# Viking vs. Spartan



## Soledad Eterna (Aug 3, 2010)

Standard equipment for both. They start 5 meters apart. Who wins?


----------



## Butō Rengoob (Aug 3, 2010)

Big question, can the Viking get past the shield? If so he wins.


----------



## hammer (Aug 3, 2010)

spartans rape their assholes


----------



## oMuerte (Aug 3, 2010)

Spartan stomps.  That shield combined with their armor is just too much.


----------



## Level7N00b (Aug 4, 2010)

Spartans were actual warriors, not suck wearing armor and swords.


----------



## zenieth (Aug 4, 2010)

People really didn't read guy gardner's post did they?


----------



## Respite (Aug 4, 2010)

The Spartan should take this


----------



## lord wolfman (Aug 4, 2010)

Why does people think vikings can't fight?


----------



## martryn (Aug 4, 2010)

Not saying vikings can't fight, just that the Spartan shield and breastplate with their long reach with spears make them one of the toughest mother fuckers out there.  Spartans would take this, historically and fictionally.


----------



## lord wolfman (Aug 4, 2010)

I don't know who would win. The danish axe of the viking probably would destroy the spartan shield and armor but a strong enough spear trust from the spartan would go trough the mail armor.


----------



## martryn (Aug 4, 2010)

I'm not seeing how an axe could hope to do anything to that shield.  Perhaps you need some evidence to back that up.


----------



## ~BLAZxBLUE~ (Aug 4, 2010)

The shield is too much of an advantage, the Spartan takes this handily.


----------



## lord wolfman (Aug 4, 2010)

This the wikipedia article of the danish axe  

and this a qoute form historum



> My old highschool history teacher is also a Viking-era reenactor. He told us that they had made some experiemtents using the same kind of 2-handed axes as many vikings used against all sorts of different shields and armour. According to him the axe cut right through shields that would fit the description of those used by Spartan warriors.


this isn't a very reliable source but with an axe that big (between .9 and 1.2 meters) and that weight(between 1 and 2 kilograms) you could generate a lot of force and momentum. Even if it doesn't break the shield the impact wil stagger the spartan


----------



## Nihonjin (Aug 4, 2010)

The viking gets murderstomped.

Spartans have more range with their spears, good armor and a much better shield (which on top of being great defensively, is an even deadlier weapon than their swords and spears >.>).


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 4, 2010)

Nihonjin is not real man.
Real men always pick viking


----------



## hammer (Aug 4, 2010)

lord wolfman said:


> I don't know who would win. The danish axe of the viking probably would destroy the spartan shield and armor but a strong enough spear trust from the spartan would go trough the mail armor.



vikings have weak ass armor/wepons compared to jsut about everyone who is a major warrior


----------



## lord wolfman (Aug 4, 2010)

hammer said:


> vikings have weak ass armor/wepons compared to jsut about everyone who is a major warrior



that bullshit. read Guy Gardner post in the viking versus samurai thread.


----------



## hammer (Aug 4, 2010)

lord wolfman said:


> that bullshit. read Guy Gardner post in the viking versus samurai thread.



it really isnt they have terrible armor, which is not their fault because they did it to be mobile if the samurai's mace cant break the spartan shield then why would the vikings, hell do you even  KNOW what the two things are made out of? spartans use superior metals


----------



## lord wolfman (Aug 4, 2010)

You don't need to break the shield. a strong enough blow can break the arm and stagger the spartan. 
Also if the viking uses shield and sword he is more agile because of his lighter shield plus he has a longer sword and he could surprise the spartan with a sudden trowing axe or javelin he had hiding behind his shield(they did that) and if he lucky caught the spartan of guard and hit him.
Not saying the viking would win but he isn't chanceless.


----------



## hammer (Aug 4, 2010)

breaking the spartans arm?


----------



## lord wolfman (Aug 4, 2010)

hammer said:


> breaking the spartans arm?



yeah, spartans are regular humans with a lot of training. Not superhumans as some fanboys think.


----------



## hammer (Aug 4, 2010)

their is no way a viking will have enough force to break a spartans hand threw his shield


----------



## willyvereb (Aug 4, 2010)

Well, let's start with the description of the two:
-Viking:clansmen and raiders armed with wide range of possible weapons. They have no standard equipment since they arm themselves with whatever they can get/rob. I take the classic viking instead: light (some kind of leather) armor and helmet, medium round shield and an axe or sword. The later does make a difference but for the discussion it's minimal.
-Spartan: warrior trained since childhood to fight in ranks with great discipline. Has a large hoplon shield, breastplate, helmet and greaves for defense. Armed with spear and a short sword.

The equipment does half the battle and so I especially mentioned each sides' "gear". Instead of stating how the battle would go and who would win I state the strengths and weaknesses of each fighter:

Defense: both sides have only the shields to rely on. While the Spartan's armor could defend from some glancing hits from the sword, it's almost like paper against the axe. Same way the leather suit of offers no protection. Although since the Spartan has a larger shield the Viking has a slight disadvantage

Range: Spartan has the obvious strength there. With the length of his spear coupled with the discipline and training the Spartan could hold off the Viking. Unless the Viking does somehow flanks him the Spartan has many free attacks.

Mobility: The strength of the Viking warrior. With lighter equipment and smaller shield he can move faster or at least evade better. Depending on the landscape it can be a pretty good or a relatively useless advantage.

Experience: It's a tricky question. In terms of discipline the Spartan wins. They actually fought in formations and they did it excellently according to the history records. The vikings on the other hand specialized in raiding and more free combat. Like fire and water. The Spartan is used to fight in large organized groups while the Vikings fight in loose or even no formations. That's what makes this match-up problematic.

All in all it heavily depends on situation and the individual skill of each combatant. If the Viking gets too hasty(can't keep his calm and discipline) he runs straight into the Spartan's spear. If the Spartan keeps himself to his usual stance too much he could get outflanked and forced into actual melee. The outcome of the said melee is up to question but the very least slightly weights for the Viking.
In classic battle the discipline of a Spartan army would push back the Vikings any day. But in individual combat it's heavily dependent on situation, individual skill, state of the equipment and of course luck. It's not some video game where usually one being at some form of disadvantage means clean defeat. This situation is a real fight, battle and war where only slight changes could result in radical turn of outcome.


----------



## Wesker (Aug 4, 2010)

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Spartans use bronze weapons and Vikings use iron and steel weapons (although low quality)?


----------



## hammer (Aug 4, 2010)

yes  they used shit quality


----------



## Wesker (Aug 4, 2010)

Is there a way to tell which was stronger? The high quality bronze weapons of the Spartans or the low quality iron/steel weapons of the vikings?


----------



## hammer (Aug 4, 2010)

ill tell you strait up the spartans vikings used the low of the low to increasse mobility, which makes them suffer.


----------



## zenieth (Aug 4, 2010)

Where does this shit quality come from? Did you not read guy gardner's post?


----------



## pikachuwei (Aug 5, 2010)

vikings came like 800 years after the spartans, im pretty sure metal technology improved since then :x


----------



## willyvereb (Aug 5, 2010)

Indeed, it sure have improved but on the other hand iron weapons didn't offer that much advantage over bronze ones. The iron were more cheap and a bit more massive but otherwise they both offred the same protection. Until the invention of furnances and steel the medieval and ancient metal weapons didn't have much difference in strength.


----------



## Nihonjin (Aug 5, 2010)

hammer said:


> their is no way a viking will have enough force to break a spartans hand threw his shield



Actually, they can. 

But to get that close they'd have to not be stabbed by the Spartans spear and not be slammed in the head by the spartan's shield while they're swinging their slow and heavy two handed axe. Seems a little unlikely to me.


----------



## oMuerte (Aug 5, 2010)

Nihonjin said:


> Actually, they can.
> 
> But to get that close they'd have to not be stabbed by the Spartans spear and not be slammed in the head by their shield. Which while wielding a heavy 2 handed weapon seems unlikely to me.



You also forgot the blade they also have for stabbing in case the spear was caught.


----------



## Nihonjin (Aug 5, 2010)

^I didn't forget, I just don't think it'll come to that..


----------



## oMuerte (Aug 5, 2010)

Nihonjin said:


> ^I didn't forget, I just don't think it'll come to that..



Ah, props to you then.


----------



## Weltall8000 (Aug 5, 2010)

One on one? I'd say it could go either way.

Vikings were brutal warriors and used some shield breaking weapons. As well as their berserkers shrugging off mortal wounds until they died of them after the battle.

On the other hand there were the Spartans who had a pretty good long and short range compliment of weaponry, spears and the Xiphos short sword as well as a fighting style with emphasis on the shield for both defense and offense. The Spartan discipline and training is also something that can't be neglected; they were trained to be fighting machines starting by the age of 6 and were professional soldiers. Their willpower is also nothing to be scoffed at as they were notoriously tenacious, the Battle of Thermopolae being a prime example.

Tough call either way, I'd say it really comes down to a matter of does the viking succeed in destroying the Spartan shield and can the Spartan actually kill/incapacitate the viking before he gets mortally wounded himself.

If we are talking group combat, that's a different story and Spartans will murder them if their numbers are at all comparable and this is a semi upfront battle (eg facing off in a field with both sides aware of the impending battle).


----------



## Nihonjin (Aug 5, 2010)

Weltall8000 said:


> One on one? I'd say it could go either way.
> 
> Vikings were brutal warriors and used some shield breaking weapons. As well as their berserkers shrugging off mortal wounds until they died of them after the battle.



^Fiction



> Tough call either way, I'd say it really comes down to a matter of *does the viking succeed in destroying the Spartan shield* and can the Spartan actually kill/incapacitate the viking before he gets mortally wounded himself.



No one man can break a Spartans shield.


----------



## Weltall8000 (Aug 5, 2010)

> ^Fiction



Actually, no, it isn't. They were known to use drugs and would fight with a diminished sense of pain or fear.



> No one man can break a Spartans shield.



Oh right, because they were made of titanium alloy. How could I forget?

But seriously, yes, it is possible for a Spartan shield to be broken in a 1v1. Not saying it would have been easy or that the Spartan wouldn't try to deflect rather than tank with their shield a heavy blow from a viking axe/mace/claymore/what have you, but it is certainly not outside the realm of possibility, especially if it connects squarely.


----------



## Guy Gardner (Aug 5, 2010)

Props to willy for knowing his stuff. Anyways...

I don't see where this idea that Vikings had especially crappy weaponry. As I explained in the previous thread, his weaponry is fairly good due to the technology of the era and the resources of Scandinavia. Depending on his class his steel might not be the best, but it's still _steel_ vs. _bronze_. Also, they did not carry crappy stuff to increase their mobility; I don't see the connection between poor equipment and weight. Typically, crappy stuff would weigh _more_ than better made stuff, since you'd need more material (for example, iron) to get the same effect. Vikings were mobile foes for 3 reasons:

1) They didn't fight in organized formations, so they didn't need to keep a constant speed with their companions.

2) They exercised like mad. Vikings were well-known for running and swimming competitions, so a good warrior would likely have good cardio due to his workout regimen.

3) On a strategic level, they had longboats and were the best sailors around. They could move quickly from one place to another before most peoples could form up a big force.

Now that that's out of the way...

Anyways, this battle doesn't start and end at the Spartan's shield. This battle starts at 5 meters, and will be determined once the Viking hits 3 meters; at the tip of the Spartan's dory. If the Viking gets past it, the Spartan is done.

The Spartan is undeniably more skilled than the Viking: Spartans marched and charged silently, without musicians (Something unheard of, since musicians were to help keep the unit lined up across its frontage) due to their training. They actually had a "condescension pose" where they would put their shields in the ground, inner rim to the other guy, and walk back about 10 feet when other units were coming near them, basically saying "I can run out there and ready myself before you get to me". They actually would charge any unit they saw coming at them if it was drifting to the right: typically Greeks would wield their dory with the right hand, and would cover the guy to his left with his shield. If they were drifting right, it meant the men were pushing up against the guy who was supposed to be covering them, meaning they weren't disciplined and likely nervous. There are many more stories I could tell, but Spartans really were badass warriors.

At least, when they were in a unit. The vast majority of their training is based around working in the Phalanx; while I'd assume they wouldn't be helpless outside of it, the dory loses a lot of its effectiveness outside of formation. It's not a one-on-one fighting weapon, and I think the Spartan is going to really suffer for that. The length alone is going to make it hard to pinpoint against one guy running around, and it has no ability to fight once you are inside that range, so you either lose the balance by choking up or have to hurry backwards. After a Viking gets inside the spear, we only need to look to an Ancient Greek saying to understand the outcome.

The Greeks have a lot of famous phrases, but "down to the sword" carries very special meaning. "Down to the sword" meant fighting on past any hope of victory; you had lost, but were still fighting on anyways. This is because the Greek sword was essentially useless. They valued it as their #3 weapon (behind their shield), and once it got into the battle, it meant that something had seriously gone wrong. If you were in a sword battle, you almost certainly losing.

Meanwhile, the Viking warrior is really made to fight one-on-one. They might fight with a lot of guys, but Vikings valued individual warriors a lot more. This means that while they might do worse against organized units (and against Ancient Greeks and Romans, they'd certainly have a LOT of problems), they'd probably do well against individuals outside of a unit.

The armor of a Spartan probably won't matter much. Bronze against steel is not going to be pretty, and axes by their design would do pretty well against that sort of armor. Their shield stance is not one that would be particularly good for one-on-one fighting, either; typically you want to lead with your shield side and present a smaller target to your opponent. Greeks didn't do this because it would be very hard to operate their dories, so they relied on the man next to them to block their exposed right half (Which means that guy on the right end doesn't have a shield to protect his spear side, so he was generally the best warrior of that unit. The weakest warrior was typically on the left end, so that he didn't have to worry about protecting someone else). 

And yes, you could definitely have your arm broken through your shield. Force doesn't magically go away, people. While it might protect you from getting your arm cleaved off from the sharp end of a powerful weapon, it's not going to absorb all the force of a blow. For a modern example, a bullet-proof vest will block a bullet, but it's going to leave a very painful bruise because that force has to go SOMEWHERE.

I'd put this at 6 to 4 in favor of the Viking. The Spartan gets 3 kills with his spear, 1 with his shield (or maybe sword), while the Viking gets his 6 kills in close. The Spartan is a group fighter, and his kit is made for a medium range hand-to-hand combat rather than close combat. Hopefully people will start to realize that Vikings are rather formidable one-on-one.


----------



## Nihonjin (Aug 5, 2010)

Weltall8000 said:


> Actually, no, it isn't. They were known to use drugs and would fight with a diminished sense of pain or fear.



No amount of drugs will prevent you from bleeding out.



> But seriously, yes, it is possible for a Spartan shield to be broken in a 1v1. Not saying it would have been easy or that the Spartan wouldn't try to deflect rather than tank with their shield a heavy blow from a viking axe/mace/claymore/what have you, *but it is certainly not outside the realm of possibility, especially if it connects squarely.*



^I hate using TV shows in a debate, but they actually did that on Deadliest Warrior and didn't even come close to breaking the shield (To be fair, Vikings in general are probably stronger than the guys on the show, though I don't think it matters that much).

I can see a Viking break the Spartans shield arm no problem, but the actual shield it self? I seriously doubt that.


----------



## hammer (Aug 5, 2010)

Nihonjin said:


> No amount of drugs will prevent you from bleeding out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I tend to stay away from deadliest warrior to but alot of thetiems I see them using MMA fighters so they are crazy strong


----------



## Nihonjin (Aug 5, 2010)

hammer said:


> I tend to stay away from deadliest warrior to but alot of thetiems I see them using MMA fighters so they are crazy strong



I watch it for the lulz so I don't really take it seriously 99.9% of the time.

But I figured bashing a shield repeatedly with a heavy weapon can't really turn out inaccurate results for durability so that's why I mentioned it 

[edit]

Just passed 4000 post..fun fun..


----------



## hammer (Aug 5, 2010)

Nihonjin said:


> I watch it for the lulz so I don't really take it seriously 99.9% of the time.
> 
> But I figured bashing a shield repeatedly with a heavy weapon can't really turn out inaccurate results for durability so that's why I mentioned it
> 
> ...



they did it with that one samurai episode to just smash I chould have sword the shield would absorb the force so it wouldnt break your arm in a case of jsut smashing


----------



## Guy Gardner (Aug 5, 2010)

The better question is what exactly happens when you "break" a bronze shield? It's not like a wooden shield, where it eventually might shatter a bit or something (especially if you fucked up the covering or just skimped on it), but I can only really see cutting into the shield a bit. If that happens, you might catch the Spartan's arm, or you might get your weapon stuck.

The bigger problem here is how the Spartan is going to maneuver his foot-long short sword/long knife to the point where he can actually hurt the viking, considering even his seax is going to be longer than it.


----------



## hammer (Aug 5, 2010)

well I would assume you wouldneed a slashing item instead of a blunt one fo somthing like that isnt the sheild thick though?


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 5, 2010)

Bronze's deformation before rupture is plastic. Therefore it bends before it ruptures.


----------



## Crimson Dragoon (Aug 5, 2010)

Guy Gardner said:


> The better question is what exactly happens when you "break" a bronze shield? It's not like a wooden shield, where it eventually might shatter a bit or something (especially if you fucked up the covering or just skimped on it), but I can only really see cutting into the shield a bit. If that happens, you might catch the Spartan's arm, or you might get your weapon stuck.
> 
> The bigger problem here is how the Spartan is going to maneuver his foot-long short sword/long knife to the point where he can actually hurt the viking, considering even his seax is going to be longer than it.



it's like seeing a fucking ghost


----------



## Weltall8000 (Aug 5, 2010)

> No amount of drugs will prevent you from bleeding out.



Nor did I make the claim that they would. What I actually said (and you even quoted):

_"As well as their berserkers shrugging off mortal wounds until they died of them after the battle."_

_"They were known to use drugs and would fight with a __diminished sense of pain or fear._"

Not to be read as "they will not die." what I'm claiming is that they could sustain an attack that will lead to death, however, rather than falling and contemplating the meaning of their short life (which other, lesser men would do) they just keep on fighting with ferocity. Now, obviously if a limb is cleaved off, they can't use that anymore, they get decapitated, they die right then and there. If they sustain a wound which they bleed profusely from, they will still bleed out and die, but until they are physically incapable of standing due to blood loss, they will still be fighting.

My point is that they don't have the same propensity to succumb to pain and fear with this berserker state, that the typical warrior would have. Not to say there weren't exceptions both ways of course (vikings being afraid, or nonvikings saying, "Why, I've got a dozen arrows lodged in my central mass and I'm losing blood quickly...I think I'd better hurry up and kill a few more men before I take a dirt nap!").


----------



## Guy Gardner (Aug 5, 2010)

Crimson Dragoon said:


> it's like seeing a fucking ghost



Teaching and job-hunting takes up a lot of time. 

On the "combat drugs": While they may have had them, I don't think they are indicative of a standard Viking warrior. The vast majority of Vikings weren't of the berzerker type (Which also wasn't just from drugs. A lot of people look at berzerking as a mental condition, much like Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, especially since it could occur in daily life) and in certain tribes it was taken as a too dangerous and those who were berzerkers were essentially outcast and exiled.


----------



## Nihonjin (Aug 5, 2010)

Weltall8000 said:


> Not to be read as "they will not die." what I'm claiming is that they could sustain an attack that will lead to death, however, rather than falling and contemplating the meaning of their short life (which other, lesser men would do) they just keep on fighting with ferocity. Now, obviously if a limb is cleaved off, they can't use that anymore, they get decapitated, they die right then and there. If they sustain a wound which they bleed profusely from, they will still bleed out and die, but *until they are physically incapable of standing due to blood loss, they will still be fighting.*



With a decent wound that's about 10-15 seconds..lol


----------



## Weltall8000 (Aug 5, 2010)

Regardless, it is a something worth mentioning that wasn't unheard of among vikings. Not saying it was the norm, but it was a notable potential contender in such a match up.

As far as it being exclusively the drugs? As you say, probably not, I'm sure there was a certain mental profile accompanying it. However, enough so to where berserkers were particularly feared from the vikings.


----------



## Weltall8000 (Aug 5, 2010)

> With a mortal wound that's about 10-15 seconds..lol



Depends on the specific mortal wound in question. Potentially as short as a matter of seconds, potentially long enough to last tens of minutes, the key to the term "mortal wound," is that the victim's death can be directly traced back to it as being the cause of their death. Something like say a severing blow to the femural artery, sure 10 seconds to a minute. Something like a couple of arrows through the torso, could be fatal from a few minutes to the next day or so, but still leaving plenty of time to wreak some more havoc.


----------



## Semiotic Sacrilege (Aug 5, 2010)

Spartan wins hands down for me. Vikings are a group of guys that rape and pillage barley, if at all, defended villages. Spartans are born into war. They're lives revolve around fighting. They are better trained, more adept, and better equipped to fight. The shield is the least of the vikings worries, and they can't even get around that. I'd say spartan wins with low to mild difficulty.


----------



## lord wolfman (Aug 6, 2010)

Semiotic Sacrilege said:


> Spartan wins hands down for me. Vikings are a group of guys that rape and pillage barley, if at all, defended villages. Spartans are born into war. They're lives revolve around fighting. They are better trained, more adept, and better equipped to fight. The shield is the least of the vikings worries, and they can't even get around that. I'd say spartan wins with low to mild difficulty.



Actually vikings invaded other countries with armies. They didn't attack defenseless villages exclusive. For example look at Normandy. The vikings conquerd a piece of France and the King made that territory the fiefdom of  Normandy and offer that to the Viking leader of that army in exchange for his homage

Also as Guy Gardner already pointed out was that the equipment of the spartan hoplite wasn't suited for one vs one battle but the vikings equipment is so the viking has an advantage here


----------



## oMuerte (Aug 6, 2010)

lord wolfman said:


> Actually vikings invaded other countries with armies. They didn't attack defenseless villages exclusive. For example look at Normandy. The vikings conquerd a piece of France and the King made that territory the fiefdom of  Normandy and offer that to the Viking leader of that army in exchange for his homage
> 
> Also as Guy Gardner already pointed out was that the equipment of the spartan hoplite wasn't suited for one vs one battle but the vikings equipment is so the viking has an advantage here



True, but in my opinion the Spartan has the advantage in terms of defense with the shield and the armor. He can also keep the Viking at bay with his spear and ultimately send the Viking to Valhalla with his sword.


----------



## Riddler (Aug 6, 2010)

Spartan shoots the Viking till he's dead. 

​


----------



## Weltall8000 (Aug 6, 2010)

A bunch of rednecks, but here is some information about vikings from an experienced viking reenactor:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpu2NRg-HEg[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_qFq7QfUjI&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q74SOH9Bgp4&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]

They did wear a decent complement of armor and often wore shields.



As far as viking axemen, axes were noted for being useful in breaking through enemy shield walls and damaging spears.

As mentioned in this short paper describing the uses of the 



> Spartan shoots the Viking till he's dead.



And yes, in _that_ type of Spartan's case, this is rape.


----------



## Semiotic Sacrilege (Aug 6, 2010)

lord wolfman said:


> Actually vikings invaded other countries with armies. They didn't attack defenseless villages exclusive. For example look at Normandy. The vikings conquerd a piece of France and the King made that territory the fiefdom of  Normandy and offer that to the Viking leader of that army in exchange for his homage
> 
> Also as Guy Gardner already pointed out was that the equipment of the spartan hoplite wasn't suited for one vs one battle but the vikings equipment is so the viking has an advantage here



That's true, but It's probably not enough to beat the Spartans training and shield. Designed for 1 on 1? Maybe not. Useful for 1 on 1? Definitely. The shield and spear combo would be incredibly difficult to get around and even if he does (which I highly doubt), the Spartan still has his trusty sword. Plus Vikings often used blunt weapons, and with that he wouldn't stand a chance.

If the Spartans equipment is great at holding multiple opponents at bay, logic would assume that it can also do well at holding just one person at bay. I'll admit, I was to hard on the Vikings, but I still say the Spartan would win, albeit with higher difficulty.


----------



## Guy Gardner (Aug 6, 2010)

oMuerte said:


> True, but in my opinion the Spartan has the advantage in terms of defense with the shield and the armor. He can also keep the Viking at bay with his spear and ultimately send the Viking to Valhalla with his sword.



Okay, a few points here:

1) The shield will work because it's really hard to destroy any well-made shield, but the bronze armor is not going to be a game-changer.  We're talking about bladed steel weapons; they'll get through bronze. Especially if it's a handaxe of some sort, as axes are designed to impart maximum force on a target.

2) The spear is long, but it's wielded one-handed. The thing is around 7-8 feet long, and he's only holding it a foot away from the counterweight they put on the back of the thing. If the Viking decides to move around, he's going to have a lot of trouble because the dory is not meant to make drastic shifts to aim; you're supposed to have a small area in front of you where you concentrate on. Once you're inside of it, it's basically useless unless you are going to run away to gain distance. I feel I was especially generous in giving 3 kills to spear considering all of that.

3) The typical Spartan Xiphos was a foot and change long. That's going to be shorter than most seaxes (Dark Age knives from which the Saxons got their name), let alone a 2-3 foot long sword or a decent-sized hand axe. Again, the Greeks didn't depend on their swords and weighed them behind their other two primary pieces of equipment (dory and shield) for combat.

Spartans have a great reputation as warriors, but you have to recognize their strength was in organization and unit-training. They were not fantastic individual warriors. Fighters from the Dark Ages were likely going to be better individual fighters because warfare was less organized and not based around formations which _absolutely needed to hold_ to be successful. The closest they really got was the shieldwall, which is a sort of bootleg of the Phalanx including guys with axes and swords as well.


----------



## hammer (Aug 6, 2010)

I really ahte threas that may seem like it was inspired by ultamite warrior


----------



## Semiotic Sacrilege (Aug 6, 2010)

hammer said:


> I really ahte threas that may seem like it was inspired by ultamite warrior



Deadliest Warrior?

Yeah, I got that feeling from this thread too.


----------



## hammer (Aug 6, 2010)

ya I meant that got my shwos mixed up


----------



## Kazuma the Shell Bullet (Aug 8, 2010)

Riddler said:


> Spartan shoots the Viking till he's dead.
> 
> ​



O RLY?



Viking>>>>>>Spartan


----------



## Kind of a big deal (Aug 8, 2010)

Spartans from Greece must have been like midgets to Vikings from Scandinavia. Even today the difference in length is significant.

Vikings have the equipment advantage as well:

Wooden shields are designed to trap the opponent's weapon by having it get stuck on a block. Wooden shields are much better than most people think in a duel. Only after repeated assault will it break. Swords gets stuck in the wood on a chop that's caugh on the side of a wooden shield, with spears it's even more effective than swords because they're stabbing weapons, they can get stuck in the wood as well.

It doesn't matter how crap people think Viking iron and steel was, simple fact is that it was perfectly on par with anything else in their era, which is still miles beyond any bronze weapon. Blocking an attack from an iron or maybe even steel weapon with a bronze armor is going to be a bad idea. 
Either it gets sliced, or even worse it will give way and bend, causing massive internal injuries if it's on the body armor or helmet.

As with most fights like this it comes down to individual skill more than strength and equipment, either could win, but the Vikings definately have the advantage in the other aspects. Both Spartans and Vikings have a martial society based on merit on the battlefield, skill and experience aspect they are pretty close.

I'll go with the vikings.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Aug 8, 2010)

wait a minute these are the same guys that held..Europe hostage for..numerous years? beat the ever lasting day lights out of the toughest nations of that era....and fucked one up so badly they gave them freaking normandy?

these guys having shitty armor? what? these dudes not being good fighters? what?

they practically held western and part of eastern Europe hostage for what two centuries? christ not even the mongols had that kind of success against western Europe

fuck didn't a paraplegic viking king with a small force...rofstomp all over France and England virtually unopposed despite both nations possessing some of the best trained armies of that era?

if the samurai didn't get massacred in that thread..there be serious objectivity issues..

as for this one..the average viking depending on the era...either had..relatively  decent amount of experience...to not much..to a huge amount while the average spartan did have fantastic training

a decently outfitted viking from their height could take a spartan the rest of the period eh coin toss


----------



## Glued (Aug 8, 2010)

I hate the Deadliest Warrior Tv show, but there is something that caught my interest.

They tested the Kanabo  on the Spartan Shield. And the Shield was basically alright and absorbed the blow

They tested the kanabo on a viking shield. It splintered and apparently hit with enough force to fracture the arm of the holder.

Defense is half the battle.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Aug 8, 2010)

Ben Grimm said:


> I hate the Deadliest Warrior Tv show, but there is something that caught my interest.
> 
> They tested the Kanabo  on the Spartan Shield. And the Shield was basically alright and absorbed the blow
> 
> ...



you sure those idiots had the right type of shields? i mean seriously shows like that aren't known for being paragons of truth and objectivity


----------



## The777Man (Aug 8, 2010)

Spartan wins with difficulty. They're better trained and have stronger materials to make weapons with.


----------



## Weltall8000 (Aug 8, 2010)

> wait a minute these are the same guys that held..Europe hostage for..numerous years? beat the ever lasting day lights out of the toughest nations of that era....and fucked one up so badly they gave them freaking normandy?



This is true...but if you want to go that route, the Greeks (which the Spartans played an integral role in) crippled the Persian military machine for a generation, and later destroyed it...which happened to be the largest empire of its time. They aren't exactly slouches either.



> they practically held western and part of eastern Europe hostage for what two centuries? christ not even the mongols had that kind of success against western Europe



If the mongols really wanted to and didn't have internal problems after owning nearly all of Asia, they probably could have destroyed Europe too.

But regardless, I'm under the impression that this is supposed to be a 1v1. Which I'd say could go either way...but I'm leaning viking somewhat more, the more I think about it.

If we're talking group combat, I'd say it depends on the terms. Straight up fight in a field? Spartans win. Night raids on unsuspecting Spartan villages? Vikings win.



> They tested the kanabo on a viking shield. It splintered and apparently hit with enough force to fracture the arm of the holder.
> 
> Defense is half the battle.



From the information contained in the links/videos I posted a few posts back, I'm going to call BS on that. The way the grip is on the shield and how it was held, that's not very likely.


----------



## ChINaMaN1472 (Aug 8, 2010)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> you sure those idiots had the right type of shields? i mean seriously shows like that aren't known for being paragons of truth and objectivity



It's tough to say.  They got "historians" and "experts" in the respective field and have weapons that are supposedly very close replicas.  The problem is that it's tested on a stationary object, which is pretty much the best way to inflict damage.  In battle, it'd probably parried a little.



Weltall8000 said:


> This is true...but if you want to go that route, the Greeks (which the Spartans played an integral role in) crippled the Persian military machine for a generation, and later destroyed it...which happened to be the largest empire of its time. They aren't exactly slouches either.



Immortal's point was that Viking's aren't stupid mindless battle zombies that everyone was trying to make them out to be.  Everyone already knows the badass levels of the Spartans.


It's a fun concept as a show (more or less what we do here).  It's just the worst kind of analysis - OBD analysis are better and we haev no real testing equipment


----------



## hammer (Aug 8, 2010)

well even if its not always true the guy who dented the shield ripepd threw two pigs with a sword so even if its nto a true weponthe guy is no slouch hell he looked like he chould crush my head with his toes.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Aug 8, 2010)

Weltall8000 said:


> This is true...but if you want to go that route, the Greeks (which the Spartans played an integral role in) crippled the Persian military machine for a generation, and later destroyed it...which happened to be the largest empire of its time. They aren't exactly slouches either.[]



them holding Persia off as far as I know didn't exactly hamper the empire that much...and when they finally brought it down  it was a heavily stagnated far from its glory empire run by a guy who really wasn't too smart who depended on mercenary generals

and it was the macadonians who did it..same guys crapped all over greece and sort of seemed to generally ignore sparta except for that one time philip and sparta got into that battle of one liners


Weltall8000 said:


> If the mongols really wanted to and didn't have internal problems after owning nearly all of Asia, they probably could have destroyed Europe too.



they had trouble with milan iirc...but they where majorly overextended true,,,



Weltall8000 said:


> But regardless, I'm under the impression that this is supposed to be a 1v1. Which I'd say could go either way...but I'm leaning viking somewhat more, the more I think about it.



oh I know its one on one it just seemed like people where thinking Vikings where like, biker gangs and being really underestimated here



Weltall8000 said:


> If we're talking group combat, I'd say it depends on the terms. Straight up fight in a field? Spartans win. Night raids on unsuspecting Spartan villages? Vikings win.



Vikings did fight army to army..with some of the finest of the era and iirc...kicked the shit out of them

well except for that one time the british jumped 'em naked and that super viking pulled a gandalf on a bridge but yeah...these guys where no slouches in military ability either

[



ChINaMaN1472 said:


> It's tough to say.  They got "historians" and "experts" in the respective field and have weapons that are supposedly very close replicas.  The problem is that it's tested on a stationary object, which is pretty much the best way to inflict damage.  In battle, it'd probably parried a little.[]



after one of those shows had navy seals take a dive against ninjas..for fear of insulting weeaboos i lost my faith entirely on it...but they do have very close replicas? and experts?


----------



## Kazuma the Shell Bullet (Aug 8, 2010)

The777Man said:


> Spartan wins with difficulty. They're better trained and have stronger materials to make weapons with.



Bull. 

Vikings, like the Spartans were born warriors and are trained from boyhood to fight. They aren't taught military discipline, but they are unparalleled in single combat, which is all that matters here. The Spartan's fighting style is better suited to formations, not to matches like this.

Vikings had steel and iron, which even in its poorest quality would wreck bronze shields and armor, as proven by the Assyrians. 

The fact is that vikings took on soldiers with better armor and equipment than anything that the Spartans had ever seen, and came out on top almost every time. Nearly all of Western Europe lived in fear of the Norsemen, who even managed to take a portion of France (and the only reason they didn't take more is because the king gave them everything they needed in order to appease them).

Let's forget 300 for a moment and think rationally. The Spartans are fucked


----------



## hammer (Aug 8, 2010)

300 was  a peice of shit


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Aug 8, 2010)

to expound on what kazuma said vikings where also masters of taking over a town or location fortifying the crap out of it...and then expanding their control from there, controlling supply lines and essentially adapting the area to suit their needs for an easier conquest...spartans never..to my knowledge did anything like this at all

they did have very advanced technology in some areas (sailing ship building)) their weaponry may not of been that great..but average or below average steel (as long as its not Japanese steel any ways) should still be superior to bronze

the age of the viking...

Spartans never exactly had an age named after them..though they did bring about the downfall of greeces golden age during the peloponesian war..which is..pretty high on the barbarity scale


----------



## ChINaMaN1472 (Aug 8, 2010)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> after one of those shows had navy seals take a dive against ninjas..for fear of insulting weeaboos i lost my faith entirely on it...but they do have very close replicas? and experts?



Supposedly.  I don't know how qualified the experts and historians are, but a lot of the weapons and armors seem fairly legit.  I doubt they got a steel Spartan shield for instance, but it's not out of the realm of possibility.


----------



## hammer (Aug 8, 2010)

ChINaMaN1472 said:


> Supposedly.  I don't know how qualified the experts and historians are, but a lot of the weapons and armors seem fairly legit.  I doubt they got a steel Spartan shield for instance, but it's not out of the realm of possibility.



I would have to agree with thisI would also like to point out they do moving and non moving tests and use people who seem to be at their peak, but the battles and the historians seem full of bs


----------



## Kazuma the Shell Bullet (Aug 8, 2010)

Spartan shields are being massively overrated here. They weren't even solid bronze. They were mostly wood with a thin bronze plating on the outer face. It may have worked fine against the Persians, who also used bronze weapons, but against a steel greataxe? The thing will be cut in two.

Similarly, their spears were bronze, and while they were great against lightly armored Persians, it's useless against a Viking Lindon shield (which could withstand a blow from a Danish bearded axe) and chainmail


----------



## Glued (Aug 8, 2010)

ChINaMaN1472 said:


> Supposedly.  I don't know how qualified the experts and historians are, but a lot of the weapons and armors seem fairly legit.  I doubt they got a steel Spartan shield for instance, but it's not out of the realm of possibility.



They used a Hawaiian Weapon for the Maori warrior.

They gave a sacrificial knife to the Aztec Warrior

They used Sikh weapons for the Rajputs

They gave the Rajput a dueling weapon.

You can honestly tell they were not using real experts when explaining the Aztecs and the Maori. The moment they tested a sacrificial knife for the Aztecs I realized how utterly stupid the show is.


----------



## ChINaMaN1472 (Aug 8, 2010)

But the motion tests are optimized to create the most damage possible.  Chances are if you have a shield, you wouldn't hold the shield in one spot to block, you'd it'd be a combination of blocking and parrying it to the side to minimize the damage intake.  On top of that, it's not like you'd swing with maximum force everytime.

Yea, the analysis is terrible.


----------



## hammer (Aug 8, 2010)

I wishthey can use eal experts


----------



## Weltall8000 (Aug 8, 2010)

> them holding Persia off as far as I know didn't exactly hamper the empire that much...and when they finally brought it down it was a heavily stagnated far from its glory empire run by a guy who really wasn't too smart who depended on mercenary generals



Not solely speaking of Battle of Thermopylae, though that was quite an impressive feat felling at very conservative estimates thousands of Persian soldiers, at the higher range in the tens to hundreds of thousands (I'm more inclined to believe a middleground). But the results of the failed invasion of Greece cost the Persians great military losses. They were incapable of quelling the rebellion in Greece and lost it. Not saying they conquered Persia, but they definitely destroyed a serious offensive from the, at the time, strongest nation on Earth. And just for clarification, this wasn't solely Sparta, but they were a major force in this alliance of Greek city-states.

And later Alexander wrecked Persia, but he wasn't a Spartan, so his conquering it is admittedly irrelevant. However, Macedonia was part of Greece. Alexander the Great, was a Greek. But enough about that.



> oh I know its one on one it just seemed like people where thinking Vikings where like, biker gangs and being really underestimated here



Hell's Vikings. 



> Vikings did fight army to army..with some of the finest of the era and iirc...kicked the shit out of them
> 
> well except for that one time the british jumped 'em naked and that super viking pulled a gandalf on a bridge but yeah...these guys where no slouches in military ability either



I agree. But a comparable force isn't breaking the phalanx in an infantry battle. The later European shield walls were garbage compared to the ancient Greek's lines.

Now, if the Phalanx is broken or otherwise not formed, the Spartans lose alot of their efficiency. Group battles however, are their forte.



> eh videos aside shows like deadliest warrior suck i mean one on the descovery channel paid navy seals to take a dive to ninjas because they feared they'd loose rating if ninjas lost



Yeah, those videos were a direct rebuttal to the _Deadliest Warrior_ episode on viking vs samurai. I'm sure the guy has a bias for vikings, but he brings up some good points outlining the viking perspective and techniques.



> Let's forget 300 for a moment and think rationally



Agreed, the Spartans will actually be wearing armor for the purposes of this thread.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Aug 8, 2010)

Weltall8000 said:


> Not solely speaking of Battle of Thermopylae, though that was quite an impressive feat felling at very conservative estimates thousands of Persian soldiers, at the higher range in the tens to hundreds of thousands (I'm more inclined to believe a middleground). But the results of the failed invasion of Greece cost the Persians great military losses. They were incapable of quelling the rebellion in Greece and lost it. Not saying they conquered Persia, but they definitely destroyed a serious offensive from the, at the time, strongest nation on Earth. And just for clarification, this wasn't solely Sparta, but they were a major force in this alliance of Greek city-states.



I was thinking more about the Ionian revolt and the subsequent invasion that ended at the battle of marathon did not seem to do much to the over all Persian state and it was already entering its down decline then iirc wasn't Darius killed in Egypt fighting a minor revolt?

if you wanna say "Greece broke" Persian power it would of been there but I don't think the over all it affected them too drastically until after Thermopylae and even then it seemed to be its own decline then anything else

what they failed to do there and why the spartans had such success was their own horrible armor..and idiotic choice of actually falling into such a trap they also weren't very disciplined 






Weltall8000 said:


> And later Alexander wrecked Persia, but he wasn't a Spartan, so his conquering it is admittedly irrelevant. However, Macedonia was part of Greece. Alexander the Great, was a Greek. But enough about that.



Macadonia also blatantly out did the Spartans in every conceivable way and had made their tactics obsolete so da comparison weren't all dat just der



Weltall8000 said:


> Hell's Vikings.



that would be an awesome alternate history fic 

[





Weltall8000 said:


> ]I agree. But a comparable force isn't breaking the phalanx in an infantry battle. The later European shield walls were garbage compared to the ancient Greek's lines.



you really think European armies of that era couldn't slaughter the Spartans on the battlefield ? much less vikings?


Weltall8000 said:


> Now, if the Phalanx is broken or otherwise not formed, the Spartans lose alot of their efficiency. Group battles however, are their forte.



you make it seem like the guys the Vikings where fighting where all scrubs some of them happened but iirc some of them were top notch historically




Weltall8000 said:


> Agreed, the Spartans will actually be wearing armor for the purposes of this thread.



and not be fighting rejects from the lord of the rings..or performing superhuman feats


----------



## ChINaMaN1472 (Aug 9, 2010)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> and not be fighting rejects from the lord of the rings..or *performing superhuman feats*



LIES!


----------

