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.

Why are there all these Space Wolves v. Ultramarines threads? :-)

spartans, if they have battle rifles

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.

Vikings = Epic win
Spartans = Epic Fail

117 of course.

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.

The Arbiter would argue greatest soldiers ever.

The Arbiter is only a fugly alien with fancy armour and wussy camo that doesn't work.

Bitter much?

I only tell it like it is, brah.

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.

Hm, yep. Spartans come out on top. They use 7.92mm assault rifles and 102mm rocket launchers. Vikings are just loonies with axes.

Well, the spartans could also be called vikings because they do were Mjolnir Armour. The name of Thor's Hammer.

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.

kingslgarrett wrote:Words.

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.

avantgarde wrote:

kingslgarrett wrote:Words.

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.

And the Argives still lost.