Vikings vs. Spartans

[Nargleblarg]

hahahahahahahaha what a dumb question the spartan because they have spartan lasers

but no seriously spartans because they were amazingly trained warriors especially when they proved themselves at Thermopylae.

 

[LewsTherin]

Why is everyone talking about Spartan Discipline? Has no one ever heard of a Shieldwall? Bloody hell that was a basic Viking tactic.

That was a basic EVERYONE tactic.

I say Viking, better equipment. A bronze shield wouldn't stop a steel axe swung by a crazed ulfsark.

 

[tsb247]

Bronze is harder than iron so an iron edge dulls very quickly.

I just thought I should point this out.

Bronze is not harder than iron. Bronze is an alloy of copper, tin, and sometimes zinc and/or lead (usually 80% copper and 12% tin + other metals that make up the rest). Iron is MUCH harder than bronze, but it does have its disadvantages. It is a lot harder to work with, and it rusts a lot faster.

Generally, an iron blade would slice through bronze armor with little trouble. You can get a decent edge on an iron weapon, and an iron weaopns would have more weight than a bronze weapon of the same size. This would mean that you could put more power behind a strike.

I believe you're thinking steel. The only things iron has over bronze is that it's more abundant and less brittle. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Age#Transition_from_bronze_to_iron]

I stand corrected. I could have sworn that Iron was harder as it is far more brittle and bronze. It's off to consult my Materials Engineering book!

I believe you misinterpreted the article in your link. The article says that iron is weaker than bronze, not softer. Iron can be less structurally sound than bronze *because* it's harder. However, several common forging techniques offset the brittleness disadvantage, such as good tempering. The superiority of iron weapons over bronze is one of the resons the Indo-aryan Celts owned Europe the way they did.

Very true. Annealing and Tempering do wonders for iron.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

Spoiler: snip

Bronze is harder than iron so an iron edge dulls very quickly.

I just thought I should point this out.

Bronze is not harder than iron. Bronze is an alloy of copper, tin, and sometimes zinc and/or lead (usually 80% copper and 12% tin + other metals that make up the rest). Iron is MUCH harder than bronze, but it does have its disadvantages. It is a lot harder to work with, and it rusts a lot faster.

Generally, an iron blade would slice through bronze armor with little trouble. You can get a decent edge on an iron weapon, and an iron weaopns would have more weight than a bronze weapon of the same size. This would mean that you could put more power behind a strike.

I believe you're thinking steel. The only things iron has over bronze is that it's more abundant and less brittle. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Age#Transition_from_bronze_to_iron]

I stand corrected. I could have sworn that Iron was harder as it is far more brittle and bronze. It's off to consult my Materials Engineering book!

Actually, this could be debated somewhat depending on the composition of the iron. If there is a good pearlite/ferrite ratio, iron can have a hardness up to 200 HB and still be considered regular iron. The hardness of bronze over iron would depend on how each material was created. Some bronze alloys only have an HB of about 150 or so. It would depend on the knowledge and skill of the person crafting the weapon. Some forms of cast iron can have an HB of around 200 and even up to 270 (fine pearlite).

http://www.atlasfdry.com/grayiron-hardness.htm (Mechanical properties of iron and iron alloys)

http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=2848 (Softer bronze)

http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=2849 (Harder bronze)

Fascinating stuff, I've no idea where I got the idea that bronze was more brittle. Hopefully the materials class I take next fall will clear up any other false preconceptions I might have picked up.

 

[Crabid]

Vikings, because they dont need a multi million dollar film to be cool. They were bad ass warriors before that was even a term.

Perhaps you live a life free of real culture, but please don't group yourself with everybody, the spartans were always awesome. The story of the battle of Thermopylae has been awesome for over 2000 years and will continue to be awesome long after 300 is forgotten.


And to all you people who have arguments along the lines of ''vikings were mental''. I honestly don't think the vikings would be able to break a Phalanx.

 

[Ultrajoe]

hahahahahahahaha what a dumb question the spartan because they have spartan lasers

but no seriously spartans because they were amazingly trained warriors especially when they proved themselves at Thermopylae.

They lost at thermopylae. And what is with this idea that Vikings are uncoordinated savages? They were a race built around, sometimes, war, they were impressive tacticians in their own right. Anything but an open fight and Vikings win by default, anything in an open fight and Vikings win with some extra losses.

It's all very well to say that the Spartans would just make a phalanx and wipe them out, but when 1000 hairy men with chainmail and big axes come rushing out of the trees in ambush the spartans have enough time to form a position known as 'scared shitless pile of cowards' before some Nordic Awesome cleaves them in half.

Vikings were too smart to let the Spartans have their natural advantages, which would count for jack in a real fight because nobody actually runs at the Hoplite grinder. They lure you the other way and have some Beserkers rip into your flank.

Tactically better, individually superior, better armed and armored, well versed in fighting tough foes (Spartans were glorified slave-killers, they only come off as so awesome because we forget the people they killed were untrained and unequipped), Vikings.

Let me say that again: Vikings.

I honestly don't think the vikings would be able to break a Phalanx.

I honestly don't think the spartans would bbe given the chance to form one, or that the Vikings would move at it head-on.

 

[Pimppeter2]

We'll have to wait for it to appear on The Deadliest Warrior. We already know that the vikings couldn't beat the samurai.
For the record I think that show is fucking terrible. Its like Jurrasic Fight Club minus the dinosaurs and plus actually including all the retarded "science" behind it.

Seconded That show really does suck

 

[quack35]

Spartans.

There are no Viking movies that overuse slow motion.

 

[Nmil-ek]

Mongolians.

 

[Kogarian]

See, the Viking's lack of formation would actually help (if they avoided using the shield wall). They could charge all around the phalanx, which can only defend itself from one side, creating a one-on-one situation. The Spartans were trained from childhood, and the Vikings grew up in a hostile environment. With weaponry of equal quality, it might actually matter on the moral and number of the troops on the opposing sides.

 

[ElephantGuts]

A wave of Viking warriors would get slaughtered by a force of Spartans, assuming they use their traditional phalanx tactics. In fact, the phalanx was most effective against the individual, unplanned, wild tactics (or lack thereof) typical of Viking warriors.

EDIT: Assuming the Spartans manage to find a way to prevent the Vikings from flanking them, or the Vikings are too cocky/stupid to try to flank them.

 

[Squedee]

Vikings had berserkers. That's right: guys that go TOTALLY FUCKING APESHIT on command. You can have all the phalanxes and sissy bronze spear tips you want, you can't mess with a bunch of burly aryans in irreversible kill-mode.

Fuck yeah, though 300 was awesome, those were persians, not vikings

 

[Nargleblarg]

hahahahahahahaha what a dumb question the spartan because they have spartan lasers

but no seriously spartans because they were amazingly trained warriors especially when they proved themselves at Thermopylae.

They lost at thermopylae.

Ok you're right they did lose at Thermopylae but didn't you watch 300? or even read about the battle that the 300 men held out for three days against ...I don't remember how many but they destroyed half of their army before losing

 

[Ultrajoe]

Ok you're right they did lose at Thermopylae but didn't you watch 300? or even read about the battle that the 300 men held out for three days against ...I don't remember how many but they destroyed half of their army before losing

Now replace those persians with Vikings, and a commander who wasn't too arrogant to simply gut them with arrows from above.

My point stands, Vikings weren't in the habit of letting their enemies play the game how they wanted. Spartans depend on their doctrines and tactics, Vikings would break those down and cut them up before they had time to say 'would you mind standing in front of us and letting us form a phalanx?'

 

[Higurashi]

Battle of Stanford bridge. A single viking holds off the entire Saxon army and kills at least 40 of the Saxons before a coward had to sneak underneath the bridge he was on and stab him in the sack.

Whereas the Spartans couldn't leave their own city without it being overrun.

Over 40 Saxons. Not to mention it was a close fight despite the Vikings being surprised and not being prepared at all. They had no armour on, for the love of Tyr!

Spartan discipline versus Viking pure ability...

Wait, Vikings also had unholy levels of coordination. Looks like they win. Go, my ancestral nutjobs, beat those loincloth wearing sissies!

In any case, this. *flexes Viking muscles*

Oh, and in case any of you want to call it what it is, it's "bärsärkagång". Take it from a Swedish Viking. ^_^

Bah... You all forget the power of the mushroom! They make you twice as big and strong.

Did spartans eat magic mushrooms? No, they did not.

Neither did berserkers. It's just a silly myth that I have to dispel.

 

[solidstatemind]

See, the Viking's lack of formation would actually help (if they avoided using the shield wall). They could charge all around the phalanx, which can only defend itself from one side, creating a one-on-one situation. The Spartans were trained from childhood, and the Vikings grew up in a hostile environment. With weaponry of equal quality, it might actually matter on the moral and number of the troops on the opposing sides.

While I agree with most of what you say, I have to point out that you need to go look up the term 'Phalanx', considering that it was specifically designed to deal with the envelopment/flanking tactics of cavalry.

As to who would win...

Very simply, one-on-one, the Vikings would, because their training was more oriented towards individual battles, whereas Spartans were trained from birth to be a part of a unit, and- frankly- performed poorly when isolated.

In a unit-to-unit battle, the Spartans would win, because, while the Vikings would throw themselves against the line piecemeal, the training of the Spartans dictates unity, maintaining cohesion, and not allowing the ranks to be broken. As a result, the Vikings would fling themselves one by one at the bristling spears of the Spartans, only to be speared in so many places that they bleed out before taking two additional steps.

And just FYI, I don't care how many 'magic mushrooms' you may have taken: if you've sprayed every drop of blood you have all over the ground, your muscles simply will NOT WORK.

EDIT: and before ya'll go trying to tell me I'm wrong, go research the German Blitzkrieg in WWII. Its roots were founded in the observations the German High Command made about the tactics of Viking warriors-- namely, that they knew that they were better one-on-one, but that they would get their butts kicked in a battle of massed formations; as a result, Viking tribal chiefs figured out tactics where they could present a series of combats with small numbers, as opposed to madly charging into massed formations. The German Wehrmacht adopted said tactics because they realized that, techonologically speaking, opposing forces could not match up with their troops on a one-to-one basis (particularly in re: tanks), but they very well might be able to resist via sheer weight of numbers.

 

[Fruitloops89]

Vikings.

By the time you realized what the hell just happened all your shit is gone, you are standing naked in the cold, the house is on fire, the animals are half shaven, and you are holding a note saying "in five seconds there is going to be a huge back draft".

 

[Ultrajoe]

As a result, the Vikings would fling themselves one by one at the bristling spears of the Spartans, only to be speared in so many places that they bleed out before taking two additional steps.

Two things I think we forget:

1) Why would the Vikings perfer open warfare? I think that 90% of the time a Viking/Spartan battle would be started by the Vikings when the spartans had no time to prepare. A phalanx means little when horned death comes out of the trees with a battleaxe.

2) Environment. Vikings could fight happily in sparta, with some adaptation. Spartans could not say the same about the nipple-snapping cold of Vikingland.

3) Why would the Vikings charge one by one? After one or two failed charges, I say they'd regroup and pull out some bows or spears.