Between 300 Spartans Vs 300 vikings: Who's winning in a battle ?

300 Spartan will win.

Spartan is very strategic when it comes to battle.

Omo na Spartans go win oo
Battle tactics I'll give it to Spartans tho

The one thing that the Vikings might have over the Spartans is a more advanced weaponry, since they existed in a more recent/modern Era than the Spartans.

So, on that ground, they might take it.


Viking weaponry was thousands of years and miles ahead of that which the Spartans wielded in their fighting days. You can't compare both Eras when it comes to weaponry. No way!

My opinion.

charixel:
300 Spartan will win.

Spartan is very strategic when it comes to battle.

Yes but sometimes, been ruthless in a beserker manner as the Vikings does would win such a clash if it were occuring in a close combat battle, Spartans' strategic fighting won't help them as a horde of 300 Vikings would rip their bunch-up charge-defense-thrust tactic apart.


Spartans
Short sword at the hilt of the waist, armed with a long spear and heavy shield for protection.

Vikings
Armed with a Battle Axe and a small size thick shield, he is more mobile to execute a melee attack better than would a Spartan.

I love everything Spartans, their discipline, training and viciousness when fighting but I think the Vikings would still be victorious because they are much beastly and hefty.

Just my two cents, no insults.


Modified:
I didn't write my thought while having Ragnar Lothbrok's Vikings and Zack Snider's rendition of Frank Miller's 300 in mind. I wrote based on books I've read on them and documentary watched about them.

Peace.

mansakhalifa:
The one thing that the Vikings might have over the Spartans is a more advanced weaponry, since they existed in a more recent/modern Era than the Spartans.

So, on that ground, they might take it.


Viking weaponry was thousands of years and miles ahead of that which the Spartans wielded in their fighting days. You can't compare both Eras when it comes to weaponry. No way!

My opinion.

If I may disagree a bit, the weapons of the Spartans' and Vikings would both still be considered ancient by historians if when compared to the advanced weapons of human destruction that exists in today's world, the weapons of the Vikings and Spartans were metal based and iron forged for one thing only, for melee attacks only.

y3mi:

If I may disagree a bit, the weapons of the Spartans' and Vikings would both still be considered ancient by historians if when compared to the advanced weapons of human destruction that exists in today's world, the weapons of the Vikings and Spartans were metal based and iron forged for one thing only, for melee attacks only.

Well, you kind of have a point... but...

Despite the near-similarities in weapons, there is at least a thousand years gap in weapons development between the two to consider. Talking about stronger swords, spears, hammers etc.

And let's not forget the shields and body armour. The Vikings would also have access to better versions of these.

All in all, the Vikings would field the more modern force of the two despite similarities in weaponry.

y3mi:

Yes but sometimes, been ruthless in a beserker manner as the Vikings does would win such a clash if it were occuring in a close combat battle, Spartans' strategic fighting won't help them as a horde of 300 Vikings would rip their bunch-up charge-defense-thrust tactic apart.


Spartans
Short sword at the hilt of the waist, armed with a long spear and heavy shield for protection.

Vikings
Armed with a Battle Axe and a small size thick shield, he is more mobile to execute a melee attack better than would a Spartan.

I love everything Spartans, their discipline, training and viciousness when fighting but I think the Vikings would still be victorious because they are much beastly and hefty.

Just my two cents, no insults.


Modified:
I didn't write my thought while having Ragnar Lothbrok's Vikings and Zack Snider's rendition of Frank Miller's 300 in mind. I wrote based on books I've read on them and documentary watched about them.

Peace.

Well said here.

mansakhalifa:


Well, you kind of have a point... but...

Despite the near-similarities in weapons, there is at least a thousand years gap in weapons development between the two to consider. Talking about stronger swords, spears, hammers etc.

And let's not forget the shields and body armour. The Vikings would also have access to better versions of these.

All in all, the Vikings would field the more modern force of the two despite similarities in weaponry.

Vikings were also crafty too in building war machines like siege weapons.

Spartans - trained for war since birth. And not only are they brutes, the are strategic. Intelligence meets bravery and brute force makes em nigh unbeatable.

cooljoe:
Spartans - trained for war since birth. And not only are they brutes, the are strategic. Intelligence meets bravery and brute force makes em nigh unbeatable.

All na hype if you check history. Spartans lost as many battles as they won. They weren't even close to being unbeatable.

You can check out the Battle of Leuctra, which spelled the beginning of the end for sparta before the romans came and finished them off.

You should note in that battle the Thebans were mostly farmers who were were trained to fight. So they weren't as disciplined as the spartans who also outnumbered the thebans. They were faster and they had a better strategy against a very predictable spartan force that largely only fight one way. In hindsight these are also the qualities of the vikings but they have superior weapons and are very crafty.