Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Coppertop
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.
|
i kinda disagree here... i think upgrading the spartans weapons to iron or downgrading the viking's to broze is the only way to really determine who would win... it is partially a question of valor, but moreso a question of tactics.
lets say you could make an identical copy of one spartan... but copy him until he filled a normal spartan army, and then do the smae thing with a viking... both templates being their best warrior.
then give them weapons of equal temper... iron vs. iron, bronze vs. bronze. the change in material doesn't change the weapons on a base level. it just corrects for a 1,000 years of technological advancement.
then match them up and see who would win based on their tactics and valor. i realize this isn't a 100% realistic way of determining it, but i think it's the best way to do it theoretically.
but then again, to make it completely neutral, i think we have to also look at things like terrain, and see what difference that makes. luckly, we can look at real history to determine who would probably win...
i was at borders tonight, looking at a book called 'ceaser and his war with the celts' or something like that... almost bought it. (at least i think tha twas the book... i was looking at about 20 books on rome and their armies and tactics). anyways, rome originally used the phalanx of the greeks. but when it started expanding where they were coming into contact with teh gauls, the found that the phalanx didn't work well against them. the terrain being uneven and often woods made it ineffective. the system of using legions and cohorts was developed becasue of this (of which julius was a great military leader with) and was able to demolish the gauls.
just looking at that and extrapolating, i think that on even, clear terrain the spartans would win over teh vikings, but on uneven, hilly, woody or rocky terrain the vikings would win.
off-topic: anyone else here a Total War nut?
edit: i wonder what roachboy, our resident historian, thinks of hypothetical's like this and the various manners of setting them up?