Vikings vs Spartans
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Alternative History
Forum Discription: Discussion of Unorthodox Historical Theories & Approaches
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31460
Printed Date: 08-May-2024 at 10:25
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Vikings vs Spartans
Posted By: Nick1986
Subject: Vikings vs Spartans
Date Posted: 28-Mar-2012 at 18:03
|
Two evenly-matched forces meet at the location of your choice. Who wins? Vikings  Steel broadsword Dane Axe Wooden shield Javelin Iron helmet and leather armor (or chainmail for the richer Vikings) Spartans  Long spear Single-edged kopis sword Thick bullhide shield Bronze breastplate and helmet Unarmored auxiliaries with slings ------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Replies:
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 28-Mar-2012 at 18:33
|
Spartans. Better discipline.
Better defensive equipment. Better tactics on closed terrain. ------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 28-Mar-2012 at 19:02
|
I go with CV. Also more agile.
|
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 28-Mar-2012 at 19:46
|
I'll go with the Spartans too, mostly because of the training the Spartans got in their individual lives, and the superb discipline they showed as a result of that personal education.
------------- |
Posted By: Toltec
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2012 at 06:58
|
Vikings, steel weapons vs bronze, better armour better agility due to lighter equipment (try being agile in bronze). More diversity of tactics boars head vs phalanx, able to keep formation over broken ground, military tactics not specialist tactics designed only to fight other phalanx but to take on all comers, better selction of troops, as well as shieldwall, they have archers and long axe men. ------------- Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out? http://historyplanet.wordpress.com - History Planet Website <br / |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2012 at 19:04
The Vikings were also highly trained. Since childhood they learned to wrestle, handle weapons and lift weights. Sickly children were often thrown off cliffs to prevent food shortages. By the time a Viking was 12 years old he was ready to go on his first raid ------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2012 at 20:00
Sounds like the Spartans.
 ------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 01-Apr-2012 at 19:21
|
Viking shields may have been less complex than those of the Spartans, but were capable of withstanding axe-blows
------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: Toltec
Date Posted: 01-Apr-2012 at 21:47
|
Viking shields were much more hi-tech than Spartan one. You hit a Spartan shield with a Dane Axe you break the Spartan's arm. Viking shields were made from the lightest wood, and woven so they cushioned a blow and could stop a Dane Axe by disapating the energy. Also viking sheild's had bosses so were not strapped to the arm as a static defence but were held in the fist and used as an aggressive punching weapon. ------------- Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out? http://historyplanet.wordpress.com - History Planet Website <br / |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 01-Apr-2012 at 23:02
I don't know much about the Viking education, but it wasn't organized, there were no public schools, whatever the kids learned was at home - I don't know if this can have the same results like state the organized Spartan education, and the rigorous physical part of it. Are the skills utilize in raiding comparable the ones needed for with organized warfare? I don't know, military knowledge is not my strong side, most lamentably. ------------- |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2012 at 19:06
Viking education was a hands-on experience. Few people could read (not even the king), but children learned to fight from an early age. Being strong-willed and quarrelsome were desirable attributes, giving young Vikings the self-confidence to fight (and kill) bigger and tougher opponents. Like the Spartans, the Vikings fought savagely as they believed death in battle would guarantee them a place in Valhalla ------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2012 at 20:42
|
Spartan organisation and training might give them an advantage, but the Vikings had better weapons. The best swords and axes were made of Damascus steel, the same technique used to make Samurai swords
------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2012 at 21:48
Spartan shields were very well designed and also served as a smashing weapon. The show Deadliest Warrior had an episode where an expert martial artist struck a Spartan shield using an extremely lethal Japanese war club.
Impact sensors then demonstated how the force of the blow was transfered through out the the entire shield and that the force transmitted directly to the user's arm was not nearly enough to break it. The shield's material (oak sheathed in bronze) and shape were a very efficient design.
I think this would win the day. The spartans fought as a team, Viking fought more as individuals. In encounters like this, the individualists usually lose. A good demosntration of this is Native American warriors verse European style military units. A military unit that did not panic and break could usually survive against individualist warriors, even when outnumbered.
|
Posted By: Leroy
Date Posted: 09-Apr-2012 at 19:06
|
The Vikings (Wicingas or robbers) were pirates (abducting women and plundering monasteries) and slave traders (selling their Irish slaves to the Caliphate in North Africa), not soldiers. Yes, later they formed an army of pirates, sacking Orléans, but they were defeated by a Frankish army and retreated. The pirate chieftain Rollo was given Normandy, but he had to convert to Christianity and become a vassal of the King of France. Raiding problem solved. When the Vikings settled in England they introduced eye-liner for men, shaving, and weekly baths (scandalizing the pious English). The Spartans on the other hand despised luxury and effeminacy and loved poverty and hardship (the Spartan men at least, the women, says Aristotle, lived in every sort of intemperance and luxury and they were utterly useless and caused more confusion than the enemy  ).I think that the http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/ancient/xenophon-spartanwar.asp - organized Spartan army would destroy any Viking army ever fielded. They fight individually and are collectively conquered. (Tacitus) For the Spartans an honorable death is preferable to a dishonorable life. (Xenophon) |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2012 at 22:04
|
The Vikings were more than mere pirates and slavers. They were also professional mercenaries who hired themselves out as bodyguards for the Roman emperors, Irish chieftains and Russian Tsars
------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: Toltec
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2012 at 03:00
Viking swords were made of pattern welded steel, a mixture of steel and iron, an extremely good quality weapon, slow and expensive to produce. Only wealthy nobles would have had them, most vikings had axes or spears. Axes and spears are also much more effective battlefield weapons than swords as well as a sword cannot penetrate armour.
Samurai swords were made by a older folding technique that was used until pattern welding was invented, both techniques were developed not far from each other in ancient China. The samurai too used spears and polearms on the battlefield as swords were pretty useless. ------------- Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out? http://historyplanet.wordpress.com - History Planet Website <br / |
Posted By: AlphaS520
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2012 at 20:23
Now why would you say that? The highest honor and the best samurais are the sword wielding samurais, with the katana. |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2012 at 20:27
|
To the Samurai, the spear was the "king" of weapons. They developed a graceful martial art giving them greater reach and movement when facing similarly armed opponents
------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: AlphaS520
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2012 at 20:39
|
I don't understand how is the Yari or the Naginata is the "king" of weapons, I for one understand that it is extremely good against cavalries. The Katana, wielded by a true swordsmen, is used for blocking, and can slash away any spears. The Samurai (trained extensively from childhood, his a samurai, not a peasant), wielding a katana, can close in in a respectable amount of time, rendering the long spear useless. The best samurais in the dual of an opening battle (tradition), the best, wields the sword. |
Posted By: Toltec
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2012 at 22:36
The Katana was a peace time side arm, far to short for the battlefield and only devoped in the late 16th century after most of the warfare in Japan had finished. They had earlier battlefield swords such as the Nodachi and Odachi but they were by no mean common and there was little fuss made about using them. ------------- Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out? http://historyplanet.wordpress.com - History Planet Website <br / |
Posted By: TITAN_
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2012 at 05:01
|
Vikings vs Spartans? When? In 700 BC or 700 AD?
|
Posted By: AlphaS520
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2012 at 10:12
The Katana was not just a peace time side arm, but it was also used by the best samurais, I remember seeing a quote somewhere, forgot where, about the making of the Katana. Katana, in the making, was given the highest attention, and made with the highest precision, it is the most valued weapon of the samurais (or the bow). When the samurai rises, the best devised moves where they can kill the opponent in a few moves, against a spear wielding enemy, they close in extremely quickly and the opponent is defenseless. In a samurai duel, they try to execute the enemy very quickly, this is accomplished by close combat, a spear cannot grant you this. To show the effectiveness of the sword, the Naginata (a spear), was designed to also to slash, as samurais generally practiced slashing. They weren't common among peasants, that I can say, as peasants are trained like samurais are. Peasants are generally armed with Yari, and due to their lack of skills, formation are devised, similarly to the Phalanx, leaving their flanks exposed. |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2012 at 11:13
Up to you. Both armies are at the height of their power and equipped with the best weapons ------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: AlphaS520
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2012 at 12:48
| I can imagine the Vikings smashing down the long spears of the Phalanx formation with their battle axes. |
Posted By: TITAN_
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2012 at 06:03
Back in 700 BC, they could have asked for Macedonian assistance.... In 700 AD? They couldn't! Sarisas beat Vikings, hands down. |
Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2012 at 12:42
|
Spartans didn't have sarissa's until the 300's BC. Personally I think the Spartans would win. Their superb training, discipline, and organization are superior to most the Viking armies I've read of. ------------- |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2012 at 19:10
|
The axe would certainly give the Vikings an advantage. The Roman legions were terrified of Dacian warriors armed with the war-scythe as they had no training to counter it
------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2012 at 23:00
|
It was because the falax could pierce their shields and armor. Aren't we talking of Vikings? Spartans win on water and their armies on land. ------------- |
Posted By: Mountain Man
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2012 at 12:57
I go with CV's choice, here. The Spartan's primary advantages were discipline and small unit tactics, and the willingness to die where they stood. while the Vikings fought as a crowd, but each man in the crowd fought alone. |
Posted By: Mountain Man
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2012 at 12:58
Would the Spartan lance have kept the axes away from their shields? |
Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2012 at 13:02
|
The spear was more than long enough. ------------- |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2012 at 19:21
|
Most of the Vikings would end up skewered on the Spartan spears, but an axe-wielding berserker might be able to cut his way through. Surrounded by many tightly-packed men he would do a lot of damage before he was brought down. As for the ultimate victor? Hard to say as the Greeks are better armored and more disciplined but the vikings have steel weapons and berserk ferocity
------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2012 at 19:35
|
To regard most Vikings as berserkers is folly. Why are berserkers any better? They leave themselves wide open for attack. ------------- |
Posted By: Mountain Man
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2012 at 15:02
|
One major problem with using a battleax - it leaves the user fatally exposed. Try it yourself. Your most powerful stroke is downwards from the overhead position, and that leaves your armpit wide open to a spear thrust. The Spartans are trained soldiers, rather tha warriors like the Vikings. I don't see them being discomfited by a new and/or different weapon, but I do see the Vikings struggling to deal successfully with a disciplined opponent trained to fight with disciplined small unit tactics. I see a guy with ax facing a soldier trained from the very beginning to assess and take advantage of the most momentary weakness or opening in his opponent's attack. I see a dead Viking a lot more often than I see a dead Spartan. ------------- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2012 at 19:50
|
For a drugged (or psychotic) Viking, wounds might serve only to futher enrage him. The berserker at Stamford Bridge held off Harold's entire army until a Saxon stabbed him from below
------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2012 at 20:31
|
Ummmm that has to be pure myth. But a killing blow is a killing blow, it doesn't matter if you're on drugs or not. ------------- |
Posted By: Mountain Man
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2012 at 20:55
Weeell...not exactly. The Army .45 caliber pistol was invented to stop drug-crazed Moro tribesmen who simply ignored the .38 caliber service revolver and kept on coming. History is full of incidents of warriors hopped up on drugs, alcohol or ideology who simply kept on coming no matter what. The Japanese in WWII were an excellent example of soldiers fueled by ideology who took a lot of killing. I understand what you're saying, but there are "killing blows" and then are killing blows. A sucking chest wound will eventually kill you, but not before you do a lot of damage to the guy who gave it to you. ------------- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? |
Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2012 at 20:58
|
A spear works pretty well in keeping distance. Advantage Spartans. You can't keep attacking while stuck on a spear :p. ------------- |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 11-Dec-2013 at 22:37
|
Actually all of you are speaking or writing about two groups that never, in my mind at least, existed. Just post some facts that support either group? I mean facts, not the expected bunch of junk that today is considered as fact! Just my opinion.
But a spear, not thrown, is only good against dumb animals, and dumb men. It is nothing more that a pointed fence, held within the hands of one man or woman. If one merely stands there with a pointed spear pointing out to the enemy, the enemy merely either cuts off the shaft, considering they were mostly made of wood, or pushes them down to the ground and step upon them rendering them useless or pushing them upwards making them the same, that is useless! A spear or javelin is made to stop someone or thing at a distance. As a side, I would just like one or more of you describes a "dart?" Just what weapon was a "dart?", from what machine was a dart ignited?/ or thrown, or shot? You might well know that the usage of the word "dart" goes well back in time. Regards, Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Leonidas I
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2014 at 17:31
|
Spartans fought in a formation as most people know as "Phalanx." The Spartans would huddle into a group/defense wall not allowing the enemy to flank them from the sides. Vikings fought more off speed and shock than Power and Leadership. Vikings were literally told to just charge in and kill and steal anything they found. on the other hand, Spartans were given a formation and a plan of attack. Leadership was one of the main advantages that the Spartans had. The Vikings had the advantage on the weapons they carried. The Ulfberht was an example of precise craftsmen ship. Scientist still wonder how all the Carbon was drained from the sword and at the time ovens and furnaces did not have the required heat to separate the Carbon from the Iron. A very flexible sword was a advantage with a clean cut was a huge advantage at that time. Sadly the Viking would have not come close to killing the Spartans. The Spartan formation would leave the vikings literally in piles. The Spartans spears had a huge range and would make contact about 6 feet in front of them, with a sword measuring 3 or 4 feet, that would settle the battle and the Spartans would bathe in the glory. http://www.ancientmilitary.com/spartan-weapons.htm |