Samurai vs. Spartans vs. Vikings vs. Knights

We used to call that Gnip Gnop. A play on ping pong and a fair likeness of the sound of a good volley.

gnip......gnop.....gnip......gnop.....gnip.....dang it!

Those were quieter, gentler times. When America was great and the whole world knew it and Eisenhower was President. And we had a ping-pong table in the basement. *sigh*

so the spartans painted anything they wanted on their shields?

Not sure of that. I have not seen any surviving shields in any museum in Greece. I am almost certain that the description we have is based on Herodotus, the first historian. We know that it contained bronze, wood and some skins or cloth. It was strapped at the forearm. It weighted about 15 lbs. It had a deeply curved surface so it could be hung from the shoulder as you fought. If the outer bronze cover had any markings, it is likely it would have identified a persons paternal line or perhaps a unit. A big Lamda, which is the Greek "L", is not likely.

Mwab, I seriously considered the Knights as possible winners, but then I considered how they where beaten by large blocks of pikemen.

If it doesn't matter whether it's true or not why bring it up? Do you really believe that the Romans thought the place a barren wasteland? If that was the case why bother with years of campaigning, building and manning forts, naval bases, etc;
www.culturalprofiles.net/scotland/Directories/Scotland_Cultural_Profile/-5418.html
BTW,The lambda on the Spartan shield is for Laconia;
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconia. Incidentally, this is the derivation of the modern English word "laconic" referring to the characteristically pithy, terse Spartan turn of phrase.

Perhaps Ram, you should read this article over at Myarmoury regarding Japanese armor.

It was specifically the quality of Japanese Armor that caused the rise in Jujutsu like arts which have few strikes(except for at 'vital' points) and consist of mostly joint-locks and throws - because armor actually makes joint-locks more painful and damaging, and falling with an extra 50 lbs is still an extra 50 lbs now matter how it's distributed - whereas karate or kungfu like kicks and punches don't do a whole lot to a man fully armored in plate and trained to fight with it as well.

It is. I mainly linked that to give you an idea of the scope of the Armor that Japanese warriors were used to, which as far as *I* gather anyway, is just as effective against swords and such as european armor was. It was *SO* good in fact, that these specialized martial arts were developed to negate it.

Judo is a completely modern form of martial art derived by Jigoro Kano in the early 1900s with the purpose of making them less deadly and adding competition to the mix. It's more similar to olympic wrestling than many will admit these days. So it's not specifically relevant beyond the fact that it was derived from a culmination of Kano's training which included several more classical styles of jujutsu. He also added much more emphasis on groundwork which is absent in all martial arts that don't train to fight 1 on 1 in a ring or on a mat - because being on the ground is deadly in a real world encounter.

Mixed tactics and a good leader is what would win the battle. Vikings had no real tactic at all, no cavalry, no archers or skirmishers, almost no armour, and their weapons are not any better than knightly weapons.
Spartans had only their spearmen. Perfect discipline but again no additional troops and not very well armoured compared to knights. Knights would destroy both Vikings and Spartans if they would have a leader who would prevent all out frontal charge of heavy cavalry. They should start with archers, then pin them down with heavy infantry and charge in the flank or rear with cavalry. Spartans and Vikings have no troops to chase down archers and no troops to prevent flanking if they already fight on the front with dismounted knights.
Samurais fought as individuals surrounded with their retainers. That makes Japanese army an uneven mix of cavalry and infantry, preventing their cavalry to act as a unit, and their armour is good, but it can't match knight's armour. They have archers but they wouldn't do much damage against fully armoured knights, and in 15th century armour protected horses too. Again, leader of knights would have to be careful, make good use of european longbowmen to prevent any possible danger of horse archers just shooting from the distance, take the charge of Japanese with dismounted knights with archers on the flanks and in the right moment make a good heavy cavalry charge that would crush the mixture of Japanese infantry and cavalry. That's of course idealized situation.

Regarding the spartan shields, at the time of Persian wars they would paint their shields as they wished, but they adopted letter Lambda in the early 4th century BC.
www.ritsumei.ac.jp/se/~luv20009/Greek_shield_patterns_1.html

I believe that a Japanese arrow can go through a knights armor. The largeness of the bow gives it more leverage and the arrow more speed. The mass of the bows combined with that speed can penetrate an armor like butter. The arrow would be like a .50 cal armor pearcing bullet.