 120 metres long, almost 3 times a long as a Frigate.  Now the average Viking Long Boat was 24-28 metres?

But what would the fun have been in that?  I've learnt some new things about Vikings and some about pirates too.  So all in all I feel I gained from this debate.  Thank you for partaking!

#24 xwingyoda

xwingyoda

    Posts: 11040
    Joined: 26-February 05
    Member: 255

Posted 23 March 2005 - 09:41 AM

Yipeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee :-D

Round 3...........................Fight :-D

#25 Bloody Jay

Bloody Jay
  • You know who


    Posts: 2882
    Joined: 03-January 05
    Member: 147
    Country: USA

Posted 23 March 2005 - 03:35 PM

1) I know you never wrote that, I reversed what you said, because it still holds true.
2) I think we're really having two debates; pirates and vikings in the context as Carribbean pirates and Scandinavian vikings, and the use of the words 'pirate' and 'viking' themselves.  Let's do keep them divided debates - this'll become even more confusing if they're mixed.  In any case, smuggling by sea wouldn't make them a pirate, unless the goods were stolen by them as well.
3) Of course you're right about that, and I said that of course there were conflicts of Viking vs. Viking, but since they were the most feared people in Europe at the time, and could basically take any land they wanted to (although they did fail to take over the last quarter of England when they tried), I doubt that there were any large conflicts within their ranks.  They were surprisingly civilized amongst themselves.
4) Because Vikings (as a culture, not as a word, same for your pirates) were trained from childhood to wield the weapons of their people, and to use them effectively and mercilessly.  Pirates, on the other hand, usually picked it up as a sort of profession rather than beginning it from birth.  It'd still be a fair contest, but I'd expect Vikings to emerge on top.
5) Privateers had permission to attack enemies and raid them, that's about the only difference.  They were basically regulated pirates.  Of course, some of them were merchants that outfitted for privateering as a legal, but more profitable, alternative, but a good majority of privateers were pirates.  Now that, that could be considered a type of pirate.
6) I was never even discussing this in a LEGO sense.  8-|

This isn't over yet. ;)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Sponsored Links