The 'Whale vs. Elephant' scenario was already decided in the Peloponnesian War. The Whale lost. Plus, I can honestly say a trireme vs. a longboat wouldn't be very good odds for those hairy Norsemen.Indigo_Dingo said:
Vikings vs. Spartans
- Thread starter RobbPWNS
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The problem with deadliest warrior is A, they don't talk about army tactics, which would play a big role, and B, the computer simulations make no sense. They have the warriors use every single weapon they have, thus making arrows randomly miss, or swings miss at point blank range.
That's three thingsUltrajoe said:
Seriously, tho.
1) I was assuming (yes, yes; I know what assumption does) an 'unplanned contact'-- i.e.- a Spartan detachment is stumbled upon by a band of Vikings. History shows that the Viking warriors, when faced with a 'surprise' confrontation, generally reacted by trying to swarm the opposition. Unfortunately, that would not fare well against the Spartans, who were trained to "when in doubt: turtle."
2) I was leaving environmental issues out of it. You certainly could make an argument that the Spartans wouldn't fare well in the cold of the far North. However, you can make an equally compelling argument that the Vikings (and all their fur padding underneath their armor plates-- which was not just ornamental, I assure you) would fare poorly in the Mediterranean heat.
3) this is a matter for debate, but I think that after 2 failed charges the Vikings would withdraw. I'm guessing that they would've sustained about 20-30% casualities, and if they started out with equal forces, then even an attempt to break the turtle with massed missile fire would probably be futile; so unless we're talking about some sort of critical strategic point, the Vikings would probably back off. And even if we were talking about a critical strategic point, I would remind everyone about how many archers the Persians had in the battle of Thermopylae (so many that their arrows would block out the Sun...): without heavy artillery (ballista or catapults), it's doubtful that the Vikings could've used missile fire to break the Spartan phalanx, considering the strength of the bronze shields. (We're not talking about Welsh longbows here.) You guys need to remember that comparing bronze to iron isn't like comparing bows to rifles. It's an incremental improvement, and a minor one at that.
Ah, but if they were fighting more towards the north, the longboat would have excelled in those waters, as tiremes are built more for near-shore sailing/ calmer waters and move slower(at least, that's what I've read. Also explains why longboats could cross the ocean while tiremes stayed in seas sandwhiched by continents). As well, the longboats wouldn't have had to fight head on. They could have resorted to hit-and-run attacks on coastal settlements.Lord_Panzer said:
But yes, I'd rather be on the tireme on a head-to-head fight.
This is so incorrect it is disgusting. The Tribes of Germania were never conquered by the Romans.Pallindromemordnillap said:
Incorrect the Vikings did well in the Mediterrean in fact beyond well they were considered crack troops. Never heard of the Varyags have you? They were used as the personal bodyguard of the Empereror of Byzantine.solidstatemind said:That's three thingsUltrajoe said:
Seriously, tho.
1) I was assuming (yes, yes; I know what assumption does) an 'unplanned contact'-- i.e.- a Spartan detachment is stumbled upon by a band of Vikings. History shows that the Viking warriors, when faced with a 'surprise' confrontation, generally reacted by trying to swarm the opposition. Unfortunately, that would not fare well against the Spartans, who were trained to "when in doubt: turtle."
2) I was leaving environmental issues out of it. You certainly could make an argument that the Spartans wouldn't fare well in the cold of the far North. However, you can make an equally compelling argument that the Vikings (and all their fur padding underneath their armor plates-- which was not just ornamental, I assure you) would fare poorly in the Mediterranean heat.
3) this is a matter for debate, but I think that after 2 failed charges the Vikings would withdraw. I'm guessing that they would've sustained about 20-30% casualities, and if they started out with equal forces, then even an attempt to break the turtle with massed missile fire would probably be futile; so unless we're talking about some sort of critical strategic point, the Vikings would probably back off. And even if we were talking about a critical strategic point, I would remind everyone about how many archers the Persians had in the battle of Thermopylae: without heavy artillery (ballista or catapults), it's doubtful that the Vikings could've used missile fire to break the Spartan phalanx, considering the strength of the bronze shields. (We're not talking about Welsh longbows here.) You guys need to remember that comparing bronze to iron isn't like comparing bows to rifles. It's an incremental improvement, and a minor one at that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varyags
If you called their formation a 'shield-wall', you would've been wrong. Look, I'm not trying to be insulting here, but you clearly need to examine this a little more closely: You specifically mentioned that the Vikings would flank the Spartan formation, and the fact is that the Spartan formation specifically is designed to prevent flanking. That is all I was trying to point out.Kogarian said:
LOLRajin Cajun said:Incorrect the Vikings did well in the Mediterrean in fact beyond well they were considered crack troops. Never heard of the Varyags have you? They were used as the personal bodyguard of the Empereror of Byzantine.solidstatemind said:That's three thingsUltrajoe said:
Seriously, tho.
1) I was assuming (yes, yes; I know what assumption does) an 'unplanned contact'-- i.e.- a Spartan detachment is stumbled upon by a band of Vikings. History shows that the Viking warriors, when faced with a 'surprise' confrontation, generally reacted by trying to swarm the opposition. Unfortunately, that would not fare well against the Spartans, who were trained to "when in doubt: turtle."
2) I was leaving environmental issues out of it. You certainly could make an argument that the Spartans wouldn't fare well in the cold of the far North. However, you can make an equally compelling argument that the Vikings (and all their fur padding underneath their armor plates-- which was not just ornamental, I assure you) would fare poorly in the Mediterranean heat.
3) this is a matter for debate, but I think that after 2 failed charges the Vikings would withdraw. I'm guessing that they would've sustained about 20-30% casualities, and if they started out with equal forces, then even an attempt to break the turtle with massed missile fire would probably be futile; so unless we're talking about some sort of critical strategic point, the Vikings would probably back off. And even if we were talking about a critical strategic point, I would remind everyone about how many archers the Persians had in the battle of Thermopylae: without heavy artillery (ballista or catapults), it's doubtful that the Vikings could've used missile fire to break the Spartan phalanx, considering the strength of the bronze shields. (We're not talking about Welsh longbows here.) You guys need to remember that comparing bronze to iron isn't like comparing bows to rifles. It's an incremental improvement, and a minor one at that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varyags
Except for one small fact: the Varyags came... what... hmm... more than one thousand years after the Spartans???
I'm sorry, but those are not the Vikings we're talking about. At least, I'm not.
This might honestly be the toughest question I've ever been asked in my life. Spartans and Vikings are my two loves, and it's really hard to choose between them. I won't go in-depth and make a plus/minus chart for each factor, though. I'm unfortunately just going to say Vikings, because I fucking love Vikings.
So they are not Vikings because you say so? It still proves your point moot that Vikings can't operate in a Mediterranean Environment.solidstatemind said:LOLRajin Cajun said:Incorrect the Vikings did well in the Mediterrean in fact beyond well they were considered crack troops. Never heard of the Varyags have you? They were used as the personal bodyguard of the Empereror of Byzantine.solidstatemind said:That's three thingsUltrajoe said:
Seriously, tho.
1) I was assuming (yes, yes; I know what assumption does) an 'unplanned contact'-- i.e.- a Spartan detachment is stumbled upon by a band of Vikings. History shows that the Viking warriors, when faced with a 'surprise' confrontation, generally reacted by trying to swarm the opposition. Unfortunately, that would not fare well against the Spartans, who were trained to "when in doubt: turtle."
2) I was leaving environmental issues out of it. You certainly could make an argument that the Spartans wouldn't fare well in the cold of the far North. However, you can make an equally compelling argument that the Vikings (and all their fur padding underneath their armor plates-- which was not just ornamental, I assure you) would fare poorly in the Mediterranean heat.
3) this is a matter for debate, but I think that after 2 failed charges the Vikings would withdraw. I'm guessing that they would've sustained about 20-30% casualities, and if they started out with equal forces, then even an attempt to break the turtle with massed missile fire would probably be futile; so unless we're talking about some sort of critical strategic point, the Vikings would probably back off. And even if we were talking about a critical strategic point, I would remind everyone about how many archers the Persians had in the battle of Thermopylae: without heavy artillery (ballista or catapults), it's doubtful that the Vikings could've used missile fire to break the Spartan phalanx, considering the strength of the bronze shields. (We're not talking about Welsh longbows here.) You guys need to remember that comparing bronze to iron isn't like comparing bows to rifles. It's an incremental improvement, and a minor one at that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varyags
Except for one small fact: the Varyags came... what... hmm... more than one thousand years after the Spartans???
I'm sorry, but those are not the Vikings we're talking about. At least, I'm not.
PEOPLE! Stop using Deadliest Warrior as bias for your answer, the Ninja vs Spartan fight had no element of stealth added in. There was no way that the Spartan would have heard the guy over the clank of his equipment as he marched along, and any smart ninja would not have jumped out in front of him, they would have shot him in the eye from the bush.
But on topic: I would have to say this is completely dependant on whether it is an army on army, one on one, free for all, ambush or any other type of fight.
A on A: Spartans, definately. They were nigh on stoppable in their prime, and spears were designed to pierce armour like chainmail, so no advantage to the Vikings Iron armour., the shields would most likely stand up for the most part to the Viking weapons, though I expect the axes would crack some shields, which could lead to problems.
An ambush is won by the Vikings, if they are the ones ambushing, if not they might still be able to escape or at least heavily wound the Spartans.
One on One Gladiator Match: So going Viking here. If it's a Berserker, Spartan stabs him, he pulls the "I walk down the length of your spear, driving it farther into me until you can feel my blood drenched breath on your face as you stare at the death that awaits you when my axe falls". if it's not, the Spartan has good mobility, but the Iron advantage for the Viking leads to the win.
Without drawn up battle lines and an all out free for all melee on the field, I'm going for Vikings. The other things kind of answer why.
But on topic: I would have to say this is completely dependant on whether it is an army on army, one on one, free for all, ambush or any other type of fight.
A on A: Spartans, definately. They were nigh on stoppable in their prime, and spears were designed to pierce armour like chainmail, so no advantage to the Vikings Iron armour., the shields would most likely stand up for the most part to the Viking weapons, though I expect the axes would crack some shields, which could lead to problems.
An ambush is won by the Vikings, if they are the ones ambushing, if not they might still be able to escape or at least heavily wound the Spartans.
One on One Gladiator Match: So going Viking here. If it's a Berserker, Spartan stabs him, he pulls the "I walk down the length of your spear, driving it farther into me until you can feel my blood drenched breath on your face as you stare at the death that awaits you when my axe falls". if it's not, the Spartan has good mobility, but the Iron advantage for the Viking leads to the win.
Without drawn up battle lines and an all out free for all melee on the field, I'm going for Vikings. The other things kind of answer why.
I think vikings would have more advantages to spartans (superior navy, better equipment, and overall just more badass) but in a 300-esque scenario the victory would go to the spartans. but anywhere else (i.e. not funneling the enemy into a blender) the vikings would dominate
Uhm, no it doesn't. More than one thousand years later, general knowledge of the real scope of 'The World' was much more widespread. While I would stipulate that, perhaps-- PERHAPS-- commanders might not understand potential environmental concerns in regards to travelling far to the north in the Classical Era, you would have to make the assumption that- even when there are ample reports from traders and explorers that, if you head north you find cold weather- the Spartan commanders would be too dumb to utilize such knowledge and properly equip their men for the enviornment they would be in.Rajin Cajun said:So they are not Vikings because you say so? It still proves your point moot that Vikings can't operate in a Mediterranean Environment.solidstatemind said:LOLRajin Cajun said:Incorrect the Vikings did well in the Mediterrean in fact beyond well they were considered crack troops. Never heard of the Varyags have you? They were used as the personal bodyguard of the Empereror of Byzantine.solidstatemind said:That's three thingsUltrajoe said:
Seriously, tho.
1) I was assuming (yes, yes; I know what assumption does) an 'unplanned contact'-- i.e.- a Spartan detachment is stumbled upon by a band of Vikings. History shows that the Viking warriors, when faced with a 'surprise' confrontation, generally reacted by trying to swarm the opposition. Unfortunately, that would not fare well against the Spartans, who were trained to "when in doubt: turtle."
2) I was leaving environmental issues out of it. You certainly could make an argument that the Spartans wouldn't fare well in the cold of the far North. However, you can make an equally compelling argument that the Vikings (and all their fur padding underneath their armor plates-- which was not just ornamental, I assure you) would fare poorly in the Mediterranean heat.
3) this is a matter for debate, but I think that after 2 failed charges the Vikings would withdraw. I'm guessing that they would've sustained about 20-30% casualities, and if they started out with equal forces, then even an attempt to break the turtle with massed missile fire would probably be futile; so unless we're talking about some sort of critical strategic point, the Vikings would probably back off. And even if we were talking about a critical strategic point, I would remind everyone about how many archers the Persians had in the battle of Thermopylae: without heavy artillery (ballista or catapults), it's doubtful that the Vikings could've used missile fire to break the Spartan phalanx, considering the strength of the bronze shields. (We're not talking about Welsh longbows here.) You guys need to remember that comparing bronze to iron isn't like comparing bows to rifles. It's an incremental improvement, and a minor one at that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varyags
Except for one small fact: the Varyags came... what... hmm... more than one thousand years after the Spartans???
I'm sorry, but those are not the Vikings we're talking about. At least, I'm not.
Sorry, of all the sins you can ascribe to Spartan commanders, I'm not going to accept that as one of them.
And besides, I thought we were debating about military prowess, not logistics and planning. So, leave out the "Ohhhh the Vikings could handle the heat better than the Spartans could handle the cold..." It is an entirely unprovable argument.
Glad you tore his post apart before i did....BudZer said:However, you are right, the Vikings would win.nerdsamwich said:Vikings. There are only 300 Spartans
No. There were upwards towards 10,000 Spartans at the time that 300 happened. The Spartans just had about 200,000 slaves at that time as well. The reason the Spartans were trained from birth was so that they could protect their city from their own slaves, they could only send one of the two kings and his personal body guards.
and, hello, the Spartans only won at Thermopylae because the Persians were bitches.
The Spartans lost at Thermopylae
Their morale was a joke; only the Immortals were there because they wanted to be, every one else was a slave. The Vikings, on the other foot, fought because they loved it. And they had....drum roll please... Steel!
"There are only 300 Spartans"
Fucking idiot. Almost as bad as the guy earlier who claimed Romans were "unified Spartans".
The amount of retards in this topic is astounding.
And for the record, Vikings would probably win. Using Iron and all.
Are they on land or in a boat? Vikings would be better at boats but the Spartans are quiet good on land, assume that its not an open field(heavy armor would slow them down).