Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

I'd say a viking beats a Spartan, but a fighting formation of Spartans beats an equal number of vikings.

THIS!

IS!

SPARTAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!

(spartan kick)

Ha. Your avatar is a Spartan getting his ass kicked.

Vikings, they've got berserkers.

Ninjas

Deadshane1 wrote:Ninjas

QFT.

What kind of hard do you mean?

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.

Vikings would get some guys high on shrooms and have them run at the enemy wearing only bearskins. Thats where beserker came from.

Vikings also created the whole "sanctuary" concept and used butter in their hair. They also LOVED shiny things.

Master traders too.

Vikings, if spartans were so hard-core theyd have a football team named after them.

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.

Roman Legionaries would own both of them.

warpcrafter wrote:Roman Legionaries would own both of them.

You mean those guys that got beat by the Goths, Vandals, and other "barbarians" repeatedly?

How about Hannibal and his allies? They littered the earth with Roman dead every where they went.

halonachos wrote:Vikings would get some guys high on shrooms and have them run at the enemy wearing only bearskins. Thats where beserker came from.

Vikings also created the whole "sanctuary" concept and used butter in their hair. They also LOVED shiny things.

Master traders too.

Master trader as in "give me that or I'm going to chop your friggin' head off!"

warpcrafter wrote:Roman Legionaries would own both of them.

You mean those guys who got beaten up by short blond frenchman and his large friend in a regular basis

Asterix wins the thread.

Mongols!

Even in the far future, they take on the Federation...

KHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Scots.


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.

They did go into Scotland. Pub my family used to run has ruins buried under it's carpark. Quite well known in Edinburgh. Look up the Cramond Inn.

Platuan4th wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:Roman Legionaries would own both of them.

You mean those guys that got beat by the Goths, Vandals, and other "barbarians" repeatedly?

No, he means the real Roman legionaries from the later republic and early empire.

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?"

Scots Housewife Singer?

Which one? Annie Lennox, K T Tunstall, Shirley (lovely lovely Shirley) Manson?

WHICH ONE FRAZZLED? WHICH ONE!!?

Who? Wha?

Vikings also established the first brewery in Ireland. They weren't drunks until the vikings came along.

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!

garret wrote:What kind of hard do you mean?