Current Events > 300 vikings vs 300 samurai vs 300 spartans

(+) Yeah! (+)

Who wins?

---

300 cemen

---

Do the Vikings have self healing powers like in Age of Empires 2?

aren't samurai like a thousand years later than the other two? They probably have superior tech and strategy

---

Colorahdo posted...

aren't samurai like a thousand years later than the other two? They probably have superior tech and strategy

Not really. They started coming into their own in 1100 ad I think

So yeah maybe a thousand years on Spartans (the term tc is looking for is hoplites)

---

Th enumber 300 is literally a movie about Spartans.

---

Probably Spartans. Since they seem more trained to fight as a group specifically.

Spartans>Samurai>>>>Vikings

---

I would think Spartans. They probably had the most rigorous training out of all 3.

---

Esrac posted...

Probably Spartans. Since they seem more trained to fight as a group specifically.

Vikings did too, though they were lighter equipped for hit and run (that's my understanding anyway)

---

Samurais might have the best armor in this fight.

Spartans has good shield.

idk about vikings

---

Smackems posted...

Vikings did too, though they were lighter equipped for hit and run (that's my understanding anyway)

Weren't vikings just whatever dudes felt like going to raid a church with the boys because the crops didn't turn out so well that season? I mean, I dont think they were career soldiers.

Flockaveli posted...

Th enumber 300 is literally a movie about Spartans.

it was literally a comic book

---

Colorahdo posted...

aren't samurai like a thousand years later than the other two? They probably have superior tech and strategy

Depends on when the samurai came from. During some times, Japan was obsessed with guns and were pretty good at using them.

---

0Renegade posted...

Samurais might have the best armor in this fight.

Spartans has good shield.

idk about vikings

They have good drugs

The Spartans used bronze armour and iron weapons. They'd be massacred.

I don't know between Vikings and Samurai.

Is there prep time? knowledge of the enemy? knowledge of the terrain?

The bias in me leans towards Samurai especially if there is time to make a strategy.

Vikings win with superior naval prowess.

---

Outlaw Cowboys and Pirates should be here

Norse raiders will straight-up have better gear than Spartans. Significantly lighter without giving up much in terms of protection.

Esrac posted...

Weren't vikings just whatever dudes felt like going to raid a church with the boys because the crops didn't turn out so well that season? I mean, I dont think they were career soldiers.

No doubt some were. Probably a good mix of backgrounds

Also I think bronze is just as good as iron but iron was more plentiful

Maybe I'm wrong

---

HighOnSolar posted...

300 cemen

attack the yellow orb

---

sounds like an ambitious royal rumble type mode for the next For Honor game...

mrgoatthief posted...

Samurai were professional soldiers who were given training and weaponry afforded to a noble class.
They had a thousand years at least of techological advantage on the Spartans.
And the vikings were drunk farmers who don't compare at all to the Samurai.

Samurai win pretty effortlessly.

Vikings were a lot more resourceful than you're giving them credit for. And Samurai honor is one hell of a handicap. The Vikings and Spartans both could dominate them with guerilla tactics.

---

SquirtleSkwad posted...

Vikings were a lot more resourceful than you're giving them credit for. And Samurai honor is one hell of a handicap. The Vikings and Spartans both could dominate them with guerilla

Lol I don't even know where to start.

300 zulu warriors

---

I don't think Samurai were honorable in the way people think they were.

---

ArchNemo posted...

Lol I don't even know where to start.

Well I'd rather discuss this topic without passive aggressive jabs. If you've got some new information, I'd like to learn.

---

ArchNemo posted...

Lol I don't even know where to start.

were vikings drunk farmers? Didn't they sack Paris?

---

There is a lot I can write about the Spartans but I'm on mobile and feeling lazy.

---

I wish I could say the Viking Raiders would win, but I'd be lying to myself. Samurai had better tech (actual steel, potential guns, fireworks, etc). They're armor was layered paper that could stop and arrow easily, but also offered great mobility.

as far as I know it would be Samurai>Vikings>Spartans

The Vikings made a primitive version of steel because when they combined bones with their iron while forging weapons the carbon joined together with the iron and made psudosteel. They're shields were made by layering wood together in a weave-like pattern that offered amazing defense capabilities, and the way their handles were designed allowed them to flip them around and use them more effectively than Spartans as weapons, and the boss on the shield would also be made of the same psudosteel.

---

SquirtleSkwad posted...

Well I'd rather discuss this topic without passive aggressive jabs. If you've got some new information, I'd like to learn.

touch

Well, first you have to consider tine periods. The era gap is so different it'd be like asking who would win between a red coat and a US G.I. I don't know between the samurai and the Vikings because of geographical differences how similar in tech they would be depending on the era of each used, but the Spartans would always be vastly inferior.

Also, bushido is a myth. There were certain guidelines the samurai, like any caste, were expected to follow but these were flaunted more often than not and on the battlefield they fought just as dirty as anyone else.

Also, the Hellenic armies revolved around the phalanx whose tactics revolved around an 8ft spear and whose weakest aspect was its movement. They wouldn't be using anything remotely close to guerilla tactics.

SolidShadow3 posted...

I wish I could say the Viking Raiders would win, but I'd be lying to myself. Samurai had better tech (actual steel, potential guns, fireworks, etc). They're armor was layered paper that could stop and arrow easily, but also offered great mobility.

as far as I know it would be Samurai>Vikings>Spartans

The Vikings made a primitive version of steel because when they combined bones with their iron while forging weapons the carbon joined together with the iron and made psudosteel. They're shields were made by layering wood together in a weave-like pattern that offered amazing defense capabilities, and the way their handles were designed allowed them to flip them around and use them more effectively than Spartans as weapons, and the boss on the shield would also be made of the same psudosteel.

They knew how to make real steel

Also samurai used metal in their armor

---

ArchNemo posted...

Also, bushido is a myth. There were certain guidelines the samurai, like any caste, were expected to follow but these were flaunted more often than not and on the battlefield they fought just as dirty as anyone else.

I love having this sort of stuff dispelled. A lot of media paints samurai as sort of cucks when it comes to war.

---

Vikings couldn't win straight up battles due to their lack of armor, hence their tactics. Besides, they were likely too worried about their looks (it's surprising to see how many people don't realize Vikings were se of the most "fancy" people of the time, even going so far as inventing many kinds of cosmetics).

Samurai were essentially bankers and such, they weren't known for their combat prowess until long after they were abundant, and most legends of samurai were written by... Samurai.

Spartans all day, it's not even close.
---

Colorahdo posted...

were vikings drunk farmers? Didn't they sack Paris?

I don't know much about the Vikings but I think they did as much trading as raiding.

But to be fair, the Spartan army was mostly farmers as well. Compared to other Hellenic states when the Spartans were at their height they were more martial but the majority of soldiers were still farmers. People like to think they were war hungry brutes but in reality they were actually pretty pacifistic because long wars meant time not tending crops.

SquirtleSkwad posted...

I love having this sort of stuff dispelled. A lot of media paints samurai as sort of cucks when it comes to war.

Their code of honor was more something they would use with each other than peasants, and like chivalry its content depended on time, place, ruling lord etc

This board is full of myths. One recent one is longswords being one handed. They were not one handed swords

I mean they could be used one handed, in the same sense that a shotgun can be used one handed

---

samurai swords can split rocks like butter

the gear advantage is huge

---

ModLogic posted...

samurai swords can split rocks like butter

the gear advantage is huge

What the fuck
---

ModLogic posted...

samurai swords can split rocks like butter

the gear advantage is huge

What kind of rock?

---

ModLogic posted...

samurai swords can split rocks like butter

wat?

I usually assume people don't count samurai having rifles, because that's an obvious win, but I'm glad they were acknowledged in this topic, for once.

---

Vibranium folded 1000 times!

---

ArchNemo posted...

touch

Well, first you have to consider tine periods. The era gap is so different it'd be like asking who would win between a red coat and a US G.I. I don't know between the samurai and the Vikings because of geographical differences how similar in tech they would be depending on the era of each used, but the Spartans would always be vastly inferior.

Also, bushido is a myth. There were certain guidelines the samurai, like any caste, were expected to follow but these were flaunted more often than not and on the battlefield they fought just as dirty as anyone else.

Also, the Hellenic armies revolved around the phalanx whose tactics revolved around an 8ft spear and whose weakest aspect was its movement. They wouldn't be using anything remotely close to guerilla tactics.

Hoplites fought in a variety of environments that didnt involve being in a phalanx. They fought in ships, uneven terrain, ambushes, etc. One of the greatest strengths of a Greek hoplite was their aggression and how quickly they tried to get into hand to hand combat where they excelled. Classical Greek hoplites were most of the time untrained warriors who couldn't even keep a formation on the move, one of the main things separating a Greek phalanx from a heavily armed mob was their initial deployment in ranks and files. The Spartans were an exception but not by a lot. I absolute love Roel Konijnendijk description of the Spartans in Classical Greek Tactics as the one eyed man in the land of the blind.

---

The samurai have better weapons (iron vs bronze) and armor.

The Spartans have the better training/group fighting skills due to the phalanx.

It's a question of if the samurais mounted troops and arrows can break the Spartan formation.

Vikings get ass blasted by both.

---

Smackems posted...

They knew how to make real steel

Also samurai used metal in their armor

The majority of the armor was made from bamboo and metal was only used sparingly.

It turns out bamboo is actually really fucking good at being armor. Things like helmets and such is where more metal was used since the most important place to protect was the head and the second most important was the gut.

A guy wearing a WWE belt and a helmet is better armored than Sigfried from soul calibur.

---

Smackems posted...

They knew how to make real steel

Also samurai used metal in their armor

the Vikings didn't have steel like we have today; but it was definitely my durable than bronze or plain iron.

Samurai armor wasn't just paper, I know. But it was the outer most layer and generally prevented the metal/leather underneath to remain mostly unscathed.

regardless, still helps my points out.

---

Evening_Dragon posted...

I usually assume people don't count samurai having rifles, because that's an obvious win, but I'm glad they were acknowledged in this topic, for once.

The Samurai caste predates firearms and they didn't have "rifles", what they had was closer to an arquebus.