Vikings vs. Spartans

[Ultrajoe]

Plus their weapons, the gladius is a short stabbing weapon while the viking axes are huge. To safely fight with your fellows the vikings require far more room so each viking would be facing 2-3 spartans.

There it is.

Once again, you're assuming the Vikings don't think. They had ranged weapons, they had a better ability to exploit the environment (hordes of men move better than formations over scrub) and they had the ability to recognize when the enemy just turned into a Meatgrinder.

If the spartans had all of their advantages, and the Vikings acted like idiots, of course the spartans win. But given that any example in which the commanders are half competent and the battle partways realistic results in either Viking domination or fair fight, we can call the victory as beloning to the Boys from the Fjord. And I think you're underestimating the ability of a Viking assault to break a shield wall, in any case. Add in ranged capabilities, and the Spartans have nothing to threaten the Vikings with.

It's my old argument again: Vikings would strip the Spartans of the advantages that made them so legendary, and then dig some big iron axes into the weak-as-pudding armor of the Spartans.

It comes down to numbers, nature of the fight and terrain. All i'm saying is that Vikings are in a better position to kick all kinds of ass in the majority of situations.

 

[crazy-j]

i think spartans have an upper hand but vikings are way cooler!!!

 

[newguy77]

Where can I find episodes of this show online? Please give links.

OT: Vikings. Giant Ax+ Crazy Guy swinging as hard as he can= split helms everywhere.

 

[crazy-j]

Plus their weapons, the gladius is a short stabbing weapon while the viking axes are huge. To safely fight with your fellows the vikings require far more room so each viking would be facing 2-3 spartans.

There it is.

Once again, you're assuming the Vikings don't think. They had ranged weapons, they had a better ability to exploit the environment (hordes of men move better than formations over scrub) and they had the ability to recognize when the enemy just turned into a Meatgrinder.

If the spartans had all of their advantages, and the Vikings acted like idiots, of course the spartans win. But given that any example in which the commanders are half competent and the battle partways realistic results in either Viking domination or fair fight, we can call the victory as beloning to the Boys from the Fjord. And I think you're underestimating the ability of a Viking assault to break a shield wall, in any case. Add in ranged capabilities, and the Spartans have nothing to threaten the Vikings with.

It's my old argument again: Vikings would strip the Spartans of the advantages that made them so legendary, and then dig some big iron axes into the weak-as-pudding armor of the Spartans.

It comes down to numbers, nature of the fight and terrain. All i'm saying is that Vikings are in a better position to kick all kinds of ass in the majority of situations.

i like the way you think sir!

vikings ftw!

 

[RobbPWNS]

This is EXACTLY why I started this thread. I was reading one on Pirates vs. Ninjas and I thought, "Vikings vs. Spartans?"

One on one I believe a Viking would win, but in a proper battle the hoplite's discipline and teamwork would win the day. Berserkergang is worthless when your charging an impenetrable wall of shields.

That. Vikings are like giants with axes, which would work well one on one, but spartans would win an army vs army fight.

/thread

Now for a new question, what about pirates vs Spartans? Or Vikings vs Ninjas?

 

[tanithwolf]

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

He's right you know. I could just imagine a phalanx marching toward the vikings weapons ready to take lives, and then a thousand arrows come raining down from the sky.

If vikings were so untrained and uncoordinated then why did they take over so much land. PS. dod spartans discover America.

 

[Xvito]

Vikings win... Obviously.

If they have the element of surprise, they'd kick all kinds of ass. Without it, they'd just kick ass.

 

[Kogarian]

the fact is that the Spartan formation specifically is designed to prevent flanking. That is all I was trying to point out.

What do you mean? Most infantry formations are prone to being flanked, especially ones that rely on overlapping shields and staying close together. If you actually have some type of link or what not that actually disproves this, I really do want to see it, as I don't know much about Ancient greek warfare, but from the military history I've read, this seems to be the consistant case.

Infact, I do have to ask you, what formation did the Spartans fought in? From everything I've read, they were always referred to a phalanx, just like other Greek and Macedonian infantry.

 

[Sewer Rat]

Vikings, mainly because they have the most kick ass gods. What do the Spartans have? Hercules, Vikings, THOR!

 

[polder]

Okay. I have registered so I can comment on this simple thread.

First of all. You are comparing apples to oranges. It is like comparing medieval knights to British riflemen. It doesn't work. How is this a fair comparison?

So lets even the odds a bit. Let's take the Vikings and put them in the time of the battle of Thermopylae. Except that they would have the same type of weapons that the Danes and other peoples that made up the Vikings had. So what are they? Does anyone know. Probably not as archiological evidence is sparse as we have found little of there archeological goods. Which means that we have no evidence of any writings or weapons that they used.

That means that we are going to have to make some assumptions based on educated guesses. The Vikings have bronze short swords and spears with bronze heads. Light to no armour, but lots of furs which do add a bit of protection. They have javelins, throwing axes and bows and arrows. We all know what the Spartans have.

The tactics that the two groups used are going to be the same. As well as there national race stereotypes.

So lets assume they meet in a pitched battle. Two groups enter the same farmers field at the same time about 500 yards away. The Spartans immediately form a Phalanx. The Vikings form a shield wall with archers/ missile troops to the sides and rear.

Both sides approach each other closing the distance. The vikings struggle to keep in formation and not break apart. There chanting and yelling are working up the warriors.

The spartan's are flawless in there advance.

The Vikings archers let loose taking out a few Spartans.

The Spartans use there large shields to there advantage and still advance, yet at a lower pace.

The Vikings break formation as the bloodlust takes some vikings. A disorganized mob attacks the Spartans lines.

The Spartans lines hold and the Vikings are cut down by the Spartans superior discipline.

But that is a pitched battle where the Spartan's are able to use there superior tactics and disapline to there advantage. What about if the Vikings ambushed the Spartans? That would take away the Spartan's advantages and win them the battle.

The Greeks and Romans conquered much of the known world at there peaks. They did that by using one thing.

The Roman's stole a lot of there mythos from the Greeks. One thing that they did steal was there fighting tactics. While not completely. They stole the need for soldiers, not warriors.

A Soldier is a single member of a large unit where the soldier must co-operate and act as a unit for survival. A warrior is just a warrior. Usually seeking personal glory and the unit is just a means to an end. In a one-on-one fight, the warrior will win. In a unit-to-unit fight, the soldiers will win using there superior discipline.

Yes, as a side note about the above statement, I am aware that there are other circumstances to a fight between a soldier and a warrior. I am assuming that moral, weapons training and the other issues are factors. I assume that each is the standard of each. You take a unit of green conscripts and send them against a unit of seasoned veterans warriors, the warriors will win after the moral of the conscripts fails and they route. And vise-versa with a one-on-one fight.

But back on topic. The entire discussion of a viking and spartan fight is really a fight between a warrior and a soldier. The Spartan's were soldiers. Trained from birth to act as a TEAM. Vikings were warriors. Trained from birth to fight for there own glory and personal gain. There unit or group was a means to an end.

In conclusion, take away the technology advantages that Vikings have over the Spartan's and the Spartan's will win in a standard engagement. Throw tactics into the mix, the end is the same unless the vikings can take away the Spartan's advantages. If you want to add in the differences in technology, the vikings will win. Just like my first statement, Medieval knights can't beat British riflemen. And British Riflemen (with muskets not to get confused with Modern Soldiers) can't beat a tank.

 

[Player 2]

The Spartans,they didn't even need armour, they had manthongs, and capes, like batman.

 

[warspectre]

Vikings!
their superior psychotic strength would have ripped away the shield of the long outdated and narrowminded fighting style of the spartans. lol, but true...

 

[warspectre]

"panzer" and "grimm" are names of germanic origin...which basically is the same as(or cousins to) the vikings....so maybe if you are using this name...or an avatar with this last name you should stand with your brothers...and not against us...