Who is the bigger historical meme

The Persians?

It's a hell of a lot braver than launching pointy things at someone from on top of a wall where they can't get to you.

Spartans raped (military victory) everything within a 10000 mile radius. Vikings Fought nothing.

Normans suxk.

Odoyle rules!

Archers fought on the field too. When they ran out of arrows or the enemy got too close, they acted as light infantry and switched to swords, axes, mauls/mallets, etc.

With half the training

Spartans
Even their contemporaries were fucking Spartaboos

>Spartans
>actually fighting anything that isn't Persians those two times

and a quarter of the armor, against enemies with four times the armor and twice the training.

boy isn't that cowardly.

Vikings. At least Spartans fought at Thermopylae and were a substantial power during their time such as with the Peloponnesian war. Vikings on the other hand were just a specific group or caste of raiders from Scandinavia during a particular time that favored them.

>Vikings
Not a lot of contemporary sources, some sagas, third party accounts and runes that give away little information
>Spartans
a shit ton of contemporary sources, local historical accounts, art etc. that paint a pretty clear picture of the Spartan city state.

Sparta is better documented and examined than the vikings.

The overwhelming majority of archers did not do that.

Spartans.

They were Literally Who? until the shitty Hollywood movie "300" made them popular in pop-culture.

The Vikings weren't members of a state, and arguably had a larger impact on Europe than Sparta ever did.

lmao shit talk all you want and talk about "bravery" arches were the most valuable and dominate part of any army for thousands of years. The most dominate armies in history all were mostly missile troops, and without them the infantry would fall apart

>dominate

No they weren't.

>correcting a typo on an image board
pathetic
Wow such an amazing argument , your right user

>tfw spartaboo
Spartan culture is superior in every way to Athenian

>your

delicious

>They were Literally Who?
You're retarded. Spartan society has been analysed since fucking Rome.

Vikings. They were mostly traders and only raided when they had to (and their raids mostly consisted of sacking small coastal villages and monasteries), but Nordaboos will tell you that they were all 6' 5'' berserker warriors made of pure muscle that fought for the glory of Odin and Thor. On the other hand, Spartans are overly romanticized. You ask any person on the street about the Spartans and all they'll be able to come up with is the battle of Thermopylae, which they probably don't even know the name of. Basically, the point I'm trying to get at is that people are fucking morons and will glorify any historical force that they see featured in a half-decent Hollywood movie.

>finally get cornered after peppering the enemy with arrows from a distance for three quarters of the battle
>"A-Aren't I brave for being put into a position where I can't run away anymore and actually have to fight the men I've been shooting with impunity for hours!"
Archers were the shitters of the ancient world. There's a reason the English were famous for using archers, it's because they have a proud tradition of being dicks.

You've made an assertion. I have refuted it. Provide evidence or fuck off.

> arches were the most valuable and dominate part of any army

No, firstly it was infantry, then heavy cavalry, then infantry again.

Even the Mongols and the Turks focused on heavy cavalry charges rather than archery.

> The most dominate armies in history all were mostly missile troops

Utterly false.

Apart from the Han, English and a few others, virtually all other armies on Earth throughout history were not primarily missile troops.

Also, military archery requires little skill, as you do not have to be accurate since you are shooting at large blobs of me.

>no
>refutation