Hoplites vs Huscarls

[Chris]

Yet another ahistorical adventure. This time, it's Spartans and Vikings. Not a mash-up of the film "300" and a number of episodes of "Vikings," though the face off between King L and Ivar the Boneless would get my attention!

For those few with time and the inclination:

https://nopaintingrequired.blogspot.com/search/label/Hoplites%20vs%20Huscarls

Thanks in advance.

Cheers,
Chris

[Erpingham]

In response to your question

"Would an army of Vikings really be able to beat an army of Spartans? "

it would make a great episode in one of those American TV programs we get on minor Freeview channels 

In slightly more historical terms, I'd suggest it depends which Spartans and which Vikings.  Both Spartans and Vikings are heavily mythologised as "mighty warriors" when , in reality, most members of both forces would be pretty ordinary. 

[dwkay57]

Yes Anthony, the potential to make both sides "over good" in terms of good quality troops is giving Chris the sort of results he is coming up with.

If more of the troops involved were "mediocre" or not so enthusiastic then they might run away a bit earlier rather than die in battle. Of course, this does depend upon the rules monitoring morale to a reasonable level.

[Chris]

Gents -

Thanks for taking the time to read and to remark.

Admittedly, I have not done graduate-level work with respect to sussing out the combat records of Spartans and Vikings, however, is there not some connection to be made from the contemporary sources and the myth(s)?

If we do decide to rate Spartans and Vikings as regular or not so excellent troops, then should we apply lesser grades to their opponents?

I will respectfully throw the question back to Anthony and let him decide/choose which Spartans and which Vikings face off across a tabletop.

If I understand David's point/observation, then I have fallen into that historical "trap" or wargame rules "trap" which is why my ahistorical scenarios are going the way they are?

More counterfactual food for thought, I suppose.

Thanks again for your time and opinions.

Cheers,
Chris

[Erpingham]

I'm sure we've talked about the Spartans quite recently on the forum.  The image we have of elite trained red-clad hoplites sweeping all before them is somewhat mythologised, not least by the Greeks themselves.  The number of actual Spartiates was small and got smaller over time (it was a big flaw in their political system).  As time went on, they leant heavily on allied hoplites and ordinary hoplites similar to common-or-garden city states drawn from their (expanding)  non-citizen class. 

If you head off to your Vikings, it depends what we mean by Vikings.  We tend to think Scandinavian and Scandinavian-heritage troops from about 8th - 11th or 12th centuries - this isn't just wargamers, this is a common historians' rule of thumb.  But viking actually had a meaning in Norse.  He was a man who left home seeking fame and fortune abroad.  He was often a young farm worker with no combat experience except what he learned slaughtering monks and capturing slaves in poorly defended settlements.  If we take the modern historical definition, he could be a farmer or town dweller doing his militia service, or maybe joining the King's lið for service on an expedition abroad. The core of experienced professionals (the huscarls or hirð) was relatively small.

So, that is the background to my comment about which Vikings and which Spartans.  Most troops in both armies would be of fairly ordinary experience and capability.

[Imperial Dave]

spoilsport 

[dwkay57]

There is a thread "How different were the Spartans" under the weapons and tactics sub-header of the history section. I think that is the one you are referring to Anthony.

I don't think you've fallen into any trap Chris, just an observation that if all of an army is of good quality they are likely to stick around and fight it out. Lesser quality troops - especially if allied - are more likely to leg it for home earlier. The same could be said of allied commanders, irrespective of the troops under their direct control. How much each set of rules takes such factors into account we've discussed elsewhere.

[Erpingham]

There is a thread "How different were the Spartans" under the weapons and tactics sub-header of the history section. I think that is the one you are referring to Anthony.

We also discussed the Spartans at Plataea here

For a rather more biting, but entertaining, appraisal of Spartan military prowess, try Bret Devereaux's blog.  His analysis of Spartan social and political systems is also interesting, if you like non-military history.   

[Chris]

Hmmm . . .

Well, one thing is clear (or at least I think it is). I must make more of an effort to find out if something has been posted/discussed/analyzed/debated/gamed before I post about my experience/experiment with it, whatever it is.

Then again, that seems like a lot of work. Not that I'm afraid to do the heavy lifting per se, but would like to find a better balance between fluff and substance.

Is it too much of a reach to adapt Robert Frost's line about two roads diverging in a wood here?

Anyway, members will be glad to know that I'm nearly done with my Spartans vs Vikings scenarios.

Cheers,
Chris

[Erpingham]

Well, one thing is clear (or at least I think it is). I must make more of an effort to find out if something has been posted/discussed/analyzed/debated/gamed before I post about my experience/experiment with it, whatever it is.

The forum is a store house of arcane knowledge and always worth a look.  We can muster some quite knowledgeable folks.

As to the ratio of fluff to substance, it can get out of hand at times.  I blame the moderator   However, this is a popular history place not academe and a bit of levity and silliness coats the heavy stuff with sugar.  Or so I believe, taking my cue from Mary Poppins.

[dwkay57]

The prime driver is that you enjoy yourself Chris and get pleasure out of what you do. The rest is irrelevant.

[Imperial Dave]

The prime driver is that you enjoy yourself Chris and get pleasure out of what you do. The rest is irrelevant.

well said.

As someone who plays with himself constantly I can vouch for this