Stare At The Sun

If, at the height of both their powers, the Spartans and the Vikings were to meet on a battle field, on even terms (same number of troops, and an open, no terrain advantage battlefield) Who would prove the victor?

Though there is a significant time gap, please, analize this in the best way you can. I believe that because the Vikings were nothing more than a simple band of barbarians, they would loose, horribly, against the amazingly well disciplined ranks of the spartan army. Who had better training, better tactics, better education(as all spartans were very well trained in all aspects of war, from a very young age). I don't think the Vikings, despite their ferocity in battle, could overcome such a miltary force of equal numbers.

Case an point, the battle of Thermopylae, where King Xerxes best fighters, his Immortals, could not break the lines of the Spartans. They are similar in their fighting styles, in the light armor they were equiped with, and their valor in battle.

The advantages that the Vikings would have, is that of the reach of their weapons, compared to the Short swords of the Spartans(However, this, as I believe, would be countered by the spears, of the rank behind them).

A point was also brought up of the viking "bezerkers" i believe that despite their ferocity and bravery in battle, they would fall very quickly to the spartans, as they fought naked, and would quickly be hacked down.

So, who would win this, the battle of the Spartans Vs The Vikings?
(and justify your answer, regardless of the side)

Thanks!

ranger

i would have to agree that the spartans would mop the proverbial floor with vikings. however not many vikings fought naked, i thought that was the celts, the wariors to come out of britannia.

vikings are not stupid either, so i think that wild charges would not be their first option. a wild charge into the face of death does have quite an intimidation effect to it and i would almost guarantee that some of the spartans would waver, especially if their opponents were naked and still charging them.

the way i see it is law vs chaos. spartans=law, vikings=chaos, obviously. the simple chaos that could occur in a battle with vikings would be impossible to tell. of the two, vikings would be the first to try anything and sometimes that is all that is needed to off-balance your opponent. again though, the spartans are highly trained and brave themselves, and the simplest soldier would have a good grasp of batle tactics so killing the leader would not be as effective, as any man could possibly lead.

the spartans overall skill would would overcome the vikings, maybe by only a little bit, maybe it would be no contest.

__________________
there are three ways to do things: the right way, the wrong way, and my way, which is the wrong way faster.

balderdash111

I'm not a military historian, but I don't think you are giving the vikings enough credit. Remember, their predecessors took Rome....

__________________
A little silliness now and then is cherished by the wisest men. -- Willy Wonka

martinguerre

depends on how the attack was set up. if the vikings(or anyone with sharp pointy sticks) got behind the lines...spartan formations could not take assault from flanks or the rear.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Ripsaw

Skill does not always trump ferocity. Viking attacks were rapid, changing, and as mentioned before, chaotic. The warriors had their own agendas, and a pack mentality. Spartan battlefield tactics relied on one unified goal and use of formation. In a pitched, even battle on a level field, there would be massive, massive casualties. My vote is 50/50.

Or so I say from my chair at work.

Now, if the Spartans had Master Chief with them, that would be an asskicking.

__________________
"We are supposed to be masters of space, but we cant even line up our shoes?"

One life, one chance, one opportunity.

Karm_Locke

I'm not a military historian either, but I am obsessed with military history. First things first, to correct a minor inaccuracy in the thread:

While it's true that the Spartans carried short swords, they were a weapon to use when all else failed. The Hopilite's main weapon was a 8 or 9 foot pike. In contrast, the Vikings wielded much shorter spears, swords, and battle axes. Thus reach is actually in favor of the Spartans.

Now to compare the sides:

The Spartans, as mentioned, fought with long pikes in closed formation. If the pike wall was broken they fought with short swords. Their armor was helmet, breastplate, shield, and greaves. The key part of this is that all of this is made of bronze.

The Vikings fought with sword, axe, spear, and bow. The spear was most common, and was able to be thrown. The sword was a symbol of status, thus confined to the rich. The axe was a cheaper substitute to the sword, but one could not use a shield if one uses an axe. These were made of iron. Most Vikings wore leather armor, but the rich could afford iron chain. All used shields if they could.

The first key point here is the Vikings iron compared to the Spartans bronze. The iron weapons would give the Vikings a definite advantage. They could easily pierce the Spartans armor.

The other decisive point in the conflict is the difference in tactics. The Spartans fought in closed ranks, advancing till they could attack the enemy with their long pikes.

The Vikings also fought behind a shield wall. However, they would use bow and arrow and spear to bombard their foe from a distance before closing. Some Viking battles were decided without melee at all!

So this is what I believe would happen: The combatants would line up behind their shield walls. The Vikings would attack with bow and arrow and thrown spear. The iron points of these weapons would pierce the Spartans armor, decimating their ranks. At this point the Vikings would charge, mopping up the remaining Spartans using their iron swords. The battle wouldn't be much of a contest.

The clear difference here is one of technology. The Vikings have iron and used the bow, the Spartans did not. These two things easily tips the balance in favor of the Vikings.

P.S. Sorry about spelling errors.

EDIT: Spelling, spelling, spelling.

Master_Shake

I too must side with the Vikings, mostly for technological reasons (iron, bow and arrow).

The technological advantage would include naval battles as well. The viking longships were much more agile than the Spartans' and could easily be used to launch a sneak attack from a harbor.

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

jaco

I believe Stare at the Sun that you need to look a little into Viking history. They are far from a band of barbarians. Consider that most of Scotland and England shares ancestry with them because of conquest and eventually commerce. Like most of the people that you think of when you think of conquerers, they were never really defeated. They merely became fat off the land and no longer needed to raid since they now lived on the good lands.

But thats beside the point. It's tough to decide any battle entirely from two peoples who never fought but technology is in favor of the vikings. So even on even playing fields on land in a head on battle I dont think the spartans have a chance.

__________________
"How soft your fields so green, Can whisper tales of gore"
"Thou art god"

Coppertop

Chalk me up as another vote for the Norsemen. Iron is simply superior to bronze in every sense. Bronze armor, shields and weapons would simply not be able to withstand blows from an iron weapon. Similarly, bronze spearpoints would not easily be able to penetrate iron chain.

Yeah, the Spartans were fierce warriors for their time. Remember this was approximately 1,000+ years before the Vikings invaded Britain.

kutulu

If you are going to compare forces you have to assume both sides have similar weaponry and mastery of that weaponry to complement it. Otherwise it's not a 'fair' fight. If you don't apply that logic you could assume that one M1-A tank crew with enough gas and ammo could defeat any force that ever existed before the invention of cannons.

Date the Banana

Indeed, I'd say that the M1-A would last against any force even quite some time
after the invention of the cannon. Let's face it, mechanized warfare revolutionized the face of war forever. Now bring on the Transforming battle planes already!

Right, back to the Spartans. Give the two sides technologically similar weapons (i.e. both sides get to use Iron) andI think it would be a slaughter if the vikings attacked head-on. Most military engagements of the ancient world usually came down to annihilation for one side. The two lines of spearmen would crash together; whichever line broke first would be unprotected against the onslaught of the second ranks. In this instance the Spartans would have the clear advantage: In warfare of this type having individuals charge ahead was as disastrous as retreating; it made holes in the line. The supreme discipline of the Spartans would trump any Viking individual heroics. And yes, they were that disciplined. Wives told their husbands "come back carrying your shield, or else carried on it" In hoplite warfare the shield would be discarded only in retreat, the implied threat that cowardice would be punished even by your loved ones speaks volumes about the warrior code of the spartans.
Now, put the battle in a forest, without an open space to draw up lines of battle....well, it wouldn't be pretty for the greeks. That's all I'm gonna say about that.

/god I love classics...best (academic) time I had at University was researching a paper on the Peloponnesian wars...

__________________
all work and no play make Date something something

ranger

Thats why I did not go into the whole iron vs bronze bit because obviously bronze is inferior. I assumed they would have been matched in materials available.

And if the vikings had bows, they're not the English Longbows I think you are thinking about. Most of them were shortbows with a negligible range. As said before they use spears more often.

__________________
there are three ways to do things: the right way, the wrong way, and my way, which is the wrong way faster.

Coppertop

Hypothetically giving both sides the same equipment renders the original question useless. Hell, Vikings and Spartans could fare well vs. a modern day Abrams crew if they had the same equipment and training. But then they'd be neither Vikings nor Spartans, wouldn't they?

The original question gives no such advantage to either side:

Emphasis mine. A hypothetical situation that has Spartans with iron (or a tank) places them far, far beyond the height of their power.

ranger

i concede to that for sure, but the even/no advantages was the basis for me.

__________________
there are three ways to do things: the right way, the wrong way, and my way, which is the wrong way faster.

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?

Coppertop

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.

hannukah harry

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?

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

Coppertop

Well, going by the question posed in the original post the fight would be in open terrain with both sides being at the height of their powers. Spartans never had iron so I see no reason to add that to equation. The vikings would own them, I say - open terrain notwithstanding.

Paradise Lost

Vikings = Took over most of France, settled most of Ireland, a pretty good chuck of Scotland and England, and just for fun, grabbed a bunch of Russia too.

Spartans = Quit doing stuff about about 50 years of awesomeness.

Also, the whole arguement saying "at the height of their powers" is a pretty bold
statement to make. You could say, "Who would be better, the Zulu Warriors when
they kicked the most ass, or America, during World War II, after D-Day?"
The answer, of course, is Zulu Trained World War II Elite Soldiers. But that's besides the point.

With different technologies you can't have them fighting a 'fair fight,' which is
something the topic starter seems to be suggesting with the equal-terrain bit.
Wars in the 13th Century between Scotland and England turned the scales to the
English because of relatively small (to us) inventions in warfare (the lance.)

If we dressed them all naked and gave them a sword, I'd have to say it would be very
one sided. The Vikings won most of their battles either at places near sea or along
rivers. While the Spartans won the majority of battles on land, and had no where near
the sea dominance Athens had. And heck, they only beat the Athenians because, well,
they were almost dead anyhow.

So the winner of this battle is, of course, Zulu Trained Spartan Warriors Fighting the Russians in a World War II Elite Special Forces Squadron... with Lances.


--- Another Grouping of Marginally Coherent Sentences Brought to You By the Fine People at John Milton Enterprises.

__________________
"Marino could do it."

Zeraph

This reminds me of indulging in fruitless debates with my cousin when we we're younger on who would win in a deathmatch between various fictional characters from yoda to mechwarriors.

The thing is that true fighting in wars is never fair so you can never really, validly, compare them.

FngKestrel

Dude, Yoda would so kick a mech's ass.

Stare At The Sun

Thanks everyone for the feedback. I think the original debate was settled. By this, and other forums, the vote is about 50/50. However, most people say Iron would be the deciding factor. With tactical, and military advantage always going to the spartans. and the technology/sea going ability going to the vikings.

Thanks everyone

jbw97361

Spartans assult themself from the rear... so to speak...


Anywho, assuming equal numbers of troops, and assuming the vikings are attacking in ships, and assuming the spartans are in the hills, i'd have to give the slight advantage to the vikings. Although, something as silly as the temperature would have a great effect on the outcome. If its cold, go vikings, but if its 110, go spartans.

Very good subject btw.

__________________
JBW

Zombieviking

wait wait , you gotta remember all types of steel /sword warfare nothing is just brutal force all styles and civilizations had some form of training, the vikings had a sort of phalanx tactic also, the vikings are great raiders and hunters the spartans were soldiers , you could compare the immortals to vikings . imperial fightng force? nah the immortals had wicker sheilds they were only used to fighting small settelments in asia not equiped for the bronze of the spartans. no question the spartans were gay but great fighters born into fighting and millitary training, the vikings raiders chose to go out and raid they were not as fit and equiped to fight the spartans .
the only way the vikings would win is with superior numbers and in open battle. the spartans in a phalanx are at there strongest. break the phalanx and there shit. i hope you guys are talkin about the real spartans and not the stupid fantasy "300"

Plan9

I'd imagine the Spartans had superior tactical organization over the Vikings.

They also had superior body armor and lived in a military society.

Vikings put down their war toys for most of the year. Spartans didn't.

...

And, if you believe the movie, the Spartans all had ripped abs and Kevlar body grease.
-----Added 18/11/2008 at 05 : 36 : 09-----
Clan or Inner Sphere?

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Zeraph

Wow, old thread. Was about to reply and scrolled up to see that I already had nearly 4 years ago.

And yoda could beat a mech of either faction, though inner sphere would be a tougher fight.

Daniel_

The thing to remember is that Vikings = Norsemen = Normans.

Essentially the Vikings became the Normans a couple of generations down the line, invade Normandy (ever wonder where the name came from?) and established the Franco-Norman Hegemony that took over Scandinavia, Great Britain, France, Northern Spain, The Mediterranean (including the Holy Land) and pretty much the most aggressive and expansive civilisation for 1,000 years.

The Spartans never really amounted to a hill of beans. Also - the Vikings had cavalry (well the Normans did) and cavalry armed with bows will destroy phalanx formations - that's why the late Roman empire moved away from Greco-Roman tactics.

__________________

╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗
Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air,
And deep beneath the rolling waves,
In labyrinths of Coral Caves,
The Echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand;
And everthing is Green and Submarine
╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝

Plan9

Down the line. Stop fast-forwarding!

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Rekna

It depends on who their quarterback is

Seaver

Weapons: Check
Warrior vs. Soldier Mentality: Check
Tactics: Rejected

The reason I'm rejecting the tactical discussion taken place so far is that a HUGE part of the battle is the way in which the military get to the location of the battle. The Norse would much rather pillage/burn an area where there is no standing army. The hoplite forces take ages to get from point A to B, and would never be able to keep up with the amphibious nature of the Norse. The Vikings would burn the fields, kill the kids, take the women/cows, and be on their merry way binge drinking at sea long before the first runner informed the Spartans of the attack.

THAT is how they took Normandy. The French King gave it to them not because it was valuable, but for the fact that there was nothing left of worth there and it would finally put a buffer between them and more viking raids in the interior of the country (including Paris itself).

In open combat it would seriously depend. Vikings liked to have small skirmishes of a couple hundred, however could amass 40K+ armies when the cache was big enough (for example: Constantinople and Paris). If the Vikings would be caught in a situation in which retreat was not an option, they would probably lose. Both use the shield-wall, however Vikings had a Warrior Mentality and Spartans had a Soldier Mentality... the later almost always defeats the former. However, one must also realize the Byzantines suffered numerous defeats against the Vikings, and even had their mighty city seiged by them (until the Emperor hired them as his personal guards as he was impressed with their skill).

Throw my hat into the ring for the Vikings, not because they were better fighters but many times more mobile (and Greece has LOTS of sea front in order to attack).

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

FelixP

When did the Greeks lose their bows? Let's not forget valiant Teucer (Teucer wasn't spartan, but the point remains valid), slaughtering hordes of Trojans behind the great shield of Telamonian Ajax. While Spartans themselves never used bows, they were often supported by Helots who did. The Spartans would win. While the basic phalanx was vulnerable to flank attacks, on level ground the Spartans would spot this move miles away, and react accordingly. While the Spartans did have a technological inferiority, their discipline would overcome this disadvantage. The Vikings, lacking such discipline, would be killed in small packs. It would be like shooting up a tank with a submachine gun: it would be entirely ineffective.

Stare At The Sun

^ Odd, people from toledo must think exactly alike on this subject..