Vikings vs. Spartans

[Say Anything]

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.

 

[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

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.

So they are not Vikings because you say so? It still proves your point moot that Vikings can't operate in a Mediterranean Environment.

 

[Ridonculous_Ninja]

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.

 

[TheLastCylon]

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

 

[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.

So they are not Vikings because you say so? It still proves your point moot that Vikings can't operate in a Mediterranean Environment.

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.

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.

 

[Higurashi]

I suppose that since the Vikings were in Ireland I can flex my Viking Muscles as well.

Or at least I could try.

Absolutely! Everyone should be as proud as possible for even the slightest amount of Viking blood coursing through their veins! And if you start doing martial arts a lot, you can soon start flexing those (dangerous) muscles as well! =D

 

[Ghostkai]

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!

However, you are right, the Vikings would win.

Glad you tore his post apart before i did....

"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.

 

[Twilight_guy]

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).

 

[cobrausn]

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.

 

[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.