400 Greek hoplites vs 400 Vikings
All with their standard equipment
Standard formations and tactics of their time.
30 archers on each side
Battlefield is a level grassy field with few hills
vikings werent formation fighters
the germanic tribes were all very prideful and loved singling out oponents and fighting one on one
I love the vikings and I hate to say it but the Greeks were far more structured and trained
> bronze plate vs chain-mail
eh. given so few archers, I'd say chain is better
> bronze weapons vs iron and steel
no fucking contest, hoplites' sidearm is practically useless
> mongo spears vs swords and axes
hmm... could go either way
> fanatic discipline vs individual prowess
welp. guess the Hoplites win, by a cunthair
Well let's see, the phalanx survived largely unchanged until the 18th Century, and only fell out of use because guns became fucking amazing. Vikings on the other hand are known for raiding defenseless villages.
I'm going to have to go with the Greeks.
>Well let's see, the phalanx survived largely unchanged until the 18th Century
except that the tactics was used entirely different.. Phalanx were shit against cavalry and later pikes were used due to their effectiveness against cavalry. A phalanx is not just a bunch of guys with spears
The vikings did not fight in formations
idk where you got your information but it is wrong
source, I'm an anthropologist and have studied a lot of pre-norman nordic practices.
also just for the record, Viking is a verb not a noun
everyone who uses the term Vikings to refer to the people are completely and utterly wrong
>also just for the record, Viking is a verb not a noun
>everyone who uses the term Vikings to refer to the people are completely and utterly wrong
The "clip" of pre-norman nordic anthropology.
If we assume that hoplites represented elite heavy infantry of the classical era, and put them up against elite heavy viking infantry with chainmail and iron weapons, id say that the vikings would stand a chance in a shieldwal against the hoplites
Maybe. Also in classical Greek warfare after the phalanx was broken, that was typically the victory and the fight was over.
I guess the Vikings stand a better chance than I thought.
But he never researched their diets, or did a quick skip over of their units and weapons like they usual do.
Seriously all of them are retarded but the one about Hannibal vs Ghengis khan was retarded
>Not knowing how war elephants were used
>thinking there was only very few type of weapons used by Carthage
>not realizing Carthage had an army full of people from different cultures
>having a re curve bow as the mongols secret weapon
the one on vampires vs zombies was just as funny and retarded.
short answer: no
iron and steel weapons would get stopped - or worse, jammed and snagged, into bronze plate
long answer: yes
bronze is seriously fucking heavy, a guy in iron mesh with a steel weapon is far more mobile for the same level of protection
sorry about that
> mediterranean agricultural diet vs Nordic agri
Vikings are fatasfatass because lolgrain, but stronger because they have more protein in their diets
Greeks are lean and muscular, but not overly strong
world-class for the Greeks, lots of sports in their free time, these guys are operator-tier
no formal training for the Viking
the hoplites fought as a phalanx, a unit which could vary in size, but up to 3000 men (practical limit of control on an ancient battlefield).
battle formation is usually five deep so 400 men would initially cover about 80-100 meters of frontage, give or take
the Viking fought in warbands which could be a few dozen up to maybe a thousand strong. 400 men would probably line up, 3 or at most 4 deep, covering 100 - 130 meters of frontage
in both cases, the archers would be in front, single file, probably spread out on the right flank and doing jack shit (5-6 volleys, killing or wounding maybe 10 on each side) before resorting to their sidearms. the bows are comparable in range.
the greek spear is a spear, the sword is bronze or iron, a short one-handed affair, more like a lange messer than anything, small handguard
the Viking signature weapon is the battle-axe - long haft, thin profile, possibly with a spike on the other end. very suitable against plate armor
the Viking sword is a work of art, usually iron but since these particular warriors are (like the hoplites) the elite of their society, probably steel, quite long, hand or hand-and-half grip, large cruciform hand guard
You're on the battlefield and this hoplite slaps your comrade's ass what do you do?
Well the problem is that they are from such different eras so it depends on what time for both. the vikings have superior technology. The average group of hoplites would win depending from what polis. Spartans would kick ass Athenians might win because of standard combat training for all citizens from when they became old enough. Their weapons are dependant on different things. the dory (spear) was 7-8 feet on average and they fought in formation but it was not always marching slowly as a unit because it is noted by ancient greek literature that the spartans were presumably the only ones to march to a beat together while the others more or less had formation. Also Vikings would do better one on one but greeks fought more as a group as evident from the spears and shields.they had a shield from which it was strapped to their arms and covered almost the entire body except the greaves which would be protected and the helmet which would protect a huge amount. The vikings as far as I know would not have standard armor and therefor be more susceptible to having less armor and possibly only a spear or axe rather than a sword( which were pretty expensive and for people of high status). Vikings would have more ability to be mobile yet could be killed if not in a group. However since they are faster they might stand a chance. It's honestly a tossup because anything could happen depending on who leads thems. FOr instance if we take 400 of the sacred band of thebes lead by a good general then they would most likely kill the vikings
Actually not really the same. Different shields used in different ways. They had good armor if they had the chainmail but not all did have armor. Greeks had various armor from the spolas to the linothorax to the bronze armor (which actually would have been usefull against arrow or cuts). now a chainmail shirt would be good against cuts but it is would not do so well against getting speared thrusted into it.
Usually using a shield because if you were able to buy a sword you could afford a shield. And if not a shield then you would have an axe in your off hand. Do you have any combat experience ?
Well if you don't have a shield what would you have in your off hand? An axe could be used to parry and block like a shield only much harder (which would require training in that). Its better than having nothing in your off hand.
Clearly you have no idea how axes work.It's not exactly like a shield but its the same principle of using it to blocking. It depends on what type of axe as well. You could throw it as well. You can catch the blade with the axe (it's not hard to understand) You can also catch a shield with an axe and pull it down. Why would you put two hands on a viking era sword? Have you ever held a sword like that ? The grip is not comfortable at all and is very cumbersome. Its better with one hand for the reason that it was made for one hand and you get much more reach. Its meant to be used in conjunction with a shield.
i'd put my money on having some sort of garrison/civil guard in every settlement, otherwise you cannot react fast enough.
having said that, raiders would probably not fuck with your towns if they know about said garrison/civil guard
I'm not trolling. You said you didn't have any experience with a blade so it's understandable that you wouldn't understand.
Well there would be small villages without much in way of supllies and if you wanted enough supplies for a large group of people you would need to raid a polis which would be warned before of a large group of raiders coming and get the hoplites set. Plus the "police" force of people meant to keep the peace.
They did sack Paris, and basically all of west Frankia one time. During their invasions, they'd hit whatever the fuck they wanted.
More known is probably Danelaw, and the ventures into Russia.
But why hit a city when you can get what you want out of an undefended village?
what were the Viking hotspots for attack again?
and how'd they pull off Paris and West Frankia?
weren't the Vikings just so many as a people? Even now there are just some 18.5 million people of Scandinavian origin in total, plus 5 if you include Finland, meaning there werent much of them
so how's they do that?
Viking were Pesants Conscripting to the local warchief usually only wearing what cloths they had and wepons were mostly spears and axes
they mostly did it to gain the lords favor and to show loyality and were alos given perks and gifts in return
The Warchiefhad a personal guard of pro warriors with chainmail and good wepons but they were few
The Chief and the guards were the only one wearing armor and good wepons
armor and good wepons were uncommon among the normal Viking.
The general population in europe was much smaller back then and much more widespread.
Cities existed, but most of them were only larger villages or towns rather than the juggernauts of today.
Likewise truely big cities only existed in the east roman empire and middle east.
Likewise there was no standing army anywhere. You had nobility who would gather together some free men with weapons and their servants, to form armies.
The scandinavian raiders could often appear without warning and therefor no time to gather forces allowing the scandinavians to overwhelm their enemies with numbers.
because too many towns and villages and hamlets
you stick castles and keeps a day's ride from each other, you have decent coverage of the entire countryside, plus nice defenses at chokepoints
The qualification for being allowed on a raiding trip was a weapon (axe or spear being the most common) a shield and a helmet. Not needing armor kind of makes sense since the shield was often the first defence anyone had and as WW1 showed a helmet can allready provide a significant increase in survival.
Still, not what one would call a proper army and certainly not suited to fight well equipped and trained opponents like hoplites.
You know thinking about it. I don't think one can even compare this. The hoplites were heavy infantry, which often worked in combination with various supporting types of infantry and cavalry.
Vikings meanwhile is the jack of a all trades terms for an extremely mixed up group of various raiders from various countries with various levels of equipment, combat experience and motivations.
It's a bit like saying.
400 conquistadores vs. 400 american indians. Since the later group involves nearly a hundred different cultures across 2 continents and several hundred years of technological development. Also leaving out the plaque that wiped out the majority of native north americans before the large scale exploration of north america.
Where does the idea that vikings are superior 1v1 combatants come form? They aren't fucking supermen, they are farmers getting away from the Scandinavian winter and hopefully coming back with some loot.
They were separated from the rest of Europe, and they were excellent shipbuilders. With that, they could hit almost any coastal or river settlement in Europe without fear of much retribution. Also the general state of Europe allowed them to roam free, as there were no organized defenses.
But they had numbers too. Nowhere near the same as mainland Europe, but it wasn't completely irrelevant either. The black death hit them hard, and they took ages to recuperate. Kinda the reason why Norway died as a big power was the black death.
Well if you have ever held an aspis you would know how cumbersome they are and vs another person with a center grip shield it's very easy to lose when they have a much more mobile shield that can protect farther away than with archive grip that stays relatively close to the body that.
> despondent peoples, with yellowing teeth and bleeding gums, slowly starving to death because of plaque
> a mighty civilization, collapsing because of a lack of dental floss
Europe was still in turmoil and the Viking long ship was revolutionary due for it's design
huh, really? I thought Scandinavia was this barren waste that cant support much life
You faggots should watch these lectures before they get taken down.
Well southern Sweden and Denmark has good land for agriculture. Norway has a few hotspots, but the terrain generally does not allow it. However Scandinavia has excellent fishing and wildlife opportunities, and it has an abundance of natural resources. Sweden, Norway, and Finland for instance, has very high quality iron ore.
You could make a rough comparison between the vikings and the Thracians, who the greek city states fought many times. Both have an emphasis on mobility and specialise in raiding and guerrilla style warfare.
On the OPs chosen battlefield, the hoplites have all the advantages though so I'd have to go with the hoplites.
Because said great iron ore would remain unreachable until roughly 1000 AD
The great majority of iron produced in scandinavia during the viking age was made from bog iron. Which is absolute shit,.
Given the terrain and numbers, I would say the Vikings have the advantage.
Hoplites work best in a Phalanx, which requires a large amount of people. On mountainous terrain, this is fine; greatest concentration of resources. On a grassy field, the Viking can break into small groups, surround them, and break them that way.
>also just for the record, Viking is a verb not a noun
Its both. It was originally just a verb, but as the people who viking-ed as their primary occupation increased, it became a noun that would refer to the people who did it.
Its like Samurai. The original chinese word (saburu) meant "To serve in attendance to the nobility". Transfer it over to Japan, add two hundred years, its now "samurai" and means "Servant of the nobility" or "Retainer of the nobility", which is a more accurate if less literal translation.
Completely the opposite, mountainous terrain would lend itself to the vikings as it would disrupt the phalanx, while the level terrain OP specified is exactly what a phalanx wants. Surrounding them isn't going to help all that much as well since a phalanx is capable of facing all 4 directions at once.
Don't rally know How well this tactic would work against a phalanx but vikings had a move that was for breaking a shieldwall.
Spears were used quite frequently by vikings.
In my opinion the hoplites Would probably win
>greeks fighting outside of the hellas peninsula and ionia
please learn some history fuckwad the greeks didn't fight the gauls or any other northern european people, they fought in the eastern mediteranean your thinking of the romans.
2 completely different sets of tactics and overall goals, the greeks would set up in an area were they could avoid being flanked, vikings would look at them take their longships sail upriver and raid their town then sail by the hoplite formation waving with all of the loot they just plundered
weapons: Spear and sword
Armor: Standard middle class armor (helmet, chest, shield and so on)
(gonna take the liberty to give the vikings armaments more fit a professional viking army and not the typical peasant raiding party since they are facing hoplites and normal peasant vikings would probably be demolished)
Weapons: spear, sword/axe and lighter throwing spears
Armor: Chainmail helmet and a shield.
If the vikings decide to employ a boar snout tactic to break the phalanx(who knows how a phalanx would hold up to it) they would probably use their throwing spears to weaken the integrety of the phalanx while charging.
If the Phalanx breaks the odds lie with the vikings but if the vikings can't break the phalanx the odds lie in the hoplites favour.
a phalanx would be able to shrug off a boar snouth pretty easy, on average (slightly talking out of my ass, there are documented cases of very thin lines) phalanxes were 7-12 men deep, not just a shield wall.
the goths invaded greece once waaaaaay after the greeks basically gave up being a military force (200s AD)
Also celts were very nomadic, in fact some settled in modern day turkey. All of those tribes save the gauls would raid hundreds of miles away from their own territory.
That is why my bet is with the hoplites but the projectiles that would accompany the boar snout could help but it is still very likely that the boar snout would fail and the vikings would rout.
I'd say the Greeks have it in the bag in a straight battle.
One should take care to remember that shield wall A is not equivalent to shield wall B. The Vikings aren't equipped in a manner purpose built for a shield to shield press, their shield is optimized for an individual fight and adopt the shield wall as a measure of covering for the weakness of their panalopy for mass warfare. This is quite the opposite in for the hoplites. The Greek way of war is very corporate, it subsumes the strength of the individual for the power of shock and mass, to the point of doing things like running a rope through every man's shield to help hold their line together. Absolute suicide for the individual man, but that was never a point that entered consideration. In a field battle, the advantages in Greek cohesion and mass are going to be hard to overcome.
Of course, if these are real Vikings, they'll probably wait until the Greeks make camp and then surprise axe them.
>Of course, if these are real Vikings, they'll probably wait until the Greeks make camp and then surprise axe them.
>implying they wont choke in their own vomit after witnessing a 400 man homo orgy
NO infantry beats well armored-well trained-well motivated heavy infantry(greeks/romans). The only thing that can beat it is heavy cavalry/horse archers. 30 archers really? They would just be annoying.
Alexander the great conquered the world with heavy cavalry + infantry. Greek system of warfrare is compatible with greece's landscape (mountainous) and mondus operandi (defensive warfare).
Vikings aren't even a coherent military force, they are like ISIS or something.
The Greeks were defending from a Gaul/Celt invasion idiot.
The Gauls got their shit slapped. Do some research before you post your ignorant stupid shit.
Gauls/Celts and Germanics used pretty much the same weapons and tactics, so we know for a fact that the Greeks would annihilate them because they actually did.
The Vikings would realize that all they needed to do was run around the Greeks, and go rape and pillage their village.
In a straight on battle, the Greeks probably win.
The only thing I can think of that would give Vikings the advantage is the fact that they had better metals in their armor and weapons, meaning they were more reliable.
But Greek shields would have been a straight up bitch to deal with. If the Vikings managed to mess up the Greek formation, Vikings would win.
Thing is, I have no idea how they would do it, with only 400 men.
The Phalanx was developed for mountainous terrain because mountains tended towards choke points, where the greatest concentration of force possible was desirable. While a Phalanx would be shit on a mountain, it would easily block a path that an enemy baggage train would need to cross to get to its destination.
>capable of facing all 4 directions at once
That requires special training that was never provided in ancient Greece, and only occurred with square formations, which (at that point in time) consisted primarily of highly mobile infantry, not the heavy infantry of the Greeks (compared to what they were surrounded by). It was later revived with in such a way to face all 4 directions at once, but maneuvering within a phalanx in the way you describe is, while possible, not doable without training. To put it in perspective; turning a phalanx around typically required doing one of two things. You could temporarily disband the thing, have people run around like headless chickens for a bit, and then reform in the right direction, or you could find a spot to kind of shuffle in a clockwise or counterclockwise direction for a bit. Only Sparta managed to have its men consistently trained to reverse a Phalanx while keeping rank and file in order and remaining more or less in the same spot, and this was considered a massive feat by the rest of Greece.
Now, soldiers on the side or back of a phalanx could turn and fight for defense, but this only applied to the very outer files (and the last rank, obviously) and created some pretty massive weak spots.
I honestly do not know why some people glorify them. They offered pretty much nothing to science, and very little to art, and were mediocre seafarers.
The Gauls tried to invade Greece and got slaughtered by the thousands. They were scared shitless of Alexander the Great and so waited until after his death to attack Greece, and they still failed to succeed.
Were the greeks silly enoug to just point their spears up, turn to whatever direction necessary and put their spears back down? Why does turning a phalanx require the entire thing to be turned around.
>Greeks were ALL gay my SJW professor told me so
cant take a joke can you?
yes, i am aware that not every single greek was a homosexual, but it was not a rarity either.
it was quite common for a younger boy to have a relationship with an older man. but iirc this was an upper class/warrior thing, where the younger male was either a student or receiving military training from the older male
>Next you'll tell me that vikings were competent warriors or that they contributed anything of worth to human history
imo vikings are the same as the germanic tribes the romans encountered, albeit that they could build some pretty neat boats and had some pirate-esque lifestyle.
actually they did contribute to human history, doing things such as weakening Harald godwinsons army in 1066, so that William could defeat them easier at hastings.
not only that, the language they spoke formed the base for the one the english speak nowadays
Not that guy he's talking a lot of shit, but a phalanx is wider than it is deep. Simply turning to face isn't going to help you not be overrun if you're flanked, you'll have to reform your lines, which obviously is a bit of an issue if, say, you're already engaged on one side.
Here is a Viking warrior:
My pic shows the Gallic warriors that invaded Greece and got annihilated.
Please explain to me the vast differences between the two in armor, weapons, and strategy/tactics.
Vikings sail around and go elsewhere. They didn't engage in fair fights.
Vikings were, in fact, formation fighters.
Fromm 300 yards, you wouldn't even be able to tell the groups apart.
It's literally the same fighting style. Spear and round shields locked in a wall, with swords and daggers at the hip.
Pike formations and the hoplite phalanx have almost nothing in common.
The goths are closer to the original phalanx than renaissance pikemen.
The shield wall is a lot more than one man deep. A single rank wall would be incredibly brittle and easily broken in half.
The classical phalanx is exactly that, actually. The macedonian is not.
They didn't. The front rank would be elite, high class men with full panoply, the rest might have a skullcap helmet, one greave, no sword, and a shield.
Vikings were much the same-huscarls up front with full weapons and armor, everyone else a mixed rabble.
The same is true of infantry battles conducted by vikings, or anyone else fighting in the Germanic tradition.
Scattered men can't confront formed infantry, and the ones who don't run get massacred.
No there was not. Don't be retarded. The closest you get is bronze buttspikes.
>hannibal wearing fucking brass
Made me so god damn mad.
No. The difference isn't enough for human muscle to exploit like that.
>all these niggers saying five deep
Tradition was for the phalanx to be 6 or 8 deep.
Different shields used in different ways.
Not in the context of a battle, no. In duels, yes, they're used very differently.
>but it is would not do so well against getting speared thrusted into it.
Well made mail will survive a single handed thrust from any weapon. if the greek hits him with both hands, he's fucked, but that won't happen.
Naw, dude, look up steel v. bronze tests on YouTube. I never thought it was a significant difference, but it is. That's the reason they made those advances in metallurgy in the first place. Steel weapon on steel armor does almost nothing, steel on iron, bronze or brass is an entirely different matter.
The gauls invaded greece, you retard. Caused some trouble at first (there were a LOT of them), then got their fucking shit wrecked when they pissed off too many greeks at once.
Most went home, some went to anatolia and became the galacians. Others ended up in egypt, and served in the Ptolemaic armies as settler-soldiers.
Yes, yes they were.
They could, in fact, turn in place, if made of soldiers and not random citizens fuffiling their legal obligations.
The classical phalanx would still prefer to wheel, however, because the best armored and trained men-and also their commanders- were in the front ranks.
They had no way to respond to side assaults, however.
You do realize the viking "steel" is closer to iron than not, right? "steely iron" is term used for it. it's still fairly soft, which is the actual reason for greeks using bronze defensive gear.
>The appearance of these well-built naked warriors, and the noise of their trumpets and war-cries, intimidated the Romans, but their small shields offered little protection against Roman javelins, and the Gaesatae were driven back and their allies slaughtered.
The creators of YOLO?
The shields were very different. The hoplite shields were set by a Potomac and basically stuck to the arm and could only be moved out as far as the bent arm could go and would provide more protection to that on the left while a Viking shield would be center grip and could be pushed out as far as the arm could go. Hence having different tactics. The Greeks would have more groupings then the Vikings and would probably win from tactics and generals. Clearly you have no real experience with weapons as you would know the difference and obviously the more tapered greek spear would be able to stab into the Vikings chain mail, as it has been shown. I'm on my phone so I can't link videos but it's on the internet if you search.
>vs sea raiders and pirates
>battlefield is a grassy field
Well gee, I don't know Steven, who would win?
>all these people saying vikings used shield walls
They used shield drywall maybe, one man deep, no spears, no archers behind, they weren't trained to march for any length of time and had no armor but light wooden shields.
>all these people saying mail and steel
Considering OP mentioned Hoplites, you have to go back far enough to make the comparison valid. Using Viking examples from 1000AD to hoplites from 500BC is just dumb.
The difference is a thousand plus years, might as well ask what 100 Abrams tanks can do to a 100 Vikings in late migration period, the time scale would be comparable.
You MUST compare circa 300BC Vikings (hjortspring ship etc) with circa 300BC hoplites (battle of mantinea or peloponnese war).
Conveniently a Greek called Pytheas of Massilia visited the Norse during that time, and lived for some period among the raiders.
Depends on what you qualify as "viking". If you're talking 7th cen. vikings right out of Scandinavia, then yes. But by the 10th cen. their technology had improved enough to make highly superior steel weapons.
That's one of the problems with scenarios like this, very inspecific about time period and location.
Except I have multiple shield sitting behind me. I'm well fucking aware of the difference between a center grip and strapped shield, and it DOES NOT FUCKING MATTER IN THE CONTEXT OF A WALL OF LOCKED FUCKING SHIELDS. You DO NOT form a wall with your arm at maximum extension, that's just asking for broken bones.
>IT'S ON THE INTERNET
Here, have a source.
Continued, post will be too long
Except I have multiple shields sitting behind me. I'm well fucking aware of the difference between a center grip and strapped shield, and it DOES NOT FUCKING MATTER IN THE CONTEXT OF A WALL OF LOCKED FUCKING SHIELDS. You DO NOT form a wall with your arm at maximum extension, that's just asking for broken bones.
>IT'S ON THE INTERNET
Here, have a source.
Continued, post will be too long
Well I think that OP gets final say since he proposed the scenario, but these stupid hypotheticals consistently use fighting units from very different time periods. Personally, I read it as viking age vikings versus late bronze hoplites.
>fuckign 4chan errors
Regarding sword and knife stabs, Dr. Williams presents a convincing argument that it was far more difficult to thrust a blade through mail than many assume.95 He tested two samples of mail (placed over padding) and found that the energy required to compromise either sample exceeded the maximum amount of energy that a person can generate with a one-handed thrust—even over-handed. He tested the amount of energy required to penetrate his samples with a simulated halberd blade, a lance head, and a bodkin arrowhead. The halberd and lance required more than 200J to penetrate the first sample; the bodkin required only 120J to penetrate. Against the second sample, the halberd required 170J, the lance 140J, and the bodkin 120J. From this, it would seem that a bodkin-shaped spike is the most efficient design to compromise mail, which is consistent with other experiments.
Williams also cited an experiment by Horsfall et al.,96 who concluded that the maximum energy a person could deliver in an over-arm stab was 115J and an under-arm stab only 63J. If the data from the two experiments are combined, it seems that it was not possible for a person to punch through mail (at least the two samples tested by Williams) with a single-handed thrust—even with a spike that was optimized for the task. A lighter variant of mail or an extremely strong person may result in the armour being compromised with an over-arm stab since there is only 5J between the two sets of data, but from the available evidence it seems to be virtually impossible to penetrate mail with an under-arm thrust. Those who believe that certain blades were designed to punch through mail with an under-arm thrust are clearly mistaken. One weapon that immediately comes to mind is the Indian katar, which is optimized for an under-am thrust. Some have speculated that those blades with reinforced points were so modified in order to help them punch through armour.
>Well I think that OP gets final say since he proposed the scenario
If he chooses anything other than comparable eras... pic related.
>Personally, I read it as viking age vikings versus late bronze hoplites.
OP probably phrased it that way specifically to confuse and troll people.
No, the phalanx became outmoded in the bronze age/early iron age because it is cumbersome as all fuck and doesn't react well to anything but another phalanx/full frontal attacks by zergling troops not allowed to flank because of terrain.
The norse host would break up into 3 formations, attack at the front and envelop from the sides as a small contingent of cavalry acting as dragoons (because no castled saddle or stirrup) attempts to flank or completely circumvent them to attack from behind
Then add in iron weapons and armor and you've got yourself a decisive viking victory.
Yes it matters because when you have the center grip it usually lends itself to more mobile warriors more on individual combat than when you have shields that make it so that alone a warrior has to be part of a group or else they will surely perish on their own. With the Vikings center grip the warriors would be more flexible and allow for more hazardous moving about and piling the phalanx while the phalanx is a more slower organized grouping. The phalanx would be more suited for the aspis while loose formations would work with only center grips.
Underarm would be stronger as evidently that person has not used a spear properly.
Chain mail is made for archers baka. Since the Greeks are in formation a ranged melee weapon and the fact they have an IRON side arm if the enemy gets too close.
In short you have autism.
There's a lot of myths about the resilience of mail because re-enactors, bad tv shows, etc use butted mail as a representative to stand in for the superior riveted mail you would more likely encounter.
The Norse don't have the tactical ability to do this. No command and control, no training or practice fighting in groups.
There's a REASON people went line to line, and it wasn't stupidity.
You know the romans? THey couldn't reliably manage anything other than three-line steamrollers and minor variations of it until scipio got his hands on an army of veterans and had a few years to train them to do other things. You can actually follow the shift in rman warfare and tactics over his lifetime, and there a marked difference between him and his contemporary roman generals, most of whom were competent.
>yes it matters
No, it doesn't given that both groups fought in a fucking shield wall. Nobody, literally nobody, in all of human history, has responded to a formed wall on infantry in open terrain by forming loose order and then engaging head on. You'd get run over in minutes for trying.
>Underarm would be stronger as evidently that person has not used a spear properly.
Or human muscle just doesn't work that way and you're an idiot.
They were, in fact, cutting weapons. Viking weapons especially.
It annoys the shit out of me. An armor invanted by spear fighters, which goes on to displace almost every other form of armor in the world in every place it reaches aside from some of eastern asia, is apparently defeated by the most common form of attack in warfare from from the most common form of weapon from before recorded history to about 1700ad.
Greeks didn't fight in a shield wall, they fought in a phalanx. Which had a a line of men (could be spaced out or very close) and ranks deep with spears to push to poke forward. The Vikings were raiders and had more of a shield wall on one or two ranks with men going forward but not an official army with training and generals suited for war. If you have held a spear you would know that underarm works easier even of you are using a shield or not.
>An armor invanted by spear fighters, which goes on to displace almost every other form of armor in the world in every place it reaches aside from some of eastern asia, is apparently defeated by the most common form of attack in warfare from from the most common form of weapon from before recorded history to about 1700ad.
That's like saying "HOW IS FIGHTER JET SKIN VULNERABLE TO AK-47s!?!?!?"
The phalanx IS a shield wall. It's the greek name for one. It's a large body of infantry, formed in close order, massing shields for mutual defense and attack.
>and had more of a shield wall on one or two ranks with men going forward
The lines were not that brittle unless they were forced to do so. This is suicide.
>If you have held a spear you would know that underarm works easier even of you are using a shield or not.
Works easier does not mean generates more power. You are an idiot.
No, it is not. Stop being a mongoloid. Jet fighters do not fly low enough to be hit by small arms fire. Personal armor worn be men who fought with spear or sword WILL come under attack be men with spears by nature.
Go compare apples and rocks somewhere else.
Are you sure you aren't talking about the Macedonian pike phalanx?
He probably doesn't know they're not the same thing. He also probably doesn't know the difference between their shields, or just how hard it would rape a group of vikings.
But that's beside the point.
They are "shield walls" in the sense that they use shields and formation of sorts yet it's very different than the Vikings. It means finger being that it was meant to break up the enemy formation. The Vikings would not know how to counter this as they are more suited for other type of warfare than this. I'm not sure exactly what you think but Vikings would not have generals who have studied warfare to the amount a general of a Greek phalanx would. Using a spear underhand is easier and therefor easier to use in the sense that overran requires you to use it in a way that doesn't allow your body to move naturally which doesn't allow you to use all the power. It's hard to explain. Look at some HEMA videos.
So now you're going to argue the hoplite phalanx bears any fucking resemblance to macedonian?
The two bearing the same name is a product of the greeks limited number of words. Same as "peltast" seeing such wide use.
let me fix my statement:
The phalanx is a shield wall, and the word itself is just the word greeks use for close order heavy infantry.
>Using a spear underhand is easier and therefor easier to use in the sense that overran requires you to use it in a way that doesn't allow your body to move naturally which doesn't allow you to use all the power. It's hard to explain. Look at some HEMA videos.
An overhand allows for faster, harder blows, and is more useful in a formation because you can attack withotu opening your shield.
This also doesn't support your argument that the spears would pierce mail, or that underhanded blows generate more force than overhanded.
>Personal armor worn be men who fought with spear or sword WILL come under attack be men with spears by nature.
Yes but they wore that armor so they could specifically focus on other men with spears, and so they didn't have to worry about slashing attacks after the spear fight is over.
The Macedonian ones uses a long two handed spear and is different yet an idiot could see how it evolved and yes it is different being the weapon difference and the shield yet it's almost the same concept.
>The phalanx is a shield wall,
Still wrong, a phalanx is a phalanx regardless of whether its a hoplite shieldwall type or a sarissa phalanx or anything else. The word does not mean a shield wall. It is a rectangular formation of men all facing the same direction, nothing more.
I want you to pick up a spear and try using it underhand and overhand with a shield. You clearly have no experience. I'm done arguing with you as you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
So how are they going to do this, exactly? teleport through whoever is in the way?
>the ones with spears
That would be everybody.
>almost the same concept
No, it isn't. THe formation is twice as deep, and denser. The front five ranks are offset, the focus of the formation is different, the tactics used are completely different-the only similarity is that it's heavy infantry, they're formed up, and they bear shields.The shields, however, are NOT for mutual defense or offense.
No. However, it's hard to argue with history. Better men than the vikings had trouble with the macedonian phalanx.
But i've already done these things, and, unlike you, have sourced some of my statements.
>It's like comparing katanas and broadswords.
>one unit devoted to the cult of the fucking shield
>throwing your shield away endangers all
>the entire concept is to mass shield for mutual protection
>swords carried for when spears fail
>A FUCKING PIKE LINE
>shields do not offer mutual defense
>swords considered too short to be of any use
>the entire focus of the unit is "long pikes good, poke from as far as you can"
>twice the depth, more men, far less frontage, unique offsetting of the ranks to let more pikes play
They're as different as heavy infantry formations get without introducing full body armor.
It's basically longer spears with smaller shields that are strapped but still a phalanx with ranks a number of rows deeps. Spears are meant to poke from far away you need to if west and tht they are different yet the idea is the same.
It's te same idea in the sense of men with spears (Macedonian pikes are long 2 handed spears) the Macedonian PHALAX is the same in concept of men in formation next to each other with ranks going back with shields to poke the enemy and move as a unit.
actually vikings used shield walls just like greeks, infact they even has a turtle style formation.
that said, its a tough call.
on one hand the vikings have better weapons, IE steel swords, axes, ect as well as iron.
Greeks were mostly bronze with some iron for spear heads and swords.
but very few actually had swords, they often had simple daggers and maby an axe.
but since vikings had armor like chain mail, harder heltmets, heavier weapons they could possibly render a greek spear useless via hacking off the business end like the romans did. Not to mention archery weapons beyond javelins.
they also had sheer force, a viking axe and sword combo would render a greeks shield defense useless since they would use the axe to pull the shield down and smack opponent with thier own shields (that often had a spike in the middle) or swords.
And if they had steel swords they could take on a shielded opponent, avoiding the spear and stab at the greeks without breaking the sword.
the only issue would be the greeks second and third lines but the vikings would have those as well and would be chopping at the spears.
its really close but i think vikings have the edge.
technology is just on their side.
But that's saying that all te Vikings had full armor while most would not have a full set and swords were very expensive so not all would have them. Also you can't hack off a spear head while it's something that is not wedged. If the spear is held and you whack at it the spear will merely move with the direction and then the Viking would probably get speared by another Greek. I would give it to te Greeks for more training and formation and they would have been better suited for actual war while having better leaders as the Greeks would have generals meant for commanding the troops.
What about on ships in a naval battle who do you think would win? I think the Greeks had better ships for all out warfare. They were larger and could go faster. They were also better for ramming ships as evident from te construction.
Read literally any saga or edda.
The vikings took over all of northern england and during their conquest period broke every english army they came up against.
They were shallower and on a field of battle there would be several commanded by their own commander, then subcommanded among the line.
>Horses don't exist
>The first thing Vikings did after landing for a raid, expedition, or great heathen host definitely wasn't find every fucking horse they could.
Vikings had dragoons, deal with it. What, did you think before the stirrup men on horseback didn't exist?
Show me literally any saga or edda actually depicting normal warriors managing to break into multiple tactical subunits and then manuver totally independently of each other like you are describing.
The english weren't a people at that point, try again.
true, but they still had access to more iron than the greeks, who wore mostly bronze.
an iron axe will probably do some good damage to those bronze shields and punch through those helmets.
remember, vikings were almost always above 6 feet tall, greeks were like 5'9 average.
hell romans were even smaller, they were like 5ft 5 or some shit.
that said that extra height and reach advantage helps when swinging axes and hammers down on someone
>bronze vs iron /steel
Oh boy OP what a match up.
The hoplites used bronze weapons with the exception of late in their relevance they had iron tipped spears.
So they are at a massive tech disadvantage.
greeks had tha advantage of both a flamethrower (no kidding) and ramming capabilities.
but viking ships had the advantage of going shallow, speed, turning, ect. and if viking got on your boat, you'were getting wrecked.
so again, it depends
viking ships were actually durable and they themselves could be built big and capable of ramming, probably not a greek warship, but they only have to hook on to you, vikings were the pirates of their day
>with even space
There's your problem, there WAS no space in a phalanx. Part of what made it such a rock solid defend was the fact that no one could really turn around to run even if they wanted to because they were in very dense blocks of people, with the people in back typically pushing forward. Being able to turn that at will was out of the question entirely.
Well Greeks actually had iron weapons and such it's just that bronze has survived in more examples. Also te helmets were pretty thick and and made from one piece giving more protection than the less covering Viking helms. Also an axe or sword slash wont do much against a spolas or linothorax. The shield would get the axes stuck in them if yet hit and pierce the bronze sheet
Well the thing is greek ships would be able to go faster and ram at such harder speeds. Plus the Greek ships were much higher out of the water so they could spear a Viking trying to climb aboard
then the greeks lost an advantage.
but they still had sheer size and man power of a ship, but agins, a viking ship has maneuverability and ability to go shallow on its side.
And vikings were pros at fighting on boats.
Keep in mind the average height of a Greek or any man from around the Mediterranean Sea was only 5'. And the average Norse was 6' 6".
And no self respecting Viking would fight on a field that didn't favor them.
Op scenario is totally impossible
Greeks were also very good at sea fighting also they would know how to fight with a navy of many ships while I doubt the Vikings would know how to fight together in a group of ships
true, but viking ships had the ability to turn quicker and avoid lager ships by staying in the shallows.
plus some viking ships got pretty big and they did have grapple hooks as well.
on top of that the most common greek warship had one layer of oars. so you could climb on them from another ship with relative ease. and vikings themselves had spears and bows and axes, they could chop a hole in the greek ship
Yes they could try and grapple but if te ship is going very fast and you try and get on it you might not be able to get on. Plus the Greeks would see this and spear the enemy trying to climb up. The ships are too thick to pierce with their weapons. Also the Greeks would not have to bother with rowing as they had others below to do that so they could rely on just fighting.
The Greeks were also famous for their navy battles
>late in their relevance
No, classical hoplites used iron weaponry.
They had space. Macedonian phalanxes did not, but the classical did.
Holy shit, no, you fucking retard. Vikings didn't face any form of trireme.
It would come down to who has the better armor. Greek Hoplites used bronze which is extremely malleable compared to the iron and steel vikings used. Vikings would win due to technology
greeks were good at navies, but not on the same level as vikings.
they mostly fougth persians and had to pull a choke point manuver to defeat them.
if they could handle vikings in a ship battle, i'll eat my hat.
This is just standing still shit, only the arm. Watch the sports science about MMA fighters, you can generate a shitload of energy in a strike if you are trained and capable.
Haha oh wow.
>THEY HAD TO PULL A CHOKE POINT TO BEAT DA PERSIANS
Yeah, becasue they were fucking grossly outnumbered. They also launched regular anti-pirate expeditions, fighting people who fought EXACTLY like vikings.
Greece average height : 5 ft 4.96 in
Spartan average height: 5 ft 6.93 in (selective breeding is a bitch)
Norwegian: 5 ft 7.32 in
Dane: 5 ft 6.93 in
Swede: 5 ft 9.29 in
Bit iffy on the Greek heights tho i'm not confident in my source.
Look up how the pirates of the day fought, retard.
Protip: by boarding, arrow fire from their vessels with remarkably shallow drafts, or by lashing ships together to form large battle platforms that ramming couldn't easily sink.
Which is what vikings did.
I hate to break this to you, but you can move your body while keeping your arm in the same position.
This is why I sometimes get pissed at other historical enthusiasts, like lindybeige. THEY tested something, THEY couldn't do it, so NO ONE can do it.
And I'm not going to be as forgiving as the other guy, a phalanx and a shield wall are NOT the same thing.
p.s. overhand is the dumbest shit for formation fighting but there is no way it did not see at least limited use in duels or small unit conflict because of it's suprise.
Greeks used Iron weapons but not during the hoplight era.
Hoplites used mostly wooden shields cloth armor, most didn't have helmets, they would use a bronze tipped shield and maybe a bronze side-arm.
Scandinavian warriors used iron chain-mail, or padded or leather armor, with a wooden/iron banded shield and iron axes swords and spears. They could have torn greek equipment of the time apart.
You've got to be joking me. Vikings fought in formation all the time because many of their opponents (depending on period and area) also did as well so they had to adapt. Vikings would win this as Greek hoplites used bronze whereas vikings used iron and made amazing quality swords that we really can't replicate today.
Twisting your hips to add power to the spear thrust is going to leave you out of position in the context of a shield wall. This isn't debatable.
>a phalanx and a shield wall are NOT the same thing.
Prove it. Nor did I say they were the same. The phalanx is a shield wall, not all shield walls are a phalanx.
>I meant vases
So you're telling me that ancient greeks painted vases depicting warriors fighting with the overhand spear hold as opposed to the underhand spear hold because THAT was a major selling point for the vases and NOT because they were trying to depict a common scene in greek life?
Gonna have to call bullshit on that Jimbo.
>the vikings did not fight in formation
Full retard. People need to get the idea that vikings were brainless barbarians out of their minds, they were extremely complex and smart individuals that absolutely crushed many of their opponents.
Both underhand and overhand are on sculptures and pottery, but in records of actual battle it is underhand to the max. Explain to me the faults of underhand.
+Stronger muscle group, engaging all of the back, pectoral, tricep, able to bring legs and hips fully into a strike
+striking arm protected behind shield
+Able to brace spear against body for short strikes, making it nearly impossible to simply knock it aside
+weapon held firmly near center of gravity, enhancing accuracy and striking
- predictable, strikes come from near the same plane as enemy shield is
- weaker muscle group, motion is stabbing downward
- difficult for blows to not be knocked aside easily, wrist being perfect pivot point with no bracing capable (unless you brace the back with your helmet)
+ possibly quicker strikes, like a jab?
+ possibly unpredictable
>most didn't have helmets,
They were legally required to have helmets.
>and maybe a bronze side-arm.
Post a fuckign source on classical hoplites primarily using bronze side arms.
>vikings used iron
>and made amazing quality swords that we really can't replicate today.
No. The swords you're thinking of are fucking middle eastern blades with northern hilts on them. And we could easily replicate them, the steel isn't amazing by modern standards.
>The phalanx is a shield wall
Noooooooo.....No it is not.
A phalanx can be a shield wall it can also be a pike wall or a spear wall, some people even describe a legion as a sword phalanx (I don't).
nigger you're not twerking your way to survival it's a simple hip movement. Like a baseball or golf swing, not Troy brad Pitt style.
And a phalanx is a very specific type of shield wall, I will agree with that, but calling it a shield wall is an oversimplification.
Locked shields and armored bellies. Can't get past friendly shield without leaving a whole-and exposing unarmored thighs-and the available targets are
-thighs of other men fighting underhand
-shield and armor
Also useless if they enemy closes, you can't choke up without jabbing the second ranks with the buttspike.
Overhand lets you angle the spear UP and move the arm back as range closes, and allows an unbroken front of shields, and the avauilable targets are:
>shoulders (which are unarmored for a lot of people
Which makes more sense in context?
>possibly quicker strikes, like a jab?
It's really fucking fast.
I don't like fighting overhand, it's shit in single combat, but I WOULD do it in a formation without hesitation.
>shoulders (which are unarmored for a lot of people
The question now is, if overhand is how they fought why WOULDNT they armor that area?
The likely targets of the underhand thrust are probably armored precisely because that's how most people used their spear.
They all had shields though.
We're talking of the classical phalanx of hoplites in this thread.
The one with all the shields.
>And a phalanx is a very specific type of shield wall
The classical phalanx is the most BASIC type. Form up with shields and spears and advance as one, bring sidearms if you have them.
>Like a baseball or golf swing
I'm well fucking aware. It will still expose you by moving you right to edge of your own shield. You can't shift your shield to cover without blocking your own arm.
>We're talking of the classical phalanx of hoplites in this thread.
No you just realized your mistake and decided to backpeddle.
You should have specified that you were referring to the Hoplite phalanx and not just blurted out "phalanx" as if they were all the same. Spanish tercios fought in a pike and shot formation, which utilized the phalanx, the Pike-square formation also utilized the phalanx, both rarely used shields.
The Pike phalanx used by king Phillip of Macedon used shields, yes, but they were strapped on rather than held and much smaller than normal shields, to call it a "shield wall" would be really dumb.
Eventually they did, look at the linothorax with it's double layered shoulders.
As for bronze? Weight and the difficulty of making shoulders that move.
>The likely targets of the underhand thrust are probably armored precisely because that's how most people used their spear.
Or because the lines got close enough that getting a xiphos planted in you wasn't unheard of. Look up paul bardunias, he has some interesting arguments on how greeks fought.
Hrrm. I never thought of it that way, that does make sense. It makes sense psychologically too, it'd be a brave man who brings his shield away from his body just to get a better shot at killing someone else.
I'm kind of arguing semantics, a phalanx does have a "wall of shields" so I don't believe I can really disagree with the term. For classification it makes sense to only ever say "phalanx" because.....it's a fucking phalanx. Like calling an tank an armored vehicle or pointing at a lion and saying "check out that mammal". You're right, but you need to be more specific.
Kind of regret putting that in there, I don't really have any sources, really only what I have read. And the overhand theory has actual artistic depiction backing: the Bayeux tapestry.
>shields fell out of use with the pikesquare, a formation nearly identical to those used by the Macedonians.
It's not even close.
>No you just realized your mistake and decided to backpeddle.
Or I read the OP. The one specifying hoplites. As in, not phalangnites.
Hoplites being the people we've been arguing about all thread.
Vikings wore mostly quilted armor, leather, and chain when they could get it. Relied on their giant wooden shields for stopping stuff mostly. They were armed with hand axes, yes, but they were big into spears and likely trained with them just as much as any other weapon.
Hoplites wore breastplates and solid helmets, however they were made out of bronze. Honestly don't know much weaker bronze is than iron, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't make a difference in a battle.
As for tactics the Hoplites probably take this one just for being more heavily trained in large army movements and formations. The problem here is 400 really isn't that huge a number, and the vikings definitely won their share of larger conflicts.
tl;dr I say vikings. While the Hoplites have their training going for them (massive bonus) the vikings were much more protected by armor that covered their arms, legs, and crotches. They were also used to fighting formations of enemy troops and specialized in breaking up solid groups (by scaring them mostly but also through wedge formations etc)
>Hoplites being the people we've been arguing about all thread.
Still you said phalanx.
If I went and said "Armies use spears" even in the context of this thread I shouldn't get mad when someone rightfully corrected me.
You messed up just admit you were wrong and continue about your business.
It would also be a hated man. Greeks were all about collective safety at the time. If you were the asshole taking risks to get kills and win glory, you were the asshole risking the line being breached and the polis losing a battle.
I've stuck to a single argument all thread. You're the idiot who saw an OP of a hoplite, talking about hoplites, and thought
>MUST BE ABOUT MACEDONIANS
This is what happens when you assume, anon.
Oh wow, you are legitimately offended by the prospect of being wrong about something.
Look, dude, YOU didn't specify something and made an absolutist claim about it, you were wrong.
Just deal with it. A phalanx in no way means a shield wall will be used.
Macedonians tended towards 16 deep, by "wide as we can go nigger". EVERYONE had a fucking pike, the the only job was to walk forward and crush anything in the way. Veterans could present pikes to all sides, but this was rare.
The pike square is an armored fence of pikes, with the veterans bearing halberds, and something like half the men being either halberds, or packing crossbows or guns. If spanish, they might also use sword and javelin. Pike squares, unsurprisingly, WERE meant to defend from all sides, with the swiss in particular preferring blocks of 10x10 as their base unit.
Croats and Bosnians are very similar genetically and have the oldest native European DNA, serbshits however posses less Slavic and Illyrian genes than both and more Africa/Turkic looooool genetics are truly wonderous
They also showed underhand you clearly don't know your Ancient Greek vases
But they would fight very often and therefor all citizens would have to be ready and know how to fight. All male citizens would have to fight well into the late ages
>Hurr durr i can't argue you on substance so I'll "correct" you on not listing off every 9th century state on the isle of britain that became a norse cocksleeve in open field battle.
You're the "expert" m8, think back to all the sagas that talk about ____ controlling part of a larger army. Do you think he just sat there with his thumb up his ass after yelling "GRAHHHHH KILLL SAXON" and beating his chest with a double bitted axe?
>inb4 .....can't think of one hurr ur wrong and not just on a phone.
No, he likely controlled maintaing postion/pushing, depth, where archers targeted, small retreats, rotating men from the front, sending out small hit squads with daneaxes, the use of the boar snout, and the committing of reserves.
You know, the things that people with no radios, no signalling system aside from shouting, and a force of mostly untrained soldiers do.
Real life isn't an RTS. Most infantry was utterly unable to fight as independent units in a coordinated manner.
Follow the quotes. I said an army of thousands of vikings would break up to 2 or 3 shield walls 3-5 (or more depending) deep all within shouting distance of someone important and do BASIC FUCKING FIELD TACTICS of attempting to wrap and flank the entirely unadaptable formation of their opponent. With some rich cunts on horses going around the side/rear and cause some mischief.
Not bands of 20 fighting coherently due to the fucking force.
Mr. "expert" apparently thinks that is impossible and they just ran at thier opponents in a big human wave trying to start single combats. Like an rts game
No, you're arguing for a force of 400 men to have the tactical ability to split into separate hosts and still move in concert with each other, which is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from several formations fighting independently and then aiding each other if they win.
You are attempting to argue that every army before the invention of the radio formed up into a big rectangle and ran at their opponent because anything more would be to complex
Because you are an idiot
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. I wonder if anyone ever though to make it an official noun aswell. Just so faggots like you could be faggots? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
No. See, that is a strawman. I'm going to explain why.
I've never said rectangle.
I've never said no army was capable of tactical manuever, having pointed out that the romans under scipio were indeed capable of complex tactical manuevers relying on lots of indepedently acting subunits.
I also said this is extremely rare, requring a lot of veteran men and training, with other armies of the day being unable to do it.
I also said the vikings lacked the ability to do this, implying that they lack large bodies of men with years of practice at mass combat left serving non stop for years together and under the same leaders.
That's my argument.
I also never said anything about running at targets.
>took over most of england, normandy
>raided and fought in and for italy, the byzantine empire, spain, the middle east, the holy roman empire, etc.
>lack of veteran warriors
You are ignoring the whole of the 9th-11th century european history either through ignorance or to give your fucking retarded opinion any weight.
The classical phalanx was inflexible
The classical phalanx was dropped as a battlefield tactic by the greeks once they started fighting more outside of greece
The vikings fought how i described, which shits all over a classical phalanx in open field battle.
Deal with it. Bronze age<Iron age