Okay, it's late and I'm sat with my 6 and 1/2 month old son who wont sleep because he's teething and if last night is anything to go by I could be up until 1am before he settles down (not good considering I have work tomorrow ), so my mind is wandering in that half asleep way it often does. I've glanced over at my dvd collection and saw 300 and The 13th Warrior (based on the book 'Eaters of the Dead', an alternate and more 'probable' telling of the Beowulf story). Both films are similar in that each is about a small band of warriors fighting against overwhelming odds in a last stand type scenario. But I've been thinking, who is harder a viking or a spartan? I'm going to vote for the viking, simply because I prefer The 13th Warrior to 300 and I love the viking mythos (I grew up in the North of England, relatively close to York so we all like to think we're decended from vikings - look up Yorvik on the internet if you have no idea what I'm on about). Plus how can you not admire Bullvie in the film, getting poisened, but still taking part in the final battle, swinging his broadsword and cutting enemies clean off horses. Only once the last enemy is dead or fled does he allow himself to die.
The Spartans were great warriors in formation and have a great history. But the Vikings were kicking everyone's butt. They sacked Paris 3 or 4 times. Plus they found the Americas long before any other European. Vikings have mad skills.
Also, that 300 movie was so far from what really happened in that battle it is scary. There is no mention of the naval battle that was going on. The naval battle is what really mattered in that engagement. What the Spartans did was very impressive, and it has stood the test of time. But that movie didn't show anything close to what really happened. Plus they didn't even fight in formation in that movie for more than about a minute or two. Very disappointing.
ixlar wrote:Also, that 300 movie was so far from what really happened in that battle it is scary. There is no mention of the naval battle that was going on. The naval battle is what really mattered in that engagement. What the Spartans did was very impressive, and it has stood the test of time. But that movie didn't show anything close to what really happened. Plus they didn't even fight in formation in that movie for more than about a minute or two. Very disappointing.
Thanks for failing at realizing that a movie based on a comic wouldn't resemble history.
Hey sexiest_hero, I take it your not a college ball fan?
And vikings would totally stomp the spartans. You gotta pick the guys who's after life revolved around endless bloodshed and eating. Only to be called up one last time for more fighting at the end of the world.
Saw off the Roman Empire to the point they built a wall to keep us out, chinned our fair share of Vikings (and recent discoveries points to the vasy majority of contact being entirely peaceful trading, with some Viking sticking around to form small colonies). Plus we've beaten up the English, which is always good for a laugh.
Vikings. The Spartans may beat them in formation but one on one a viking would batter them.
Also - spartans showing off 6 packs etc? What are they trying to compenstate for? Real men don't need to dress like that, they dress as scary monsters!
Vikings were way cooler though with epic mad sailing skills. They were decent traders linked with exploration, traveling through modern Russia (hence the name Russia from Russ). They were by far the best raiders, that’s for sure, and their descendants turned into strong soldiers.
But Spartans would have pwoned them on land (if both had iron weapons). Spartan organization was incredibly strong on the field, only outpaced by Roman unit organization. They literally trained from age 7 to be killers. Its one thing to a bad mofo, its another to literally train all your life to kill people and do nothing but that.
Having said that, Vikings also lived by their wits and probably wouldn’t have gotten into that fight.
OTT but don’t forget, yes eventually the Romans fell. But before that they kicked many a German, French, Spanish, African, Parthian, Greek, Spartan, Macedonian, English, and Hun butt. Yea they didn’t go into Scotland-why would they? Nothing in Scotland but goats and ticked off Scots. It took Romans to really bring the Romans down.
Ninjas of course would pwon all, because they are ninjas.
Maybe they were lost or just really bored? They had to first go there before they could decide to leave there.
After a while they realized the angry Scot ratio was way too high and bailed. That or like the rest of the world, they could never figure out what you are saying Scots 1 - Romans 0?
OT but saying that Scot housewife singer talking before her song. Even Rusty the wonder dog woke up and asked "what the did she just say?"
And they still aren't a patch on the Scots in terms of getting pished.
The only reason they are more noted, is that the fools waste valuable drinking time to boast how much they drink, whereas the Scots just use it to keep drinking!
Platuan4th wrote:Thanks for failing at realizing that a movie based on a comic wouldn't resemble history.
Having never heard of the comic before the movie came out, and having previously studied that engagement because I loved Greek mythology and history. I sure that it is understandable that my view of the movie would be very jaded.
A medieval knight in full armor would probably beat a samurai. A samurai who actually had experience with that level of armor would pretty much make it a draw.
A ninja is scary, but the Inverse Ninja Law makes 1,000 ninjas easy to beat.
We'd have to define knights and samurai of what period, as knight armor evolved from early mail (thanes) to full plate that would make a samurai freak out (at least until he unloaded a matchlock into it Go Go Team Gunpowder!). As noted Spartans would have to have similar armor to be comparable.
Mamelukes would be bad mambos indeed IIRC.
Of course all are pwoned by the peasant with said matchlock! BOOM!
Frazzled wrote:We'd have to define knights and samurai of what period, as knight armor evolved from early mail (thanes) to full plate that would make a samurai freak out (at least until he unloaded a matchlock into it Go Go Team Gunpowder!).
I'd say the point that the two cultures met would be the starting point, so post-Crusades full plate european knight vs. Samurai sans firearm. That's the best chance the Samurai has (none) and it's down hill from there all the way to the atomic bomb.
halonachos wrote:The romans were pwnd by guys who would get frenzied, tear off all of their clothes, and charge the enemy.
All fear crazy naked guys.
Whenever you say a naked guy running down the street, you start running too. You may not know what it is, but if it makes a naked guy run away, its gonna be BAD
Frazzled wrote:We'd have to define knights and samurai of what period, as knight armor evolved from early mail (thanes) to full plate that would make a samurai freak out (at least until he unloaded a matchlock into it Go Go Team Gunpowder!).
I'd say the point that the two cultures met would be the starting point, so post-Crusades full plate european knight vs. Samurai sans firearm. That's the best chance the Samurai has (none) and it's down hill from there all the way to the atomic bomb.
How does that work with Spartan Hoplites? They never met either of them.
To prove their manhood, real vikings had to strangle themselves with their bare hands. This is incredibly difficult as vikings would punch the strangler in the face until the strangler gave up.
Hmm Vikings FTW.
You'd need to know your history for this one... At the battle of Stamford Bridge, a lone Viking held off a Saxon army for several hours. He stood in the middle of the only bridge on a river that separated the 2 armies and took on all comers.
The sneaky Saxons got him in the end by sending someone out in a boat, and spearing him in his errr manhood O.o
Though in truth you'd have to call it a draw in the hard case debate, as they both were products of their time
Vikings are the reason for the phrase "paying through the nose" (they used to chop off your nose if you wouldn't pay protection. "Airgid srón"), but spartans have generated an pronoun. Hmmmm.
I dunno. I like Norse Myth better than Greek Myth. And I'm from a Viking fortified town area of Ireland. So I say Vikings.
Spartans were born and bred to kill.
Vikings weren't, but were prodigiously good at it, regardless. Last I checked the Spartans didn't strike terror in the hearts of people from the Arctic down to North-Africa (and IIRC, as far as Russia and possibly America, too) for a few centuries...
Vikings were strong as well as tough, just what you need for fighting. Not a lot scared them and they could fight well even on their own. They didn't have any special techniques other than 'beat the living poo out of the enemy.'
Spartans were strong, and essentially traded toughness for battle tactics. You have to remember that Spartans fought in Phalanxes. They weren't so hot on their own.
So a Viking against a Spartan, 1-on-1, would result in the Viking coming out on top. However, a mob of Vikings against a phalanx of Spartans would result in the Spartans winning, this is because the Spartans are trained to work together, but Vikings just grouped up and charged in hoping for the best.
300 Spartans take on about 4 times as many Persians? Totally Awesome
Vikings, though, appeal to my style of warfare. Get drunk, prepare for war, run in screaming, and either die trying or come out victorious.
If you ask me, a Spartan could beat a Viking 1-on-1. We seem to forget that a viking wasn't a full time soldier. A viking raided when his warlord commanded, whereas a Spartan was a professional soldier. From age 7, A spartan started to learn the arts of waging war. A viking, on the other hand, lead the raider's life. The vikings had numbers and speed on their side. A Spartan fought in protracted combats.
The Viking also was undisciplined, a hardy fighter, but as earlier stated they charged in and hoped for the best. More often than not, a headlong charge can prove fatal. A Spartan, on the other hand, had the principles of discipline forced upon him.
Also, it's not like Spartans have never fought up close with swords. They mainly used the phalanx formation, but it's not like they haven't drawn swords.
Vikings didn't actually just go "Waaagh!" and charge into the enemy's sword. That's ridiculous, they knew how to fight quite well, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to do anything near what they did.
Right, Orkeosaurus, but they weren't as well trained as a Spartan. The Viking was more reckless. They wouldn't charge into the enemy's sword, but they would charge straight forward. All I'm saying is that the spartan would have a better understanding of hand-to-hand tactics. The Viking would focus more on brute force.
Spartans were well trained in fighting with shields in a phalanx. Remember 300? The shield of the Spartan next to you is as important as your own.
Spartans would not make it in 1 on 1 combat. There is no other shield to protect them. He'd be outflanked if he tried to use his favored style of fighting.
A Spartan would not have a better understanding of combat in this situation, it's not something that Spartan warfare emphasised. Vikings had experience with single combat. They wouldn't charge straight forward to their deaths, unless we're specifically talking about berserkers.
Ulven wrote:Vikings all the way! Got the blood in me...
lol thats a good 1
You do realise all that total invasion and migration bs which used to be in history books has all been comfirmed bs now. Meaning the vikings/celts/romans didnt just all get wiped out by the saxons, leave etc. they actually settled. Meaning if you have any british roots you have a fair chance of having viking blood in you.
So basicly your not particularly special.
On topic. Greeks aren't much good for anything nowadays except disgusting food you can only bear after ten pints and having largely unpronouncable names. So I'd vote Vikings on that basis.
OK yes the Spartans had the phalanx going for them. But do yoo really think that a group of viking's be would be dumb enough to charge a phalanx? Wouldn't they just lob flaming debris on top of the Spartans or something?
Weren't Vikings pirates as well as Vikings? I mean, consummate sailors? Check. Bloodthirsty? Check? Out for gold? Check. What else do you need to qualify as a pirate?
So, pirate = hard, but viking = pirate + Norseman. Pirate + x > pirate. Right? (Well, most vikings were Danish, but you get the point, right?)
Also, if memory serves, one of the reason vikings were so succesful as raiders/fighting forces was the... Viking shield wall. Well-discipled troops, using shields and spears. Sound familiar?
Both rely on shields for defense. Line of Spartans and line of Vikings engage, shields are locked up. And, then, the Spartans are overcome by a wave of nausea and collapse due to the stench of the Vikings. They don't bathe, they're at sea for months at a time - I mean, in the history of smelling bad, the Vikings have to be near the top.
Vikings were actually "trained" to fight with all forms of weapons.
The popular conception of axe wielding maniac should be tempered with the fact that they could use the axe to pull a sword from an enemies grip or lock a spear and snap it.
They were highly organised when they needed to be.
I know that this was touched on before, but the Vikings have a PRO football team, and the Spartans just have a college football team from the Big Ten.
I mean there not even from a powerhouse conference like the SEC.
Both rely on shields for defense. Line of Spartans and line of Vikings engage, shields are locked up. And, then, the Spartans are overcome by a wave of nausea and collapse due to the stench of the Vikings. They don't bathe, they're at sea for months at a time - I mean, in the history of smelling bad, the Vikings have to be near the top.
Frazzled wrote:Vikings drank beer. It takes a lot of beer to get drunk Spartans drank wine. Much easier to get soused. Spartans for the win.
Both wrong. Vikings LOVED their mead. The also washed their faces and hands each morning, and had a bath weekly (Presuming they were not at sea.
Vikings win anywho. How many Melodic Death metal songs are sung about Spartans? Ninjas? Samurai?
Well, on the Deadliest Warrior, Samurai beat Viking, Ninja beat Samurai, and Spartan beat Ninja...
Spartans went through 20 years of military training, school, and physical training...They actually knew instant kill spots on the body and every blow was a killing blow...
As much as I like Vikings (My family is from Norway), and have studied them and reenacted, etc,,,,Spartans would win...
Spartans are like Samurai & Vikings combined IMHO....
Spartan if you happened to slip while getting undressed, land in a barrel of olive oil while at the same time drop your clothes behind a heavy metal grate that slams closed and it's just a bit too heavy to lift but not quite heavy enough that you won't try...
OTT but don’t forget, yes eventually the Romans fell. But before that they kicked many a German, French, Spanish, African, Parthian, Greek, Spartan, Macedonian, English, and Hun butt. Yea they didn’t go into Scotland-why would they? Nothing in Scotland but goats and ticked off Scots. It took Romans to really bring the Romans down.
I think at that stage Sparta essentially ceased to be a millitary threat, after being defeated by the Thebans and other Greek city states.
The Viking also was undisciplined, a hardy fighter, but as earlier stated they charged in and hoped for the best.
The sheildwall was the accepted style of fighting of the viking era. Several lines would be created and sheilds would be locked then the armies would advance towards eachother on walking on foot and often only after a lot of drinking and other morale raising feats. Its basically a phalanx without spears or the depth.
A member of the kngihtly class (generally thane or bondsman) would have relatively equal level of training as a spartan, samurai, medieval knight. As both would have been raised from a young age to participate in both single and massed combat. (though the spartans had a large edge in massed combat) If it came down to gear than most likely the knights would win. As their gear and the samurais are the most high tech. (Samurai often did not use guns personally though they were employed in their armies.)
Dude, Spartans are way better. They wear Mk. VI MJOLNIR battle armour with built-in self-regenerating shields and biofoam injectors. Their bones are reinforced with complicated metal alloys, making them virtually indestructable. Combined with decades of training in the harshest conditions and reflexes and running speeds several times that of the fastest human, they're the best soldiers ever.
ixlar wrote:But the Vikings were kicking everyone's butt. They sacked Paris 3 or 4 times.
Umm... a pack of Boy Scouts could do that in a weekend. Sacking Paris is like bragging about getting it on with $2 Sand Paper Sally down on the street corner.
A Spartan would be much tougher. The agoge would have seen to that. They were trained to do nothing but fight from the age of 7. The discipline was brutal. For even minor offenses they were beaten severely. This helped inure them to pain. They were not given quite enough food to live on, so had to steal if they wanted to survive, but again were beaten severely if they caught. This taught them to be resourceful. Ther allowed liesure activities were excercing and hunting. Unless outnumbered, they beat every army that came against them for about 500 years. (until the Theban Golden Band).
The viking, while skilled warriors from a warrior culture, generally had as a primary occupation farmer or fisherman. (The only occupation of a Spartan was war).
The viking won the majority of battles by manuveur. With the shallow draft long boat, they could land and hit an undefended area, pillage, and be gone before the soldiers arrived. They spent most of thier time killing peasants armed with pitch forks.
They attacked at a time when the governments of the time were weak and fragmented and could not organize a coherant defense against raiding style of attacks.
The shield wall (which was the preferred tactic when they fought in a pitch battle) would not have been effective against a phalanx. The longer spears of the Spartans would have overcome the shorter weapons used by the vikings.
Anyone who has ever been in the military will tell you that the well trained soldier will beat the untrained soldier the majority of the time.
For example, In Vietnam, the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army actually lost just about every battle they fought against the US. (even though they won the war)
The Continental Army lost almost every battle with the Brits during the revolution. (again winning the war)
In Iraq, the US troops won and are winning every battle. The Iraqis have to find alternative means of killing rather than open battle.
So long story short, the Viking were by and large extremely skilled amateurs, while the Spartans were thoruoghly trained professionals. The Spartans would have been much better soldiers.
Ratbarf wrote:A member of the knightly class (generally thane or bondsman) would have relatively equal level of training as a spartan, samurai, medieval knight. As both would have been raised from a young age to participate in both single and massed combat.
This is a good point.
Are we talking huscarls/thanes/Scandinavian knight class versus hoplites? I sort of assumed we were.
If we're talking about the non-professional raiders taking a break from fishing or whatever, I think the hoplites would have it. (Unless the raiders were up against helots.)
Also, Space Wolf is a cooler guy than Halo. He fights titans and doesn't afraid of hangovers.
I was talking about the nobility class of the respective areas and times. As the spartans were no where near the average resident of laconia, they just happened to be the top like x percent that ruled the place and were supported by the other y percent. Pretty much they were a very well organised nobility class.
300 Argives fought to a draw against 300 Spartans in a mass duel to resolve a battle with less bloodshed, despite not having the hard ass training everyone talks about. To be fair, the Spartans later kicked the crap out of the Argive force for failing to acknowledge Sparta's victory in the duel, which made the whole thing rather pointless.
Also Vikings got sweet names like Ragnar Hairy-Breeks, Sven Forkbeard or Sigurd Snake in the Eye.
300 Argives fought to a draw against 300 Spartans in a mass duel to resolve a battle with less bloodshed, despite not having the hard ass training everyone talks about. To be fair, the Spartans later kicked the crap out of the Argive force for failing to acknowledge Sparta's victory in the duel, which made the whole thing rather pointless.
Also Vikings got sweet names like Ragnar Hairy-Breeks, Sven Forkbeard or Sigurd Snake in the Eye.
The question was who was harder, not who was cooler. The Spartans win for shear bad a**ness. The Vikings get points for being way cooler. Drinking, carousing, wenching, and fighting is much cooler than discipline, brutality, frugality, mass slavery and war.
), so my mind is wandering in that half asleep way it often does.
did she just say?"
.