Vikings vs Spartans

Originally posted by Toltec Originally posted by AlphaS520 Originally posted by Toltec [QUOTE=Nick1986]The samurai too used spears and polearms on the battlefield as swords were pretty useless. Now why would you say that? The highest honor and the best samurais are the sword wielding samurais, with the katana. 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.

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.

I can imagine the Vikings smashing down the long spears of the Phalanx formation with their battle axes. 

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.

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.

Originally posted by Delenda est Roma 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.

Would the Spartan lance have kept the axes away from their shields?

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

Edited by Nick1986 - 23-Aug-2012 at 19:22

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.

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.

A spear works pretty well in keeping distance. Advantage Spartans. You can't keep attacking while stuck on a spear :p.