Vikings vs. Spartans

[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.

 

[Lord_Panzer]

Vikings. They were better at sea, and attacking unannounced is going to screw the Spartans a lot

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.

 

[Kogarian]

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.

I was using the general term for groups of spear men composed together. Technically, I could have called their formation a shield-wall. Meaning still stands.

 

[Bibliomancer]

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.

 

[solidstatemind]

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.

That's three things

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.

 

[Kogarian]

Vikings. They were better at sea, and attacking unannounced is going to screw the Spartans a lot

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.

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.

But yes, I'd rather be on the tireme on a head-to-head fight.

 

[Rajin Cajun]

who won the Vikings VS the Romans


Vikings

and the Romans were just the Spartans allied together

Please don't be so ignorant. Or maybe you're a troll. I dunno.

your the one trolling comments gtfo
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

Romans come from Rome in Italy. Spartans come from Sparta in Greece. So no, the Roman's are not just allied Spartans

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

This is so incorrect it is disgusting. The Tribes of Germania were never conquered by the Romans.

 

[Rajin Cajun]

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.

That's three things

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.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varyags

 

[solidstatemind]

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.

I was using the general term for groups of spear men composed together. Technically, I could have called their formation a shield-wall. Meaning still stands.

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.

 

[solidstatemind]

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.

That's three things

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.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varyags

LOL

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.