NationStates Jolt Archive

Mooninites would beat both.

Im getting a little tired of the pirates vs ninjas debate... so i thought i would try to start a new one:)

Vikings vs Spartans-

GO!

Vikings -- IIRC they have another 1000 years or so oftechnology to help them.

Also voikings reached sparta before spartans reached scandinavia, despite the vikings starting a thousand years later.

You should put a poll up.

Vikings berzerkers would break through the phalanx and cause havoc. Vikings were not unorganized rabble. They fought in shield walls, and had many tactics such as the boar snout to break through enemy lines. Vikings, being northern Europeans, would have been generally taller and stronger than the shorter southern Europeans, and would have longer reach.

But, Spartans and Vikings are separated by what, at least 1000 years? Spartans used bronze armor, and vikings used iron chain mail- not all of them, however, usually the Earls and Huscarls (elites warriors).

It'd be a hard fought battle, but I feel Vikings would win, because they are larger and stronger, have tactics to break enemy lines and shield walls (similar to phalanxes, but not exactly the same), and most importantly, are more badass.

Don't forget the longships.

Vikings > anyone.

Bronze plate would be superior to the rather light chain worn by viking elites, and the common viking would likely be in little more then a tunic. The Greek phalanx would out-reach the Viking shield wall by several feet. So, why is my money still on the Vikings? Vikings had more and better integrated shot, and horses. Even the Romans commented on the quality of Swedish horses. My money's on the Vikings, but it would be tight.

Sparta at their height (in the Peloponnesian War) only had about 20,000 hoplites, plus allies. The Vikings had much more than this.

^ Greeks fought with more then just hoplites though.

^ Greeks fought with more then just hoplites though.

Sparta is a landlocked city.

Vikings relied on shock and awe. Spartans were shocked by nothing, and held in awe by nothing... except for Kratos.

It would be a bloodbath, that much is certain. Spartans were not even your ordinary, well-trained soldiers. Training was their life. The phalanx was not a formation to be trifled with. (see: Alexander the Great) The spear used was nine feet long, so getting close enough to wield the Viking long sword would be difficult, and the Spartans were adept at fighting close-up, as well.

Concerning the size difference, again, the Spartans were not your ordinary people. They literally threw out the chaff, as it were. They were extremely impressive physical specimens, and this was noted by their contemporaries.

The Vikings were, despite their reputation for ferocity, also intelligent warriors. (more self-controlled than were the Celts)

If I had to predict the outcome of a battle between 10,000 Vikings and 5,000 Spartans, I'd pick the Vikings. If equal numbers, I'd have to go with the Spartans.

The vikings would most certainly win, due to the fact that they're highly maneuverable, and used archers.

the slow Spartan phalanxes would have been killed by many arrows before they could even reach the vikings.
and that's even aside of the difference in weapons and materials.

I would encourage anyone who actually wants to know about Spartan culture and life (instead of 300) to read Plutarch's Life of Lycurgus, I am sure it's on the net somewhere.


What? 300 isn't accurate?!?! ;)

i saw a telie show and they said the greeks dident use 9 feet long spears untill after Alexanders father invaded greece or sumthing but im not really sure.

(and everyone who think vikings had hornet helmets are stupid! they dident it was from a opera)

I would encourage anyone who actually wants to know about Spartan culture and life (instead of 300) to read Plutarch's Life of Lycurgus, I am sure it's on the net somewhere.

i saw a telie show and they said the greeks dident use 9 feet long spears untill after Alexanders father invaded greece or sumthing but im not really sure.

(and everyone who think vikings had hornet helmets are stupid! they dident it was from a opera)

I thought I remember something like that as well, about how Greeks used 6 foot spears during the period when Sparta was at its peak, but I'm not 100% sure.

Well, it all depends on battle location. In a place like Thermapolae the pass was narrow and the Phalanx would be nice and covered on the flanks, but if it was in a forest or open field like the places were the Vikings fought in northern Europe then I would have to say the Vikings. I like the comment about Vikings finding Sparta too, nice one.

I thought I remember something like that as well, about how Greeks used 6 foot spears during the period when Sparta was at its peak, but I'm not 100% sure.

The Spartan spear, or 'Dory', was between six and nine feet.

The long spear phalanx (Sarissa) was an invention of Philip of Macedon, Alexander's father, Alexander perfected the cavalry as a psychological weapon in routing enemy formations, but it was his father who made the phalanx infantry using long spears, kinda like a giant moving hedgehog. The length enabled troops 5 or 6 ranks back in the column to have their spears in the combat, making it difficult for enemy troops to get to grips and in close, and was equally deadly against charging cavalry. The Persians discovered this the hard way.

But back on Sparta, the Phalanx back then was only 2 men deep with shields. The Spartan phalanx was especially effective because they were one of the only Greek cities to use full body armor (error in 300), and their discipline and especially their organization into squads, regiments with organizational officers in every column made them especially resistant to being disorganized in battle. Indeed Thucydides explains quite well how they are organized. So pitched battles Sparta owns. But as one might know, Sparta as a law had no money or wealth - everyone lived austerely to preserve discipline - so while it made them good soldiers it also meant they couldn't campaign for very long, it also meant they were always reliant on their Peloponnesian allies for siege techniques and also for naval equipment.

end of rant/

I'd bet on the vikings. More varied forces, could outflank a phalanx unless the Spartans got to pick the battlefield.

I would go for the Vikingss once they battered the phlanaxs with arrow fire then sent in the Fyrd to pen up and confuse the phanlaxes then the big boys come into the play the Huscarls and the like

Ok 1st things first, Spartans wouldn't stand a chanse with Ancient equpment against chainmail and.. .well superiour everything. Let's just pretend the Spartans survived untill the viking era to get that out of the way.


Vikings berzerkers would break through the phalanx and cause havoc. Vikings were not unorganized rabble. They fought in shield walls, and had many tactics such as the boar snout to break through enemy lines.
True, however, the Spartans were much more drilled than the vikings were so in comparison the vikings would look like an unorganized rabble. It would have been impossible for the vikings to break trough a phalanx. Berserkers weren't immortal, they were just crazy. If you get a spear trough your face you won't be able to cause any trouble.
The thing I guess the vikings would do is use bows, that way the phalanx would have to break and then it would turn into a classical medieval battle, sword vs sword, man vs man.


Vikings, being northern Europeans, would have been generally taller and stronger than the shorter southern Europeans, and would have longer reach.

Taller? Well generaly, but only about 10cm (Byzantine sources about Varangian Guards), which is insignificant. The ideal about us northern Europeans being extremely tall and powerfull is bullshit. The Spartans went trough a lifetime of military training, the vikings did too but that whithout the organization, and everyone knows that battle is all about organization in havoc.
So both would be well built (strong) and very capable in handling weapons.
The vikings got their assess kicked in Germany several times by much smaller forces because the Germans were better organized.


But, Spartans and Vikings are separated by what, at least 1000 years? Spartans used bronze armor, and vikings used iron chain mail- not all of them, however, usually the Earls and Huscarls (elites warriors).

Huscarls were not vikings, they were indeed elite but they came after the viking era. And no not only elite vikings used chain mail, those that had found chain mail while plundering had it.


It'd be a hard fought battle, but I feel Vikings would win, because they are larger and stronger, have tactics to break enemy lines and shield walls (similar to phalanxes, but not exactly the same), and most importantly, are more badass.

If the vikings have a thousand years of techonolgy yes they would kick the Spartans' asses, but if, hypoteticaly, the Spartans still existed at 900 AD then I'd put my money on them judging from how badly the vikings got their assess kicked in Germany.

ps. Greek and even phoenecian sailors found Scandinavia way before the vikings found Greece :P.

I would have picked the Vickings Pre Randy Moss but now id probably go for the Spartans. Anyone know the spread?

The vikings would most certainly win, due to the fact that they're highly maneuverable, and used archers.

the slow Spartan phalanxes would have been killed by many arrows before they could even reach the vikings.

Spartans are perfectly capable of fighting in the shade.

Spartans for Defence.
Vikings for Attack.

A poll would be quite nice.

Vikings.
There was one city of Spartans. There were 3-5 countries of vikings.

The Romans.

Halfway between Sparta and the Vikings in both time and distance, they would pick up the remains of that epic battle and rule unchallenged.

Vikings > anyone.



I beg to differ. The viking military machine was neither centralised nor, for that matter, especially organised in comparison to those of the great classical and medieval powers. Moreover, they made little use of cavalry, ranged weapons or artillery, which renders them suited only to scandanavian conditions, whereas such armies as the Roman legions or Parthians, Sassanids or Achmaenads were composed of several elements, and more malleable.

Vikings.

The spartan phalanx, although very powerful from the front, was vulnerable from the sides and rear, and could only be employed effectivley in clear open land. It was also slow and unwieldy. If figthing on an open plain, the vikings would only need to leave a token force at the front of the phalanx to pin it down, while the others swung around and attacked from the sides and rear. If fighting in, say, a forest, the phalanx would have to lose much of it's rigid formation, rendering it vulnerable.

Vikings.

The spartan phalanx, although very powerful from the front, was vulnerable from the sides and rear, and could only be employed effectivley in clear open land. It was also slow and unwieldy. If figthing on an open plain, the vikings would only need to leave a token force at the front of the phalanx to pin it down, while the others swung around and attacked from the sides and rear. If fighting in, say, a forest, the phalanx would have to lose much of it's rigid formation, rendering it vulnerable.

Because, presumably, the Spartans only ever took to the field with a single phalanx?

Spartans.They were intense.Weak an sickly babies were thrown out at birth and Spartans trained there whole life.Plus they were intelligent and focused on education too so Spartans.:D

Spartans.They were intense.Weak an sickly babies were thrown out at birth and Spartans trained there whole life.Plus they were intelligent and focused on education too so Spartans.:D

There were far far more vikings than spartans. It doesn't matter how musclebound and superior you are when you're vastly out numbered. See: Zerg Rush

Vikings...

They have a big advantage in technology. That in itself pretty much insures that they would win.

i saw a telie show and they said the greeks dident use 9 feet long spears untill after Alexanders father invaded greece or sumthing but im not really sure.
This is correct. They had pretty short spears until, well, until nobody cared about them much, really. The Greek phalanx was completely mauled by Phillip II's Sarissaphoros, and that was basically that for the Greeks, who were then beaten a little bit more by the Romans to boot.



Really depends on the conditions, to be honest (numbers, where in the world this is going, etc. etc.), but I'd usually bet on the Spartans on this one, simply due to their superior training. The Vikings can have their chain mail and their great axes, they'd be tired pretty sharpish in Greek conditions with all of that gear.

If they then take it off, then they lose their one great advantage, which is their better kit, and simply become an experienced, but ill-organised rabble. Yeah, fine, your Huscarls are pretty decent fighters still, and well drilled, but the rest isn't quite so stalwart.

considering the fact that the vikings weren't organized, and often went in small groups lead by a cheifdom, it is impossible to rally all the vikings, since they all had tribal loyalities and blood feuds. Also viking culture was weak, as shown in history when they would settle down and be intergrated into the local culture. While the spartans had their pride, heritage, and an isolationist culture.


So in the end if an earthquake threw the viking lands to where Romina is now , and the spartans had the same equipment. the spartans would just have to play the vikings against each other and take them piece by piece.

(also the spartans had great achery insturctors from crete, so there is no clear ranged advantage)

besides the phalanx wasn't the only formation the used, and spartan women knew how to fight too , well... knew enough to kill a viking women.

besides, if the vikings attacked sparta, all of greece would rally against the vikings as they did against the persians, so would the vikings but then it would of been a war where organization mattered most ( since the men of greece has no clear blood feuds they would of had an advantage)

It would be incredably close but I would put money on the Spartans.

They were incredable tough, experienced and resourceful. Rather like having an entire army trained to SAS standard.

Lets say (hypotetically) that the Spartans were still around in about 900AD and still used the Phalanx tactics (which they would have almost certainally changed to meet new warfare tactics) and both sides where evenly matched then the only real advantage the Vikings would have is archers as the Spartans teded to employ experienced Cretean archers instead of use their own.

Because, presumably, the Spartans only ever took to the field with a single phalanx?

The Spartans were highly unlikely to take to the field with all of their phalanxes in a sort of all-directions box. The vikings would still be able to pin down the spartan phalanxes and swing around to the sides or rear, unless figthing in a narrow pass.

They have a big advantage in technology. That in itself pretty much insures that they would win.

Italy versus Abyssinia during World War 2 is a big example of how wrong you are.

:sniper: Swordsman were strong, but not nearly as strong as the berserker. The phalanx was one of the strongest, although they were weaker then swordsman. :)

There were far far more vikings than spartans. It doesn't matter how musclebound and superior you are when you're vastly out numbered. See: Zerg Rush
Well, the Spartans had special abilities and advantages (and were superior and far more awesome.)
:cool:

Im getting a little tired of the pirates vs ninjas debate... so i thought i would try to start a new one:)

Vikings vs Spartans-

GO!

In terms of military: Sparta.

Vikings conducted peaceful trade, didn't have quite the level of battle fervour that the Spartans had and fought amongst each other. Their advantages were their shipping and raiding abilities, as well as their fearlessness in battle.

Spartans were more disciplined and united under a single city state, meaning they were the only Spartans and there was no other Greek city state that could match them.

So both in terms of geography and culture, Sparta was more militaristic.

However, vikings were far better at travelling and trading than the Spartans ever could dream of and it meant that the services of their better warriors could come into use around the world, thus affecting more than merely their own area. It also meant that, while vikings did raid and were feared, they were also respected craftsman, when not going on merciless pillaging.

So, tell me, is this poll trying to talk about the military or social aspect? :p

considering the fact that the vikings weren't organized, and often went in small groups lead by a cheifdom, it is impossible to rally all the vikings, since they all had tribal loyalities and blood feuds. Also viking culture was weak, as shown in history when they would settle down and be intergrated into the local culture. While the spartans had their pride, heritage, and an isolationist culture.

I'm sure if the Spartans had actually done any colonising to speak of, they would have assimilated just as readily as the vikings did.

And one must remember, it's hard to determine if it's the vikings that assimilated into the local culture, or if the local culture was assimilated by the vikings.

You should put a poll up.

Vikings berzerkers would break through the phalanx and cause havoc. Vikings were not unorganized rabble. They fought in shield walls, and had many tactics such as the boar snout to break through enemy lines. Vikings, being northern Europeans, would have been generally taller and stronger than the shorter southern Europeans, and would have longer reach.

But, Spartans and Vikings are separated by what, at least 1000 years? Spartans used bronze armor, and vikings used iron chain mail- not all of them, however, usually the Earls and Huscarls (elites warriors).

It'd be a hard fought battle, but I feel Vikings would win, because they are larger and stronger, have tactics to break enemy lines and shield walls (similar to phalanxes, but not exactly the same), and most importantly, are more badass.

You realize that size has more to do with diet than genetics?

In the past 200 years, for example, the average height in Denmark rose by 20cm. Evolution doesn't happen that fast.

In terms of military: Sparta.

Vikings conducted peaceful trade, didn't have quite the level of battle fervour that the Spartans had and fought amongst each other. Their advantages were their shipping and raiding abilities, as well as their fearlessness in battle.

Spartans were more disciplined and united under a single city state, meaning they were the only Spartans and there was no other Greek city state that could match them.

So both in terms of geography and culture, Sparta was more militaristic.

However, vikings were far better at travelling and trading than the Spartans ever could dream of and it meant that the services of their better warriors could come into use around the world, thus affecting more than merely their own area. It also meant that, while vikings did raid and were feared, they were also respected craftsman, when not going on merciless pillaging.

So, tell me, is this poll trying to talk about the military or social aspect? :p

If a crapload of vikings and a crapload of spartans were chucked into an arena vis-a-vis Battle Royale.

If a crapload of vikings and a crapload of spartans were chucked into an arena vis-a-vis Battle Royale.

Battle Royale? Well, then only one would come out :p

Ehm, but in all seriousness, if you were capable of gathering the elite viking warriors, then you were sure that they would stand by your side and they'd all have somewhat unique skills, equipment and each would come from a different area. However, their blood oath to you would ensure that they wouldn't turn on each other. In that case, the Spartans would lose.

But given regular viking raiders, who, although skilled, weren't exactly trained from birth to fight, you'd need more of the viking raiders if you wanted to win and even then, it wouldn't be certain.

Battle Royale? Well, then only one would come out :p

What about explosive collars?

Sparta was taken down by one of the most basic tactics around. So, Vikings would win.

Spartans were better trained and better organized. The Vikings were not head-on warriors as much as they were raiders. They also had less experience against foes as organized as the Spartans - most European armies were about as poorly organized as the Spartans.

In comparing Spartan and Viking weapons, note that the Spartans would be wielding high-quality bronze weapons against low-quality iron weapons. That might have narrowed the difference. Also, depending on when we take our Spartans from, they may have had iron weapons. In that case, the Viking technology advantage all but disappears.

In a head-to-head arena battle, my money is on Sparta. But in an actual battlefield, the Vikings might be able to win - especially if they have a clever leader.

What about explosive collars?

We're talking vikings and spartans here.

A simple yell from them would break that puny collar!

the Viking technology advantage all but disappears.

I'm going to use this example of a mis-use of all but in a another thread :eek:

Instead of ninja vs pirates, or vikings vs spartan, I think we should ask our selves who would win between a group of wild cocks, and large pussies.

Sure the answer might seem easy to guess, but you never know.

Instead of ninja vs pirates, or vikings vs spartan, I think we should ask our selves who would win between a group of wild cocks, and large pussies.

Sure the answer might seem easy to guess, but you never know.

Well...

Wild cocks have the advantage of being ferocious and well-decorated.

Large pussies are, on the other hand, surprisingly stealthy and are supplemented by sharp claws.

I think it's a draw, with the cock losing if it's a chicken.

/semiseriousjoke

I bet, Spartans would win. Their skills were shocking. Their armour was not just bronze – there was a two or three centimetres tall wooden layer beneath it. Their shield were really large and heavy, and rounded, so that they were almost unbreakable. And they were from Mediterranean Sea, which means that they would need the double of the time Vikings would need to get really tired. While fighting, they would not have suffered from cold – indeed, when you have to move really quickly and go on with a constant effort, you do not get cold (know from practice), - although a siege would had been impossible for them to keep during Scandinavian winter. Vikings would had got boiled during Mediterranean summer. Spartans had an enormous vantage from their phalanx, and harrows would not hurt them, because of their heavy armours, which were superior to anything used by Vikings: if you wear a chain mail, you suffer a lot from blunt and point weapons, because the strength of the hit is always concentred in a single point, while an oplitical armour dislocates it on half torso. Chain mails are quite useless against a well used spear, and Spartans sure knew how to use their spears. And, if you think that a group of Greeks would not had been able at cross enormous distances without being vanquished, read Xenophontes’s Anabasis: ten thousand men crossed an hostile empire. During the fight at Cunassa, there was just one wounded man: a harrow in his arm, no losses – this is to give you an example of how well protected Greeks were, try to imagine Spartans!
Long swords were useless against a man wielding such a shield, each blow would had been blocked, and the shield’s weight, together with its round shape, would had made the blocking move easy. A Spartan deprived of his spear would have simply pushed against the enemy until he had been near enough to use his machaira, a quite terrifying knife mainly used in close combat.
Spartan discipline was too good, nothing else to say. Seeing a berserk launching himself against the phalanx, the average Spartan would simply had pointed his spear against him. And Spartans knew well how to chose where to fight: they would never put themselves at risk. If they had to cross a forest, they probably would have had it burnt before. Too good generals, unconquerable will, really good working brains, no desire for money, exceptionally trained warriors, strong brotherhood among soldiers, Tirtheus’s verses echoing in your head, saying “throw your last spear, when you die!”… Spartans could not be defeated, if not by Greeks. Vikings would had seen the phalanx and felt dismayed. They would had fought bravely, but without hope.

The Spartans were highly unlikely to take to the field with all of their phalanxes in a sort of all-directions box. The vikings would still be able to pin down the spartan phalanxes and swing around to the sides or rear, unless figthing in a narrow pass.

Once more, because a Spartan force took to the field only with phalankes of hoplites?

Spartans.They were intense.Weak an sickly babies were thrown out at birth and Spartans trained there whole life.Plus they were intelligent and focused on education too so Spartans.:D

Actually, the Norse abandoned babies they felt were weaklings as well. So the Spartans aren't unique in this respect.

I'm going to use this example of a mis-use of all but in a another thread :eek:

This is not a misuse. The Vikings would still have a slight tech advantage due to advances in metalworking in general, and chain-mail armor in particular.

In comparing Spartan and Viking weapons, note that the Spartans would be wielding high-quality bronze weapons against low-quality iron weapons. That might have narrowed the difference. Also, depending on when we take our Spartans from, they may have had iron weapons. In that case, the Viking technology advantage all but disappears.

You aware Classical Greece was an Iron Age civilization and Spartans used iron weapons, no?

i saw a telie show and they said the greeks dident use 9 feet long spears untill after Alexanders father invaded greece or sumthing but im not really sure.

(and everyone who think vikings had hornet helmets are stupid! they dident it was from a opera)

No, it was from the Normans, who were the descendants of Danish Vikings.

You aware Classical Greece was an Iron Age civilization and Spartans used iron weapons, no?

At the time I wrote that post, no. But I remembered later, and took that into account.

It's just sad that the Vikings have sunk so low that they're having to play college teams now. USC would kick their ass.


...OK, I'll leave now.:D

Sparta is a landlocked city.

I didn't mean ships. Greeks relied on auxiliaries and skimmishers in addition to hoplites.

a better foe to face the spartans would be the Swiss or Flemish Pikeman at least they would be roughly using the same weapons

In terms of military: Sparta.

Vikings conducted peaceful trade, didn't have quite the level of battle fervour that the Spartans had and fought amongst each other. Their advantages were their shipping and raiding abilities, as well as their fearlessness in battle.

Spartans were more disciplined and united under a single city state, meaning they were the only Spartans and there was no other Greek city state that could match them.

So both in terms of geography and culture, Sparta was more militaristic.

However, vikings were far better at travelling and trading than the Spartans ever could dream of and it meant that the services of their better warriors could come into use around the world, thus affecting more than merely their own area. It also meant that, while vikings did raid and were feared, they were also respected craftsman, when not going on merciless pillaging.

So, tell me, is this poll trying to talk about the military or social aspect? :p

Just in terms of an all out blood bath....although you cant fight a prolonged battle without provisions...hmm.. okay so given that neither side has any provisions and were forced to fight until the enemy is slaughtered. that aspect.

a better foe to face the spartans would be the Swiss or Flemish Pikeman at least they would be roughly using the same weapons

no, Spartans used shorter spears and their ranks were thinner. And most of the time using the same weapons isn't the best strategy.

Spartans, easily. THIS IS SPARTA! (sorry I couldn't help it)