Ancient -Medieval time warrior show down

[Siege101]

Sort of a spin off of the most powerful empire thread. Which warrior would win if you put them all on foot and no cavalry. This is basically a who would win thread so enjoy the discussions. Each warrior was during their height of their empire. Ive written an abridged version of them from various books and sites.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y106/Siege101/Ancient%20Warriors/Egyptianwarrior.jpg
Egyptian Infantry
Armed with what looks like padded linen cuirass for armor, a spear and a shield. Im not sure if this was used during their height but what the hell.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y106/Siege101/Ancient%20Warriors/PersianImmortal.jpg
Persian Immortal
His other main weapon was quite a short spear, short sword, or a big dagger. He may of also had a set of lameller armor under his tunic but compared to greeks he was pretty much unarmored. A well placed thrust with a spear could penetrate his shield. His best advantage was his moral.

Spartan Hoplite
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y106/Siege101/Ancient%20Warriors/SpartanHoplite.jpg
Trained at birth to be warriors. The city of Sparta was Greeces only real city that compare to a full fledged military. They typically fought in phalanx formation and were armed were typically armed with what they could afford which was a padded linen cuiress(sometimes upgraded with metal), greeves, shield, and sometimes a short sword.

Macedonian Pikemen
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y106/Siege101/Ancient%20Warriors/MacedonianHoplite.jpg
Fought in phalanx formation pretty much like the Greeks did. The thing that made them somewhat superior to Greek Hoplites was the length of their pike.

Assyrian Warrior
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y106/Siege101/Ancient%20Warriors/Assyrian-Warrior-with-shied_Big.jpg
Wore lameller armor and was armed with spear. They were known for their brutality in warfare.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y106/Siege101/Ancient%20Warriors/vikingwarrior.jpg
Viking Raider
Had raider like tactics and could become berserkers. Armed typiclly with axe or sword and had chainmail and helm for armor. They were also known to be very loyal mercanaries and was one of the few who actually sucessfully defended Constantinople from Crusaders.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y106/Siege101/Ancient%20Warriors/Samurai.jpg
Samurai
Their armor was typically made out of iron with a back lacquer covering to make it water and rot proof and armed with a Katana.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y106/Siege101/Ancient%20Warriors/Englishknight.jpg
Western knight (English)
In the beginning they were typiclly armed with long swords and had large shields. Unlike popular belief knights did not typiclly have plate armor untill the later years and often wore chainmail.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y106/Siege101/Ancient%20Warriors/Mongolwarrior.jpg
Mongol Warrior
They were not known for their infantry but their horse archers and ability to defeat heavy cavalry with light cavalry. They did however where leather and iron for protection.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y106/Siege101/Ancient%20Warriors/RomeLegion.jpg
Roman Legionary
At their height they were armed with Lorica Segmentata which was a bunch of iron or steel strips laced together and had a pilum, Gladius and dagger. They were trained to throw their spear first and then attack. They were highly diciplined and well trained compared to the standerd western european soldier during the middle ages.

So who would win?

[Radioactive Predator]

Hmmm.... hard one. You'd have to look at what's been tested and tried.

Vikings, nah, not really. They attacked during a period of unrest and disorder. It was a combination of stuff.

Samurai, maybe, but I can't see them being any better than a Legionary or a Knight.

Spartan Hoplites were just as good as Immortals. I don't know much about Egyptian Infantry.

So that really leaves behind the Mongols.

Now, the Mongols are different. They had a HUGE Empire. Brilliant tactics, too. They had disciplined warriors, great leaders, and huge Empires.

They didn't conquer little nations, they took on great nations, such as China, and beat the living crap out of them.

This is why I believe it's gotta go to the Mongol Warriors.

[Siege101]

Spartan Hoplites were just as good as Immortals.

Spartans were far superior to Immortals. Immortals mostly had zeal on their side but far inferior equipment. They were also had little training at best. Spartans trained at birth and were not your typical Hoplite. Watch the movie 300 Spartans for a good example of the Spartans.

So that really leaves behind the Mongols.

Now, the Mongols are different. They had a HUGE Empire. Brilliant tactics, too. They had disciplined warriors, great leaders, and huge Empires.

They didn't conquer little nations, they took on great nations, such as China, and beat the living crap out of them.

This is why I believe it's gotta go to the Mongol Warriors.
Also they were only ones to sucessfully conquer Russia even though Russia wasnt really that powerful but powerful enough compared to many European nations.

[Anonymous]

All depends on when and where they fight.
Your Mongol horse archers will be pretty effective on open plains, but the samurai would have a half decent chance since they also used good bows.
Move the battle into some ancient germanic forests and pretty soon Caesar will be crying about having lost an entire Legion and the Mongols will be slaughtering their horses for food.

Batman would pwn all of them though.

[Froberg]

Vikings settled down as leaders of all of russia, recent studies have found.

There was great unrest so when the natives saw the Vikings traveling on the rivers, and witnessed their combat abilities, they made them leaders.
Vikings > Crusaders
Vikings established the city York in Britain, and made it one of the most succesful cities.

The main reason Vikings lost their grip on things was because many of them simply settled down and became merchants instead.. their need for war and profit gone.
The most stubborn of the remaining vikings became body-guards for kings, emperors and the like all over the world. They were regarded as loyal and fierce warriors, and an emperor would feel safe with only 2 vikings by his side.

One on one, I'd have to say Vikings or the Samurai. I have a tough time judging the samurai, as I don't know if their ability is anywhere near what we see in movies... although I certainly hope that it is.
In the last Samurai I don't think they're that capable warriors.

A viking on Shrooms > Everyone..

[Hersir_Hastein]

Perhaps we could get some people to clear some of the mist of what some of these people were like or about, in a brief summary.

Because, for example, the Egyptians and Assyrians...



Egyptian Infantry
Armed with what looks like padded linen cuirass for armor, a spear and a shield. Im not sure if this was used during their height but what the hell.



Wore lameller armor and was armed with spear. They were known for their brutality in warfare.

I don't know all that much about either. By reading these descriptions, they're certainly not going to get my vote. And I think the Egyptians were mainly known for their Chariots...? Again, i'm not so sure. What characteristic made them be put up on the list over some of the other aspects of their army?
As for the Assyrians, I don't know too much about their units individually, but weren't their weapons advanced for their time? Along with the way they fought? (Shock troops comes to mind.)

On vikings, I think it would be better to have a Huskarl since the were the actual professional soldiers. Particularly one late in the age brandishing a large Dane-Axe. Very formidable.

The last thing I have to say: Let's not forget about the Celts. Once upon a time, they sacked Rome, and in 334-335 Alexander (the Great) made an agreement with them that they would not attack his empire while he was out conquering in the East. Probably the warrior that would be representative would be the Geasatae, carrying their large spear (can't remember the name), or the better known sword and shield combo.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v332/hersir_hasteinn/belgae.jpg

edit - Let's not forget that even their women were feared. :grin:

[Siege101]

Perhaps we could get some people to clear some of the mist of what some of these people were like or about, in a brief summary.

Because, for example, the Egyptians and Assyrians...
@Egyptians. 3000 BC - 1200 BC Their strength wasnt really their military but their location and how they were able to defend it. They did however gain alot of military ideas and made them much more powerful after the Hyksos invasion.

@ Assyrians. During their time they were feared and hated. They are thought to have been the first to have made wide use of body armor. It was lameller which was created by a bunch of small bronze plates laced together. They were known to also protect their archers by putting large shields in front of them. They also employed siege engines in city assaults. Their power was in 1400 BC to 600 BC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyria

[Hersir_Hastein]

Ah, so there wasn't too much of anything that stood out other than just the Infantry and Warrior?

[NukeTheEmus]

If the swordsmen can close the range of the spears, then they would slaughter the spearmen. The heavily armored westerners would be at a disadvantage in mobility to the lightly armored easterners, but western swordplay were generally superior to its eastern counterpart, so that's a draw.

one on one

equally weighted spearman vs swordsman = swordsman
lightly weighted spearman vs swordsman = spearman
but then again, a good archer > everyone

in an actual battle

I'd say that the Mongols would win.

The Mongols were noted for their ability to confuse the enemy with fake retreats and ambushes, yet still retain their cohesion. This, coupled with the fact that Mongol leaders were picked based on their tactical ability and prowess in battle, leads me to conclude that the Mongols could beat most of them, even without the advantage of their horses.

[Anonymous]

but western swordplay were generally superior to its eastern counterpart, so that's a draw.


Where do you get that idea from?

[Hersir_Hastein]

If the swordsmen can close the range of the spears, then they would slaughter the spearmen.

Sadly, I don't know all that I would like to about how one counters another group with a particular weapon and/or formation, but I do know that the best way to take on a formation of spearmen is not from the front.

One on one, from what I have seen in mock fights and battles, spears are a very formidable weapon, and it isn't so easy as to just get past the pointed tip. Even if you do get past it, the spearman isn't completely defenseless. However, that's quite different from trying to hold formation, but in response to that I point up to my first paragraph.


The heavily armored westerners would be at a disadvantage in mobility to the lightly armored easterners, but western swordplay were generally superior to its eastern counterpart, so that's a draw.

I'm not sure what to think here when you say Eastern. Even in a general sense I'm just not sure... Because Eastern can be interpreted to encompasses a lot.

Not commenting on the swordplay bit, in the beginning the Crusades the defenders just weren't used to heavy cavalry charges. Their horses are bred for speed and mobility (if I remember right) not to carry huge loads, and they didn't fight with two large forces clashing together, to simplify and dumb it down. Of course, then they smartened up a bit and started organizing and using "clever" tactics... Such as shooting the horse out of underneath the knight.

Unsure what to say about the more far East.



I'd say that the Mongols would win.

The Mongols were noted for their ability to confuse the enemy with fake retreats and ambushes, yet still retain their cohesion. This, coupled with the fact that Mongol leaders were picked based on their tactical ability and prowess in battle, leads me to conclude that the Mongols could beat most of them, even without the advantage of their horses.

Feinted retreats don't always work, especially against a disciplined troop.

A lot of cultures (empires...) have selected leaders based on tactical ability and prowess in battle.

And while I don't doubt the Mongols abilities... There's a reason why they considered themselves pretty much dead if they were dehorsed, being a pastoral people and all.

[NukeTheEmus]

Right Hersir. Feinted Retreats don't always work. A lot of Generals around the world were perfectly suited for leadership, and had sound strategies.

I fail to see your point here. The fact is that the tactics that the Mongols used were successful, again and again and again and again(and again).

As for the straw man you set up for the spearmen thing, I'd like to ask you how swordsmen are supposed to kill spearmen if they don't close the range of their spears? Yell at them? Closing the range doesn't mean charging blindly face first into a big pointy stick as you seem to assume I mean.

[Hersir_Hastein]

Right Hersir. Feinted Retreats don't always work. A lot of Generals around the world were perfectly suited for leadership, and had sound strategies.

I fail to see your point here. The fact is that the tactics that the Mongols used were successful, again and again and again and again(and again).

The same as certain tactics worked again and again and again and again (and again) for others. The Romans, for an easy example.

Though I don't know all to much about Japanese history and culture, at the dawn of the firearms era wasn't there a general who perfected the tactic of having a line of gunmen (for the lack of the more appropriate word) fire, then retreat and reload while a line behind them move forward and fired a volley. I think he went on to take over most, if not all of Japan.

For most empires, there's probably a couple leaders that people could name off that were very well suited for the leadership role they had. As for sound strategies, the previous statement still applies, but some are also known for their adaptation of what's thrown at them. (Something the Mongols could be good at.)


As for the straw man you set up for the spearmen thing, I'd like to ask you how swordsmen are supposed to kill spearmen if they don't close the range of their spears? Yell at them?

This is a blatant and very disrespectful insult.

Haven't you ever heard of those reinactment groups? They dress up and sometimes even try to live the lifestyle a couple days out of the year? I know of two such groups around where I live, and my friend was (with several acquaintances) in it for a very short period of time.

To answer you question, it depends on how well the swordsmen is equipped. The Norsemen Raiders, though certainly not always swordsmen, could carry a bow if they so chose. The Samurai were quite proficient in the bow (used to be their main weapon, I've been told), and the Romans had their Pila.

If armed with just swords (swordsmen in a literal sense, men armed only with swords), and were really intent on trying to take out the spearmen it would involve a melee.


Closing the range doesn't mean charging blindly face first into a big pointy stick as you seem to assume I mean.

Doesn't necessarily mean flanking them either, something that wasn't expressed nor really implied. Sorry for the misinterpretation.

I just felt it was necessary to point out that the spear is a better weapon that what it's usually given credit for.

After all, this was said:



If the swordsmen can close the range of the spears, then they would slaughter the spearmen.

[NukeTheEmus]

Actually that's not an insult.

I'll assume you don't know the definition of a strawman fallacy if you're offended.

You misrepresented what I was saying, whether intentionally or not. That's a strawman.

[Hersir_Hastein]

Though not as offensive as I originally thought, it is still demeaning.

I still stand by my post.

[Anonymous]

Next week, which colour is best.

[Hersir_Hastein]

Next week, which colour is best.

rofl!

....But first... it's color!
(just kidding. :))