Spartans vs vikings in the thermopylae

Spartans vs vikings in the thermopylae
Who Wins ?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Heathen_Army
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linothorax
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Vikings because better technology.

Spartans.

Phalanx > Literally anything when it is impossible to be surrounded, like Thermopylae, considering that the Spartans now know about the whole pass thing, and the Vikings do not, as they can't speak greek or anything like it to find out where said pass is.

They literally lived 1000 years apart from each other.

What a shitty match up, of course the Vikings will win because combat and armor has improved.

they both use iron, I dont see a huge technological gap here

Vikings. Better equipment, employed shield wall tactics, and they were skilled in warfare.

I'd say the Scandinavians would win 8 times out of 10.

vikings also use the phalanx formation

Nice bait

>Better equipment,
excuse me but how
viking steel is the shittiest steel ever
>employed shield wall tactics, and they were skilled in warfare.
of course spartans know nothing about that...

they got btfo by someone walking in a different angle than usual
and got the idea the vikings were able to use steel where spartans could only use iron.

Not to mention general improvements in military strategy.

Ah yes, another high quality History & thread.

Why?

>military strategy.
we're talking about fucking vikings

and?

Vikings. Gamebsons, mail armor, better swords... Even with the advantages of Thermopylae Pass, there's still a fatal flaw in using it and that lead to Leonidas' army being defeated by the Persians. A more interesting discussion would be the Han or Xian Dynasty vs the Romans.

Because you cannot make an argument without proof. Otherwise people will not believe you. If you can find sources supporting your argument that Spartan-era steel was better than Viking-age steel, then I will believe you. Until then, you're just talking out of your ass

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof

>Arguments are good because i said so
>proof is good because i said so
I'm not even in this thread m8

What is your point?

People here are greatly overestimating the effectiveness of steel weapons against bronze.

Skallagrim did some videos where he smashed both against each other and, even though steel obviously won, it could not do more than cut small itches into the bronze, nothing serious.

As to who would win?

Probably spartans imo, an average spartan would have full equipment provided to him by mass exploitation of slave labor, the average viking would not.

Spartans by a long way.

Sparta was a harsh and unforgiving warrior society which specialised in group combat tactics using both aerial and hand to hand techniques.

Vikings, on the other hand, generally engaged in combat without a great deal of strategic planning - preferring raid warfare tactics: High speed, low armour, swarming, pillaging, and scorched earth withdrawal. Their forces were never designed for face to face warfare.

Look at the Battle of Stamford Bridge in England -

The English had shield walls and armour - the vikings were (typically) travelling light with little armour, deployed themselves in a poorly thought out defensive formation, and were annihilated.

Spartans, Vikings are not true soldiers. They're just well equipped criminals.

Raid warfare does not preclude the use of strategic planning.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Heathen_Army

>the vikings were (typically) travelling light with little armour, deployed themselves in a poorly thought out defensive formation, and were annihilated.
This is flat out wrong.

Despite being demonstrably historically and factually accurate.

Dude, they are even described as forming up testudos in one source ffs.

The hur dur viking bashing is getting old, even I, who basically hates them pagan scum, is tired of it.

Navy SEALs

Didnt half of the special forces group that killed Osama Bin Laden "accidentally" die in a helicopter crash?

No cover up there at all...

Hoplite weapons : Dory(spear), Xiphos(sword)

Viking weapons : Spear(one and twohanded, Onehanded axe, Twohanded axe, sword, atgeir(swordstaff), longbow, throwing spear, sling

t. butthurt anglo

Not really, we got the better deal. Better to have latin, german and french in your language than just bingybongy nordic. More variety = Best language on Earth.

Yeah, they died months later in a separate mission sending a quick response team to help a team of Army Rangers that had called for backup while on a mission of their own in Afghanistan

I am a huge Norse-aboo, and I'll admit it's retarded to argue the Vikings wouldn't get their shit blown out. Almost as retarded as this question is in the first place.

The simple fact is that Vikings didn't have the training Spartans did- yeah, they grew up learning how to fight and could make a shield wall, but Vikings were sailors and opportunists foremost. Spartans are professional soldiers, trained and drilled intensely for the entirety of their lives to fight as a unit. For pretty much that reason alone, Spartans will kick Viking's teeth in.

Norse peoples couldn't manufacture steel, they were only able to manufacture iron. Fairly quality iron, but just iron nonetheless- they used bloomery furnaces that couldn't get steel to the proper temperatures to make it workable.

Because it's really all that was available. Langseaxes were a thing, but a legit, quality sword was damn hard to make- not to mention iron was a seriously valuable commodity for Norsemen in the Viking Age. Swords were superior weapons but both rare and prohibitively expensive when they *could* be found.

This is the answer that retards give

Anything before 1200 or the advent of plate-armour can tangibly defeat anything else, it doesn't matter if there's 100 years difference or 1000 years difference. It just barely fucking matters. Tech differences can still have somewhat medium/major effects, but in this scenario, it is very minor. Obsession with metal material is also the ultimate form of autism. Yes this can have a significant impact armour, but it's nothing fundamental, especially when the main form of defence here is still shields.

And for your information, the Spartan shield (Aspis) was a far more specialized weapon than the Round shield that the vikings used. They're barely in the same category. A viking shield wall is not even comparable to a Hoplite phalanx, with the Aspis being far larger (on average), concave, and has a different grip for stability. Furthermore the phalanx formation is far more developed and organized. The vikings would not stand a chance if they tried getting in a head-on pushing match with the Spartan phalanx, who are far more organized and carrying larger shields with that designed as one of its purposes. The round shield was more of a general, almost disposable fighting weapon that was prone to breaking. This is why they were rarely metal-rimmed, as they were expected to break and be replaced regularly after battles. Shield sellers would literally travel with armies around this time to jew the soldiers. The Aspis on the other hand was not this kind of weapon. An Aspis was built to last. Additionally shield walls were really an additional utility of the round shield (the same could be applied to many later medieval shields too, like kite shields, not its principle feature.

Only real advantage the vikings have are 2-handed axes, which although would be damaging, they would eventually be repelled by multiple lines of spears given OP stated this is at Thermopylae

Depends who's playing the game and their play style. Also who not play in Bamboo forest? That's the best map. Anyways if you get the right combos down Viking wins.

No, retard, getting your king killed my a fuck huge column of men does. The echelon formation is entirely fucking secondary to that.

This. Technology essentially didn't matter once iron weapons became common, EXCEPT as it pertained to the spread of weapons and armor.

Spartans have better equipment on average than vikings, as they're ALL going to have good quality metal armor.

Just because armor is made of the same material does not make it equal.

good post

although i never actually played the deadliest warrior games cause they were released only in the US

Fuck this made me mad.

>Hoplite
>Aspis
>Shield

Spartan because they were best warriors, shit only 300 of them pushed back the entire persian invaders.

I think he's trying to say that he's retarded.

>Spartans vs vikings in the thermopylae
Vikings sail past the Spartans and loot farms near Thespiae...

>Sparta was a harsh and unforgiving warrior society

And yet they get their asses whooped so many times by the Athenians...

And name a fucking viking military strategist?

Spartans obviously, they had Vikings beat at their own game (shield walls)

You guys know nothing. Yes a wealthy Viking wore mail and a helmet, but the majority just worth clothing and maybe not even a helmet, they were quite poor, why do you think they kept having to literally steal from other people.

Mealwhile every Spartan had a massive bronze covered shield, a near totally enclosing helmet, body armour protecting all the vitals and shin armour.

They also spent their entire lives practising for war and fighting while most Vikings were farmers or fishermen.

The only reasons vikings were successful is because they inspired fear, which evidently is still happening today.

Whilst vikings have superior equipment I believe the Spartans superior training and experience would allow a spartan to safely 1v1 a viking most of the time

With what? Their specially designed spears that they don't have? Vikings use Shield Wall at best, and the best possible result is a deadlock until a shield is shattered.

Another question. Athenian fleet at Salamis Vs. Vikings.

the vikings at stamford bridge didnt have their armor equipped because they were ambushed, you butthurt saxon

That's the correct term, you fucking moron.

Doesn't fucking matter when one side has everyone in armor, and the other armors very few men.

At the time of the Persian wars, Greek soldiers wore cloth armor, my man.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linothorax

>he hasn't heard of Brennus and Thermopylae p.2
The Gauls blew the absolute fuck out of the Spartans, Athenians, and Thebans at the second battle of Thermopylae. The Greeks explained it away claiming the hoplite formation was no match for the much longer Gallic sword.
How can Greekniggers even compete?
Vikings
>better swords, reach, edge, and effectiveness
>shields are easier to handle and actually work unlike the Persian shields
>axes can pierce bronze and lamellar and more easily cause bruising and internal bleeding
>larger frames with more muscle compared to dyel Spartans, better food, taller and can reach farther
>better individual fighters

The Gauls suffered heavy losses at the pass and then went and fucked around in Aetolia to try to lure them away.

they then got shit on by the aetoloains and their civilians until they lost half their men and fucked off.

I know. This is STILL more armor than the vikings, and that's before you factor in universal helmets and common leg armor. Or the presence for metal reinforcement on the lino thorax.

well on Deadliest Warrior

Samurai beat Viking
and
Spartan beat Samurai
so Spartan beats Viking
>JK that show was shit

But for real. In an equal numbers fight, in the open, with no cavalry, I'd give it to the Spartans. They are more "classically trained/professional"

Plus, giant bronze shield wall>wood shield wall

>axes can pierce bronze and lamellar

Hahahaha, no.

>and more easily cause bruising and internal bleeding

Yes.

Neither.

Game theory isn't a credible source for history.

the fleet. how often did the vikings fight from their ships??

Spartans, Vikings wore cloth armour and the spray from the salt water would rust their shields.

Source: Youtube Video

That's not how that works you fucking mongoloid.

If I said the spartans were equipped with custom made M1 Garand's chambered in .243 Winchester hand delivered by the fudd god himself, you wouldn't be obligated to prove me wrong. I would be obligated to prove myself right.

It's a fantastic game, wish they had more funding.

We know nothing how actually discipline they were or how deep they were. As far as we can care, they formed 3-4 lines that would've broke easily upon another force attacking them. Greek phalanx's however were 8 rows deep. Spartans had the most discipline and well-armored ones. vikings could get btfo by any organize civilization. Actually, they DID get btfo by any organize civilization. 'muh steel' is a shit argument, considering
1. formation and discipline always prevails. OP discusses Thermopylae in particular as the spot, which is a small highly defensible passing that is in the Spartan's favor.
2. they didn't use steel (which was hard to properly create) on mail, but on more conventionally valuable items (like swords and helmets). Spartans relied on their spears, which despite either being iron or bronze, there wouldn't be that much of a concern of it bending or shattering in battle like you would with iron or bronze swords--spear heads were much more thicker and stout that whether it's bronze cast or moderate-quality iron or low-to-mid quality steel is negligible in the average battle for the typical mid-length spear wielder. It would matter on the course of using it for a years on a campaign, but you'll likely find yourself breaking a few shafts before having to replace the head.

> but the majority just worth clothing and maybe not even a helmet, they were quite poor
Go away Mat pat