Old Glory | 12 Dec 2021 4:24 p.m. PST |
Hypothetical situation. A Spartan phalanx encounters a Viking shield wall. The warriors from different time periods are armed differently, yet each warrior is proficient with his weapons, battle hardened, and brave. Is there an advantage either way or just matter of "who prevails on any given day ?" Russ Dunaway |
79thPA | 12 Dec 2021 5:57 p.m. PST |
I don't think the shield wall could withstand the push of the phalanx. |
Old Glory | 12 Dec 2021 6:54 p.m. PST |
With axes breaking the long spears and Viking warriors pulling spears, going betespears to disrupt u it cohesion? |
Mike Petro | 12 Dec 2021 7:30 p.m. PST |
|
enfant perdus | 12 Dec 2021 8:53 p.m. PST |
The Viking's primary weapon was his spear, particularly in a shield wall. So you're basically looking at two spear and shield formations facing off where the Vikings have better secondary weapons. The Spartans obviously have something we equate with modern drill and discipline. I tend to think the latter has the tactical advantage more often than not. |
Der Alte Fritz | 12 Dec 2021 10:00 p.m. PST |
My money is on the longer spears of the phalanx. |
Dn Jackson | 12 Dec 2021 11:46 p.m. PST |
Might be a bit of a wash. The Spartans have the ability to maneuver, which I don't think a shield wall could do, but the Vikings have iron weapons and armor. The Spartans had bronze defenses. |
Martin Rapier | 13 Dec 2021 12:47 a.m. PST |
The Vikings aren't Legionaries. The Phalanx will roll right over them. |
Martyn K | 13 Dec 2021 6:25 a.m. PST |
There are a number of factors to consider: - The terrain would make a difference. I am not sure that a Viking commander would choose to engage in battle on a flat open plain. However, a Phalanx wouldn't engage in hilly/rocky/forested terrain favorable to the Vikings. - If it was a single Phalanx, how would the Phalanx stop the Viking sweeping around the sides and attacking the rear and flanks. - In the Renaissance, Spanish sword were very effective and engaging large pike blocks. They swatted away the pikes and got into the middle of them. I believe that Viking units had enough sword armed troops to engage in similar tactics. - once the sword armed troops did engage, I think that the Phalanx would have to drop the pikes and start engaging in sword to sword combat. At this point, wouldn't the rest of the Vikings holding spears have an advantage? At the very least, the sword would disrupt the rigid structure of the Phalanx, which is its main advantage. Overall, I don't believe that the Vikings would remain behind a shield wall if facing a Phalanx. If they did I think that they would probably loose. If they engaged in different tactics and swarmed the Phalanx initially using sword armed troops, I think that they would win.
|
79thPA | 13 Dec 2021 6:50 a.m. PST |
I don't know if axes chopping off pike heads is going to be enough of "a real thing" to matter. I think discipline and cohesion will win out. That said, if you change the variables a little, I think the Vikings stand a better chance if they are allowed to be Vikings and can swarm the phalanx. |
Frederick | 13 Dec 2021 6:58 a.m. PST |
Ō xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti tē(i)de keimetha tois keinōn rhēmasi peithomenoi My money is on the Spartans |
Wolfhag | 13 Dec 2021 7:58 a.m. PST |
I think the Vikings are considered light or medium infantry. They'd have a maneuver and speed advantage over a phalanx type opponent and attempt to flank them. They could easily refuse battle if it was not on their terms. Also, didn't Vikings have archers within their ranks too? Wolfhag |
bobm1959 | 13 Dec 2021 8:41 a.m. PST |
One's an attacking formation, the other defensive (and relatively static). The Spartan drill enabled them to move and keep formation. This formation being tighter than the shieldwall as the men are half turned and half each man's shield protects his neighbour to the left. Spartans to prevail on level ground, Vikings if stationary on a hill…perhaps. |
Raynman | 13 Dec 2021 9:18 a.m. PST |
My money would be on the Vikings. They have speed and maneuverability. They could go under the spears to get to the phalanx. Also, they have axes and could be chopping the spears off. Speed, maneuverability and ferocity would win the day. |
bobm1959 | 13 Dec 2021 9:48 a.m. PST |
Raynam…"They have speed and maneuverability"…not in a shield wall they don't |
Old Glory | 13 Dec 2021 10:13 a.m. PST |
The Vikings do not have to stay in their "shield wall" to fight-- where as would the Greeks be fish out of water without their phalanx? Russ Dunaway |
Andrew Walters | 13 Dec 2021 11:34 a.m. PST |
The first thing that occurs to me is that each of those systems arose in a particular context: how much time could the economy afford to let people spend in training? What kind of warfare were they practicing? What kinds of political institutions were they trying to create, destroy, or redirect? Even the relationship of the soldier to the state influenced those two systems. And possibly most significantly, each of those systems was devised and refined to defeat the foes they faced. Thus, necessarily, if there was a chance of these two facing each other each would have adapted to that possibility. The phalanx may have brought more auxiliaries. The Vikings may have brought more axes. We should also consider that phalanx armies were approximately ten times the size of viking armies. More sophisticated political systems lead to more productive economies and larger armies. The numbers given for phalanx armies in ancient texts usually only include the actual hoplites – there were auxiliaries in addition that were from 50% to 200% the number of phalangites. A couple more factors: all the metal in the phalangite's kit is bronze. The Vikings have iron. The pikes in the phalanx have a counterweight at the butt end that is pointed. Enemies definitely cut off pike points, in which case the soldier would reverse his weapon and have a shorter but still pointy pike. But if we discount bronze vs iron and assume that somehow equivalent sized armies meet each other, I'm going to give the win to whichever commander figures out what is going on in time to give instructions so that his troops will be less fish-out-of-water than the other side. If that seems like a big cop-out I'm going to say that the Vikings are going to withdraw and hit the enemy when it's not formed up. If even that seems to be a cop-out, if we assume they just fight, I'm going to say the phalanx wins. But only once. |
Atheling | 13 Dec 2021 11:35 a.m. PST |
Depends on s=which Greeks and which "Vikings". Also the century. Just Add Water Wargaming and Painting Blog: link |
Parzival | 13 Dec 2021 12:25 p.m. PST |
The "Viking" army of Harald Hardraada faced an English army of Saxon thanes, huscarls and the fyrd (barely-trained local militia) led by King Harold Godwinson. The Vikings were crushed. The military discipline of the phalanx, all other elements being equal will win out over the Vikings. However, iron beats bronze, and steel beats ‘em both. The Vikings have steel weapons and armor, which swings the battle back to them. |
Old Glory | 13 Dec 2021 2:13 p.m. PST |
Indeed Hadrada was defeated-- don't know about "crushed?" In thought Stamford bridge was nip and tuck until the rout began ? However, other Viking forces in history fared much better? Russ Dunaway |
Atheling | 13 Dec 2021 2:21 p.m. PST |
Old Glory
Indeed Hadrada was defeated-- don't know about "crushed?" In thought Stamford bridge was nip and tuck until the rout began ? Indeed. The battle might have gone either way. As you rightly point out, like most Early Medieval battles, the real carnage begins when one side gives way. Just Add Water Wargaming and Painting Blog: link |
Parzival | 13 Dec 2021 3:15 p.m. PST |
He was dead, his army fled, and were wiped out. I call that "crushed." Anything else is like saying, "Oh, we were tied at the end of the first half," when the final score is 54-7. |
Old Glory | 13 Dec 2021 5:22 p.m. PST |
Could have went either way. The "crushing" was after the fact. Also this " rag tag " Saxom army you described stood toe to toe with William a few days later if memory serves me correct? Were the Saxons "Crushed" or simply routed and defeated? Anyway, we stray from my question. Not much to do with a Greek Phalanx. Russ Dunaway |
Deucey | 13 Dec 2021 7:18 p.m. PST |
Also Hardrada was caught off guard. |
Deucey | 13 Dec 2021 7:19 p.m. PST |
Did Vikings face Byzantine infantry "phalanxes"? |
Der Alte Fritz | 13 Dec 2021 10:54 p.m. PST |
If the discussion is Shield Wall versus Phalanx then the Vikings have to remain in shield wall formation rather than running around the flanks and rear of the phalanx. The Greeks have to remain in their phalanx. Otherwise we are no longer debating shield wall versus phalanx, we are debating the armies. If instead we are talking Viking army versus Spartan army then this is an entirely different discussion. |
Atheling | 13 Dec 2021 11:21 p.m. PST |
If the discussion is Shield Wall versus Phalanx then the Vikings have to remain in shield wall formation rather than running around the flanks and rear of the phalanx. The Greeks have to remain in their phalanx. Otherwise we are no longer debating shield wall versus phalanx, we are debating the armies.If instead we are talking Viking army versus Spartan army then this is an entirely different discussion. That's exactly what I was getting at when I said: Atheling
Depends on which Greeks and which "Vikings".Also the century. It's kind of an absurd comparison IMHO. Like asking would the German army of WWI fight like the German army of WWII. Extreme example I know due to the pace of changes in military strategy and tactics during the 20th century, but then point is made clear nevertheless. Just Add Water Wargaming and Painting Blog: link |
Dn Jackson | 14 Dec 2021 7:20 a.m. PST |
While most of the Spartan's kit was bronze, the spear points and sword blades were iron. As for cutting off the spear tips with axes, I find this unlikely. If you hit a spear being held by a person with an ax, you'll just push it to the side. Even if the spear was locked in a vice and hit, the chances of breaking it are slim. |
Atheling | 14 Dec 2021 11:49 a.m. PST |
Dn Jackson
While most of the Spartan's kit was bronze, the spear points and sword blades were iron. As for cutting off the spear tips with axes, I find this unlikely. If you hit a spear being held by a person with an ax, you'll just push it to the side. Even if the spear was locked in a vice and hit, the chances of breaking it are slim. Worth a watch- conjectural I know, but Dane Axes were very versatile weapon: YouTube link |
Parzival | 14 Dec 2021 12:06 p.m. PST |
Could have went either way. The "crushing" was after the fact. Also this " rag tag " Saxom army you described stood toe to toe with William a few days later if memory serves me correct? Were the Saxons "Crushed" or simply routed and defeated? Never said "rag tag"— you did. My point was that the Saxon English army Hardraada faced was not nearly as trained and disciplined as a Spartan phalanx. If Hardraada's Vikings couldn't beat such a force, they aren't going to fare well against professional soldiers as the Spartans were supposed to be— all other things being equal, of course. |
Old Glory | 14 Dec 2021 12:42 p.m. PST |
You implied rag-tag – "barely trained local milita." same thing ?? Sometimes highly trained van have it draw backs? Russ Dunaway |
Parzival | 14 Dec 2021 1:25 p.m. PST |
Okay. Just sharing my thoughts and reasoning behind my answer to the question, so if you disagree, that's fine. In any case: Huscarls = experienced warriors, guards etc.. Thanes (or thegns) = nobility, trained warriors— officer corps, as it were. Fyrd = local levy of mostly farmers, herdsmen, and the like. About as trained for warfare as a ham sandwich. Gotta give Harold Godwinson credit for whipping the latter into some fighting shape in short order. Vikings= Not much different than above, minus the Fyrd. Spartans = disciplined professional army, through and through. Still going with the Spartans. |
Old Glory | 14 Dec 2021 1:31 p.m. PST |
There is not a corrrct/incorrect answer and no way of knowing really ? I said a " hypothetical situation" The Greeks were highly trained, but is the Vikings savagery and aggressiveness all just legend -- pethaps ?? Can it just be discounted -' perhaps not ? Russ Dunaway |
Blaubaer | 16 Dec 2021 9:35 a.m. PST |
Hello, are the forces equel in "heads" or "points"? For the same total number my money is on the Vikings. They are special selected raiders, bound by blood, bread and their time on their "tiny" boats. They are fighting fit, rowing all the time. Viking senior raiders fight many times for their lives before, they are not just " trained elites". Spartan phalanx is build up with the local soldiers. More or less ready. Against a raiding "elite" force. On the other hand, fighting off pirates may be normaly day to day business for the greeks. |
JJartist | 18 Dec 2021 12:41 p.m. PST |
The Spartans fought the Macedonians in a crowded choke point near Megalopolis in 331 BC. The Spartans were outnumbered 2:1. No Spartan army was "all Spartiates", they had allies and helots. The Spartan King was killed fighting, and the army eventually was worn down by enemy numbers. The victors suffered 3500 killed (and reportedly a huge number of wounded). The Spartans lost 5300 killed, a huge percentage of a population restricted force. I bring this up as a reference point, between Thermopylae/Plataea as the high water mark of Spartan martial superiority, and later at Sellasia 220 BC where they turned to pikes to attempt to fight off the Macedonians again. I'm clearly favoring a Spartan "heyday" force in constricted ground being able to hold off any number of Vikings. Vikings fought more like Persians in some ways by storming out from their shield wall and individually or in small groups or pig's head wedges to break the the enemy line. The great axe might have helped cut lanes in the spear wall and the Viking swords would have been far superior the Spartan xiphos short swords. Shields and armor may be a wash, but mail has to rated as superior to linen or bronze scale, but maybe not to full bronze panoply. Game results in these head to head matches are often close run affairs and mimic Megalopolis in result. Both sides are hammered by casualties and the higher morale rolls are the key. Usually in Hellenistic vs. Dark Age scenarios, its not the heavy infantry that wins outright, it is the careful ability of the Hellenistic player to coordinate his cavalry and effective professional light troops to flummox the Vikings, who often do not have enough skirmishers to screen their force. So the lowly psiloi helots and peltasts of the Spartan forces may be the actual critical player in this speculative scenario. |
JJartist | 18 Dec 2021 12:50 p.m. PST |
The Spartans fought the Macedonians in a crowded choke point near Megalopolis in 331 BC. The Spartans were outnumbered 2:1. The Spartan King was killed fighting, and the army eventually was worn down by enemy numbers. The victors suffered 3500 killed (and reportedly a huge number of wounded). The Spartans lost 5300 killed, a huge percentage of a population restricted force. I bring this up as a reference point, between Thermopylae/Plataea as the high water mark of Spartan martial superiority, and later at Sellasia 220 BC where they turned to pikes to attempt to fight off the Macedonians again. I'm clearly favoring a Spartan "heyday" force in constricted ground being able to hold off any number of Vikings. After all Vikings fought more like Persians by storming out from their shield wall and individually or in small groups breaking the the enemy line. The great axe might have helped cut lanes in the spear wall and the Viking swords would have been far superior the Spartan xiphos short swords. Shields and armor may be a wash, but mail has to rated as superior to linen or bronze scale, but maybe not to full bronze panoply. Game results in these head to head matches are often close run affairs and mimic Megalopolis in result. Both sides are hammered by casualties and the higher morale rolls are the key. Usually in Hellenistic vs. Dark Age scenarios, its not the heavy infantry that wins outright, it is the careful ability of the Hellenistic player to coordinate his cavalry and effective professional light troops to flummox the Vikings, who often do not have enough skirmishers to screen their force. So the lowly psiloi helots of the Spartan forces may be the actual critical player in this speculative scenario. |
Wolfhag | 21 Dec 2021 6:36 p.m. PST |
Raynam…"They have speed and maneuverability"…not in a shield wall they don't Of course not in a shield wall! Just like any other tactic, use your strengths against your opponents weakness. Light infantry moves in a dispersed/skirmish formation. That's one of their advantages. Also, the Vikings did form attack wedges with archers in their formation. It's makes for an interesting scenario. Wolfhag |