Vikings vs. Spartans
- Thread starter RobbPWNS
- Start date
Recommended Videos
One on one? Probably Viking.
Raiding? Viking all the way. They were raiders through and through.
Pitched battle? Probably Spartan. Spartans were trained to fight with other Spartans, as a part of a large battle. Also, their equipment was better suited to open battle.
Overall, it's a toss-up. Want a real fight? Try Mongol Warrior versus Viking.
Raiding? Viking all the way. They were raiders through and through.
Pitched battle? Probably Spartan. Spartans were trained to fight with other Spartans, as a part of a large battle. Also, their equipment was better suited to open battle.
Overall, it's a toss-up. Want a real fight? Try Mongol Warrior versus Viking.
Both were powerful military forces of their times but the Spartans would have an easy advantage, they were literally bred for battle and trained to kill from the moment they could stand while weaklings were either killed at birth or died in training (this would have resulted in a limited version of genetic engineering) while the Vikings were simply mad bastards with a can-do spirit (which I respect), they were scary but iltimately harmless to a well trained and discaplined army (who won out of the Celts vs. the Romans? we're looking at a simmilar equation here).
your the one trolling comments, gtfoTheon Tonarim said:
and while your out read a history book
The Romans used the same tactics as the Spartans
was your grandmother a spartan or something?
Rome never took over the north for a good reason, the separated tribes kept up an insurgency and slaughtered the Romans
besides weapons were more solid in the times of the vikings and the equipment was better
The Romans used spears as well how do you think they made the box so bristly. The vikings used the same shield trick as the Spartans but the vikings used multiple types of weapons like pole axes, spears, swords, the shield itself but they had better metal working skills and a few hundred years more experienceygetoff said:
And if the Vikings could beat the Romans then the Vikings could beat the Spartans
While I'm not saying the Vikings were just a bunch of stone-age tribals beating random people into bloody pulps and shouting "ugh!", but their success was in savagery and terrorism. Whenever they encountered an organized and disciplined force of comparable strength they lost.Rajin Cajun said:
A shieldwall is just a poor phalanx imitation, it has nothing on the real thing.
EDIT:
Vikings never fought Romans.JWAN said:
And the Roman Legions used a variety of modified phalanx formations (most famously the "turtle") but almost never a true phalanx.
And bronze shields best iron blades. Bronze is harder than iron so an iron edge dulls very quickly.
Romans come from Rome in Italy. Spartans come from Sparta in Greece. So no, the Roman's are not just allied SpartansJWAN said:
The Romans used different tactics than the Spartans. Spartans had no testudo formation, they had no concept of retreat and they didn't use ranged weapons. Spartans would basically move forward in a sort of meatgrinder tactic, slowly hitting you with wave after wave of shield-wall. Romans stood their ground, and would hurl pilum, then whack you with their shields once you got close and stab you with their short gladius swords. You seem to have generalised their tactics into 'shield-wall'
Never took over the North? What North are we talking about here, the Arctic? The Romans got as far North as Scotland, and smashed the local tribes there at Mons Graupius. All of mainland Europe was conquered and subject to Roman rule
Anyway, back on topic, the Vikings tended to attack by charging wildly at a foe, which suits the Spartans just fine as that means the Vikings would hit their shield wall and get speared. And the berserker nature of certain Viking troops (not all would have done it, just units like the Ulfsarks) is cancelled out by the sheer skill of Spartan military formation. However, the Vikings are not as dismissive of archers as the Spartans, and have the advantage of iron weaponry and armour instead of the Spartan bronze. Plus they weren't ones to stick to formation and could likely outflank the Spartans (turning in a phalanx, when everyone is carrying a nine foot long spear...not easy). So overall I think the Vikings would win, but it could well be close
Vikings. Cause the spartans were long dead when the vikings lived. Vikings lived around 700-1000 AC, spartans we're centuries before that.
Also, judging by the movie 300 spartans sports the same problem as most females in RPG's, very revealing, but highly ineffective armor. Vikings used chainmails and stuff.
Vikings who fall in battle dine in the halls of valhalla where the brave lives forever
Spartans just dine in hell.
Also, judging by the movie 300 spartans sports the same problem as most females in RPG's, very revealing, but highly ineffective armor. Vikings used chainmails and stuff.
Vikings who fall in battle dine in the halls of valhalla where the brave lives forever
Spartans just dine in hell.
I just thought I should point this out.Eldritch Warlord said:
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.
Whether one on one or Army versus Army - Vikings. Better gear, better tactics, and their capacity to battle when within an inch of death was legendary. Vikings = win.