Vikings vs. Spartans

[ChromeAlchemist]

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

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.

A shieldwall is just a poor phalanx imitation, it has nothing on the real thing.

EDIT:

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 experience

And if the Vikings could beat the Romans then the Vikings could beat the Spartans

Vikings never fought Romans.

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.

The closest thing to vikings I could think of would be the Visigoths, or other germanic tribes that slaughtered the Romans.

Considering the Spartan Hoplite was the most refined and efficient in the whole region, and quality forging of bronze weapons would have been better than what was perceived to be average forging of iron weapons.

I say this, even though I think Kukul makes good points.

See, this is the kind of VS threads I like. People are thinking things through.

Someone give me Romans VS Mongols, or Vikings VS mongols next! Hell, even give me a what if scenario...I might do it myself.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

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]

EDIT:

The closest thing to vikings I could think of would be the Visigoths, or other germanic tribes that slaughtered the Romans.

I thought we were talking about Rome at it's peak, when the Legions were the most effective fighting force in the world. Not when the Roman army was mostly Germanic mercenaries (which it was when the Visigoths started pillaging).

I guess Rome is immaterial to the Viking vs Hoplite discussion though.

 

[nerdsamwich]

Vikings. There are only 300 Spartans and, hello, the Spartans only won at Thermopylae because the Persians were bitches. 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!

 

[iJosh]

Watch 300.
'Nuff said.

 

[Haydyn]

One on one, Vikings. Don't be fooled by 300, the Spartans did usually have leather chest armor, but that's still no match against almost any blade or melee weapon.

In a war, Vikings. Spartans may be strong in large numbers, but the Vikings had size, strength, and were bloodthirsty. No movie is going to truely reflect the actual Spartans. While Spartans were raised from birth to kill anything that looks at them funny, so were the Vikings. The Spartans had few extra advantages againt a common fodder enemy.

Here is the basis of 300: There was a war in which 300 Spartans went up against 300 troops of an enemy civilization. After the battle/war, one wounded Spartan was alive, with two enemy troops still alive. The enemy declared victory and went back. The wounded Spartan stayed until they left, then declaring Sparta the victor because he had stayed. This broke out into a war, in which Sparta won. So if you take away the narrow path the Spartans fought along, they are average at best. "O well, you are taking away a strategy of the Spartans!" Well if those shirtless walking biceps fought the Vikings up in "Freeze Your Ass Off-land" (Fyaoland lol) you can bet the Spartans wouldn't stand a chance.

 

[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!

 

[Psypherus]

I asked myself this same question after watching Deadliest Warrior. In an hour I'm gonna see who would win: Yakuza or Mafia.

 

[Ursus Astrorum]

Neither. Lumberjacks would come and kick both their asses.

If I had to choose, however, I'd say vikings.

 

[secretary with crossbow]

The vikings would win, due to better weapons and armor. But if the Spartans had weapons and armor that was as good as the vikings, the Spartans would win.

 

[nerdsamwich]

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.

 

[dalek sec]

I asked myself this same question after watching Deadliest Warrior. In an hour I'm gonna see who would win: Yakuza or Mafia.

I'm rooting for the Mafia myself, you?

 

[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!

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)

 

[Psypherus]

Well me and my bro kinda have this competition to see who guess the winner and recently we've been choosing the same ones, He chose Mafia first and I was bored of us being dead even in points, so I'm going for Yakuza.

 

[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