Barbarians/Beserkers

Remove all ads!

This is not about the AD&D barbarians and beserkers but the actual real world equivalent. Basically while playing BG2 i came to wonder what actually is the difference between barbarians and beserkers.
Before playing BG2 i had always thought as them both being the same, basically fighters who fought fast with little armour protection and could draw on their last physical and energy, when near death or overwhelmed, to enter a trance like state of rage where they were pretty much one-man killing machines until the rage (or bloodlust as i have also heard it described) wore off and they collapsed exhauseted but victorious. Most of this is from the conan the barbarian (also beserker, champion, warrior, fighter, sailor) books, film, and tv series. As well as other barbarian/beserker fiction.

However i can't think of any real difference between a barbarian and a beserker. Anyone have any thoughts on the matter or, even better, an answer?

 

A barbarian is technically, by Roman definition, anyone that was not a civilized Roman. The word barbarian comes from the fact that the Romans thought the barbarian's language sounded like dogs barking. The barbarian has now been stereotyped into the fierce, raging wilderness warrior, whereas many in history were just marauders and raiders who attacked more civilized areas of the world.

A berserker is a Norse term, from "bearskin". Those warriors went into berserk rages in battle.

 

I'd be a beserker

Could be a barbarian though

 

Barbarians are more nature orientated.
That would be all i can remember now

 

Beserkers train to bring out their anger and focus it in battle while barbarians just like to get blood on their hands

Basically the same - except one is natural and one is trained

 

To 8people and Gothmog4230: Lazy Bonzo said he was looking for a real-world definition, not something out of (A)D&D. In reality, I doubt barbarians in general were nature-oriented; savage/uncivilized doesn't mean that. Secondly, everyone who is a warrior becomes one through training. IMHO, there is no such thing as a "natural" warrior. Being raised in a harsh environment doesn't automatically make you a tough berserking warrior; adapting to that may do so, but barbarians, in reality, were probably not the kind of people raised in a harsh lands who suddenly became fierce warriors.

[ September 02, 2002, 23:09: Message edited by: C'Jakob ]

 

Barbarians wold be all those people who invaded and destroyed the Roman empire. They were warriors becouse of clan wars- if one clan grows weak other one attacks it in order to join it to his so he would have more men and power,...

Mongols would be pure barbarians they were nomads moving seeking food for their horses and sheeps. They often encountered other cultures from which they had to fight food and grass = experienced warriors.

 

I think Mongols are sorta half-barbarians. They may have been barbaric for the reason Gothmog said, but they were also civilized to some extent. They domisticated horses and did more in battle than go berserk; as some of the world's best horseback archers, their military prowess allowed them to conquer much of Asia. Of course, they afterwards set up an empire.

And you can't be barbaric when you've founded an empire.

 

"Barbarian n. 1. A person in a savage, primitive state; uncivilized person. 2. a person without culture or education; philistine 3. (esp. in ancient or mideval periods) a foreigner. adj - 4. uncivilized, crude, or savage. 5. foreign or alien"

"berserker n. Scand. Legend. any ancient Norse warrior of great strength and courage who fought with frenzied rage in battle; baresark"

Well, you asked for definitions, so there you go. Maybe that will help this discussion out. Both come from the Random House College Dictionary.

[ September 03, 2002, 23:48: Message edited by: Rastor ]