PDA

View Full Version : Multiverse: Spartans Vs Vikings


konoha chimp
01-18-2013, 12:47 PM
For this thread there are 2 individual questions -
1) A Spartan warrior vs A Viking
2) 50 Spartans vs 50 Vikings - Who wins and why?

Location - 1) Roman Ampitheatre
2) Typical battle ground environment, Deserted area, flat ground.

Distance - 1) 50m apart
2) 150m apart

Additional info - (Vikings) http://www.legendsandchronicles.com/ancient-warriors/viking-warriors/

(Spartans) http://www.legendsandchronicles.com/ancient-warriors/spartan-warriors/

Equipment mentioned on the websites only ^
(Inspired by coolerthanice's thread ;) ) So what do you guys think I currently can't make up my mind I want to say Spartans but I'm not too sure are you? :)

Maruko
01-18-2013, 12:51 PM
1) A Viking wins. Spartans fought 1000 years before Vikings. They usually fought with merely no armor on. They used short swords and spears and bronze shields.
Vikings have full armor on- leather + wool + steel/iron
Spartan wouldn't even scratch him.

2) 50 vs. 50- same as above.


Spartans were the most disciplined warriors of the ancient era, but Vikings have centuries of warfare and technology on their side- better forged weapons and armor.

Blind Uchiha
01-18-2013, 01:20 PM
1) A Viking wins. Spartans fought 1000 years before Vikings. They usually fought with merely no armor on. They used short swords and spears and bronze shields.
Vikings have full armor on- leather + wool + steel/iron
Spartan wouldn't even scratch him.

2) 50 vs. 50- same as above.


Spartans were the most disciplined warriors of the ancient era, but Vikings have centuries of warfare and technology on their side- better forged weapons and armor.

In an individual fight, I'd say the Viking, but fifty on fifty I'd say Spartans. The Vikings tended to rush villages and sack them before reinforcements could arrive. A spartan phalanx would more than likely repel a Viking charge.

e710
01-18-2013, 01:30 PM
I'd say the Spartans. As soon as they were boy they were taken from their homes to become warriors. Vikings were pirates and raiders who attacked defenseless villagers and raped defenseless women. Spartans were warriors who had one purpose and that was to fight while Vikings tried to survive and get plunder.

Maruko
01-18-2013, 01:57 PM
I'd say the Spartans. As soon as they were boy they were taken from their homes to become warriors. Vikings were pirates and raiders who attacked defenseless villagers and raped defenseless women. Spartans were warriors who had one purpose and that was to fight while Vikings tried to survive and get plunder.

Europe trembled when Vikings attacked.

Ninja of Cao
01-18-2013, 02:59 PM
1) In single combat, the Spartan utilizes inferior bronze technology and has no hope of penetrating Viking armor. However, a Viking's sword or axe should be able to kill a Spartan with a single hit anywhere on the torso despite the bronze armor. So the Spartan's armor will only serve to restrict movement and won't offer any protection. The Viking is faster, stronger, larger, has more stamina and more than 1,000 years of technological advance. Viking will win.

2) The Spartans could utilize their Phalanx formation to withstand a Viking charge, killing a few of the nordic warriors with their pike wall. But once the Spartan lines are broken, one Viking will be worth more than any number of Spartans because of his superior equipment and physical traits. So I'd say that it will be a Viking victory with some casualties.

And my answer to what "e710" stated above is that Vikings were not simple pirates or raiders. They were warriors who begun their training as children, just like the Spartans. In Viking society you would not be considered adult before you had killed another man in combat. And the Vikings didn't fought to protect a nation, but they fought for their very existence. The North was a harsh place during this period and farming was impossible, so the only way to survive was to travel to warmer territories and steal any food they had - and kill anyone who stood in their way. Vikings fought against disciplined armies of knights... and won. I myself have Viking blood in my veins, my family being Swedish for as long as history can trace our bloodline. I had ancestors in the armies of Ragnar Lodbrok and Erik the Victorious. So I know what Vikings truly are.

The Immortal Watch Dog
01-18-2013, 05:19 PM
1) A Viking wins. Spartans fought 1000 years before Vikings. They usually fought with merely no armor on. They used short swords and spears and bronze shields..

so because you watched 300 and then watched Deadliest warrior you think they're accurate?

PS they are bull crap

Spartans were heavily armored..they were among the most heavily armored nations of ancient Greece- the main reason why the Greeks were able to stomp on the Persians was because they had some of the best equipment of the era they had the best armor and among them the Spartans had some of the best.

However that Spartan armor wont matter against Viking steel and Viking steel armor.

Also almost two thousand years of more advanced tactics.

In an individual fight, I'd say the Viking, but fifty on fifty I'd say Spartans. The Vikings tended to rush villages and sack them before reinforcements could arrive. A spartan phalanx would more than likely repel a Viking charge.

Vikings were masters at lightening warfare but they were also masters of defensive fortification and as far as their individual training and fighting skills go- they were a thousand years ahead of the rest of the world in engineering too being able to build ships that allowed them to raid places like Canada and new york..

they invented their own form of martial arts

these were not big dumb brutes at all but incredibly skilled warriors and a very advanced people.

I'd say the Spartans. As soon as they were boy they were taken from their homes to become warriors.

which actually hurt them..see they became nothing more than fanatic bullies. They were like the Samurai- rigid dogmatic and violent bullies who became incredibly obsolete early on yet held onto their power far beyond what they should have through horrific abuse and racism.

and like the Samurai..they got pwned by "inferiors" more often than pop culture worshipping Spartan fanboys want to believe

Athenian ore men handed Spartan soldiers their ass outside of Athens

Thebens and Argives had wins over them

Corinth broke Sparta as a military power...and the Romans considered them hilarious quaint relics and would send their children to go watch the backward monkeys live..and learn a lesson about the dangers of stagnation...

Sparta was great but the same qualities that made it great caused it to epic fail..



Vikings were pirates and raiders who attacked defenseless villagers and raped defenseless women. Spartans were warriors who had one purpose and that was to fight while Vikings tried to survive and get plunder.

no..this is only partly true

these people took on some very powerful European kingdoms and despite being outnumbered and having inferior resources consistently out fought them, out maneuvered them and what they did to the French (well what would be french) was ballsy and insane..and done in an epic way

you're putting a Spartan army which was backwards by and irrelevant by the time of Alexander..against an enemy which was tactically decades above a bunch of nations that were almost two thousand years ahead of Spartan..and they were hundreds of years ahead of them..in many ways

this is a rape..

Blind Uchiha
01-18-2013, 11:12 PM
Vikings were masters at lightening warfare but they were also masters of defensive fortification and as far as their individual training and fighting skills go- they were a thousand years ahead of the rest of the world in engineering too being able to build ships that allowed them to raid places like Canada and new york..

they invented their own form of martial arts

these were not big dumb brutes at all but incredibly skilled warriors and a very advanced people.


I didn't call them dumb or not advanced. I was just comparing the Vikings common fighting style to that of the Spartans. In fact, I am well aware that the Vikings could have taken all of Europe had the church not converted them to Christianity.

The Immortal Watch Dog
01-18-2013, 11:25 PM
I didn't call them dumb or not advanced. I was just comparing the Vikings common fighting style to that of the Spartans. In fact, I am well aware that the Vikings could have taken all of Europe had the church not converted them to Christianity.

I know you weren't it's just that is a popular misconception.

Interesting little what if would have been Viking unified Europe vs the Mongols, or the Mongols and a unified Viking empire teaming up against the middle east/Asia

Maruko
01-19-2013, 02:03 AM
so because you watched 300 and then watched Deadliest warrior you think they're accurate?

PS they are bull crap

Spartans were heavily armored..they were among the most heavily armored nations of ancient Greece- the main reason why the Greeks were able to stomp on the Persians was because they had some of the best equipment of the era they had the best armor and among them the Spartans had some of the best.

However that Spartan armor wont matter against Viking steel and Viking steel armor.

Also almost two thousand years of more advanced tactics.



Vikings were masters at lightening warfare but they were also masters of defensive fortification and as far as their individual training and fighting skills go- they were a thousand years ahead of the rest of the world in engineering too being able to build ships that allowed them to raid places like Canada and new york..

they invented their own form of martial arts

these were not big dumb brutes at all but incredibly skilled warriors and a very advanced people.



which actually hurt them..see they became nothing more than fanatic bullies. They were like the Samurai- rigid dogmatic and violent bullies who became incredibly obsolete early on yet held onto their power far beyond what they should have through horrific abuse and racism.

and like the Samurai..they got pwned by "inferiors" more often than pop culture worshipping Spartan fanboys want to believe

Athenian ore men handed Spartan soldiers their ass outside of Athens

Thebens and Argives had wins over them

Corinth broke Sparta as a military power...and the Romans considered them hilarious quaint relics and would send their children to go watch the backward monkeys live..and learn a lesson about the dangers of stagnation...

Sparta was great but the same qualities that made it great caused it to epic fail..




no..this is only partly true

these people took on some very powerful European kingdoms and despite being outnumbered and having inferior resources consistently out fought them, out maneuvered them and what they did to the French (well what would be french) was ballsy and insane..and done in an epic way

you're putting a Spartan army which was backwards by and irrelevant by the time of Alexander..against an enemy which was tactically decades above a bunch of nations that were almost two thousand years ahead of Spartan..and they were hundreds of years ahead of them..in many ways

this is a rape..

300? I have history at school....
Merely no armor doesn't mean naked like in 300 lol
They used sandals, skirts, helmets with narrow field of vision and bronze chest plates.
In that time that was heavily armored, but against medieval Vikings it's crappy.
It's less than Vikings had. And inferior in technology, too.
Iron/Steel > Bronze

I like Spartans a lot more because of their bad-ass training system, but it's pointless comparing warriors with centuries of progress between them.

Like saying: ''Who would win: old Egypt or Nazi Germany?''