Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kutulu
I disagree. The only way the question is reasonable is to assume they have the same weapons. Keeping their actual weapons gives the Vikings 1,000 years of technology in their favor.
The bonus of having ranged weaponry is immesureable. How many Spartans would be gone before they can even engage the enemy? What good are their bronze shields if they cannot defend against iron swords?
|
First you state the Spartans should have iron and then deny them the ranged weapons the Vikings would use? This makes no sense. And yes, I know all about Spartan warfare, they had missile troops but they were severely undervalued.
Using your argument we could compare Spartans to a modern day Abrams crew. Well, the tank crew would obviously be the victor, largely due to their armor. So then we give the Spartans an Abrams to offset that disadvantage. Now they're no longer Spartans, they're Greek tankers. What's the difference if it is 1,000 years (Vikings) as opposed to 2,000 years (Abrams)?
The entire point of the question is that
they are different. If you grant both sides the same equipment and the knowledge to use that equipment you're merely comparing each side's valor in battle, nothing more.