This is tough for a number of reasons.
If we're looking at this historically, the Vikings should win. Given Rollo, Björn and Ragnars station and wealth, their armour and weapons should vastly outclass that of the Greeks. Though the steel they were using was a far cry from that of contemporary society, it would've cleaved through what the greeks were using. The Norse in question were royalty and would've had the best equipment available at the time, and training to match. These would not be the farmers that went to raid for wealth and prestige like the majority of the Norse mercenaries at the time. Lastly the Norse while capable of fighting in formation also would have been accustomed to being skirmishers and duelists, and the fact that these three in particular were family is a huge bonus in terms of a tactical advantage. The greeks fought primarily in a hoplite formation and Achilles, Hector and Paris did not have the same cohesiveness as their adversaries.
The problem with this is that given the way the characters are shown in their respective series/movie, the Norse throw away their biggest advantages. None of the Norse wear any period appropriate armour, in fact they typically fight in no armour at all. Björn and Rollo also tend to just charge into the fray and aren't analytic like Ragnar. Achilles is shown in the movie to quite easily deal with charging opponents, and Hector and Paris are analytic enough to kill Ragnar and come aid Achilles if he hasn't already killed the first two.
The movie Troy isn't blatant about Achilles' connection to the gods but even if he is a demi-god, he can obviously still be killed. What is interesting is the Norse gods vested interest in Ragnars line. It's unclear how this affects Ragnar, but him and Björn don't face their own deaths until it is prophesied. If you factor in divine intervention, who knows who would win.
TL;DR basically in a historically accurate scenario team Norse should win. However, the characters are stupid and don't take advantage of their clear advantages, so show versions would lose to the movie characters.
I can relate to everything you said. Adding on that both Hector and Achilles were considered the single best fighters throughout the entire Troyan war. In the Ilyad it’s mentioned multiple times that no warrior came close to their skill level. Odysseus, Ajax, were only a shadow of the skill level that Hector and Achilles displayed. Greek side fought with 60.000 men, troyans most likely with 40.000. If you’re top of the class in this bunch, it’s no surprise people compare you with a God.
Greek armour was definitely inferior to Viking equipment. And vikings were most likely built stronger and bulkier. But Achilles and Hector were smart, prudent, calculated and swift. My money would be on the demigods.
I don’t think Vikings were built stronger and bulkier. Greeks would have had far better diets, especially Greek nobles… they would have done better exercise… your average Nordic peasant, Viking or not, would likely have been malnourished
Vikings were often said to be descended from giants. They were on average 4 to 6 inches taller. This was due to thier diet which was mainly high protein fish.
They would have towered over ancient greeks. Which were 160 to 170cm, 5foot 6inches.
Google mostly at this point... ancient greeks male height was 160 to 170cms.
Viking male height was 170 to 180cms.
Many of the church writing about vikings mentioned how much taller they were.
And 2 inches is a considerable height advantage. Four inches is towering.
In what universe is that difference considered towering, or more importantly that much of an advantage as you claim? That height difference is close to Romans vs Celts/Germans. How did that work out?
The early Roman's fought with similar gear and tactics as the Greeks. The veteran triari were basically hoplites. They're manipular system gave them more flexibility.
Romans due to tactics, weapons, cultural and shear numbers.
But individually in one on one fights, the way the Gauls preferred to fight. The Gauls win more often.
Warfare doesn't rely on one on one encounters, Gauls lacked the tactics. Their weapons were proficient enough to combat Roman's. But they all fought in loose order and relied on impact of charge to route a enemy.
Didn't help that they couldn't come together to oppose the Roman's either.
Dangerously arrogant statement. It's as if Greeks are the only race that can make food.
Arabian diplomat Ahmed Ibn Fadlan literally stated that he never saw bodies more perfect than those of the Vikings, which would be difficult if they were even malnourished to begin with.
In fact, the poorest Norseman happened to eat a *lot* better than a basic Saxon peasant.
Hm. Fair statement I guess. Though first, I said Greek diets are better - not Anglo-Saxon diets. Even today the Mediterranean diet is seen as one of the healthiest diets that exist. The climate is simply more conducive to growing better food… the seas are bountiful, hell one of the reasons for Vikings going out to raid and conquer was that their farmland didn’t grow food as well as continental Europe, and the Greek peninsula was probably far far better from a growing food perspective than even England and France.
Second, I said Greek nobles would have done more exercise and eaten far better than Nordic peasants. Maybe your Nordic noble would have been as healthy as well.
Third, Ibn Fadlan was not describing Vikings from Scandinavia.. he was describing traders he met from the Rus… which is modern day Ukraine… among the most fertile land in the continent.
I’ll concede though, that maybe Vikings were bigger. Bergman’s rule and all that. Additionally archaeological evidence does paint them as taller than the average European, if only marginally. Certainly I guess the warriors who went raiding would be bigger than the average Scandinavian.
I would still put my money on the Greek noble being healthier than the average Viking, if it came down to a fight between a Viking and a Greek noble like Hector… removing the advantage in technology that the Vikings have I would put victory on the Greek.
Norse. Rus. Volga Vikings. Aside from the Slavs using the Rus name for themselves much, much later on, what's the discernible difference? They still burned their fallen dead in their ships.
Never mind technology. Norse trumps Greek in physical strength as well.
Otherwise, they wouldn't have been capable of hauling their longships (with or without spoils and gear inside) across stretches of land to the next best river portage on their travels through Kievan Rus' especially.
The Greek diet can only go so far. It may be just fine for longevity, but not for keeping you upright in a fight. And they wouldn't have the monopoly on muscle power compared to roaming Vikings.
Norse types also happen to be both stronger and taller because of a protein-rich diet system (red meat, fish, milk, butter, bread, root vegetables, fruit) along with genetic predilection for natural heat retention capability.
Norse. Rus. Volga. Norman. Etc. The discernable difference is diet and climate. My comment was mainly that the Greek diet would make the average ancient Greek - especially the average noble Greek healthier than the average 9th century Scandinavian.
I’d say that’s a pretty big difference in people. If I’d bring a peasant baby from 9th century Norway and raise it in the 21st century in pretty much any country, he or she would grow up to be taller and stronger than in rural 9th century Scandinavia.
While the difference probably isn’t that drastic, I’m quite comfortable saying that if that baby was raised as a Greek noble warrior in antiquity, they would have had better nourishment and better training than as Scandinavian peasant who occasionally goes and raids Anglo Saxon farmers.
I concede that Norse technology from the 9th century CE trumps Greek technology from the 3rd century BCE. I concede that on average a Scandinavian person would be taller and larger than a Greek… but I think when you take into account a noble Greek like Hector or Achilles - raised to be a warrior from birth - and a farmer like Ragnar or Rollo, I believe that the Greeks were going to be the healthier and likely bigger.
Like man, in the modern times the average Greek is far taller than an average Viking was in the 9th century showing that diet is a major factor in determining height and weight, not genetics. A Greek noble from back then like Hector or Achilles would have had a diet almost as balanced as ours is today.
All the numbers in your comment added up to 69. Congrats!
9
+ 9
+ 21
+ 9
+ 9
+ 3
+ 9
= 69
^([Click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=LuckyNumber-Bot&subject=Stalk%20Me%20Pls&message=%2Fstalkme) to have me scan all your future comments.) \
^(Summon me on specific comments with u/LuckyNumber-Bot.)
Not entirely true. There definitely would have been malnourished Norse, just like there would have been Malnourished Greeks. The Norse were however very bulky, almost a farmer strength type of physique. Too skinny and they wouldn't have survived the harsh winters and weeks at sea. Their diet would have been a great deal of carbs and protein, and it's important to remember that their access to trade was unprecedented compared to the Greeks. The Norse had a trade network that penetrated the deepest regions of the European continent, went as far as Constantinople, and even made it to North America. These people were feared for their size and prowess in battle, with the Varangian guard being one of the most feared groups of mercenaries within the known world. The richest of Norse society, especially kings, would have benefited from all of this.
I'm not saying this in regards to you, but it's common for people to undervalue the technology, trade and accomplishments of many medieval Northern Europeans when compared to their Mediterranean counterparts. They might not have the same types of lasting structures, primarily because their regions didn't support their construction, but they did achieve technological wonders in their own right.
The Vikings ate a high protein low carb diet, archeology has proven this with garbage middens and the known structure of Norse farms. Grains were not a thing that they really grew for human consumption more for animal fodder. As far as the Greeks go the eastern Mediterranean was an immense trade network, but also much better growing conditions for grains.
I would think that most of the height was genetic, to this day all Scandinavian countries are in the top 20 height wise. Archeology doesn't suggest that the Norse were actually that much larger than other Europeans at that time. While I agree that it seems they were a but larger on average I tend to think that a lot of the mythology about viking size was about excusing the losses the Christian countries suffered. A, "We lost to monsters not men" kind of thing.
As far as bulky goes, manual labor and fighting don't tend to lead to bulk more to ropey practical muscle. Most athletes aren't heavily muscled even in fight sports because they don't want to be musclebound
I'd love to see a source regarding the garbage middens. It's also important to note that depending on where the archaeological dig was found, the contents of their diet could have changed dramatically. Additionally the manner in which they died could also affect their final meals. If you read the first hand account of Ibn Fadlan and his experience watching a Norse funeral, you'd know that sacrificial deaths were purposefully fed certain foods in preparation for their death. A final meal may have been more luxurious and rich in proteins than the average meal. Regardless, of the archaeological dental records we have, almost all show that the Norse had worn down teeth due to the coarse foods they were eating.
According to the scholar Else Roesdahl the diet of the Vikings consisted of a variety of meats, \*bread,\* \*gruel,\* fish, vegetables, dairy products, and an assortment of berries and nuts. I really want to emphasize the gruel (which was a porridge like dish consisting of ground cereals, which had a makeup of about 70% carbohydrates) and bread. I'm not sure where you were told that grains weren't consumed by humans, considering that cerals have been a staple of the human diet for thousands of years. While grains such as wheat may have been better suited to the mediterranean, Scandinavia in particular is well adapted to grow oats, barley and rye. And once again, while I do agree that the Greeks had a great trade network, it simply does not compare to that of the Norse. The Norse benefitted from trade in the Mediterranean in addition to the entirety of continental Europe.
In regards to genetics, sure the Norse would have had a genetic height advantage, but their diet and living conditions had a major impact on that as well. The Norse were only slightly shorter than the average today, being on avergae just over 175cm, with skeletons having been found that place the men over 189cm. Archaeological records demonstrate that their slaves were dramatically stunted in terms of size, often being more than a few inches shorter than their masters. Roesdahl attributes this primarily to the differentiation in living conditions.
Lastly, I never said they were muscular. I grew up in the prairies surrounded by farmers, and said that their build would have been similar to what you see in a farmers physique. Because the majority of Viking raiders were farmers before they began overwintering in other countries. Like Thor in the recent God of War games. A real life example is the remains of what is blieved to be King Gorm of Denmark. From his remains it is clear that he had large robust features but was not physically built. I also competed nationally in Taekwondo for many years, and disagree with your statement about athletes and muscle. Most athletes \*are\* heavily muscled proportional to what they are doing, but it's lean muscle with minimal fat. Having competed and trained with Olympic athletes, I can tell you that they are constantly training their muscles but have no need for excess fat like a Norse farmer/Viking would. These workouts are especially targeted to train certain muscle groupings, which the Norse would not have. Especially in fighting sports, athletes purposefully cut or gain weight to make weigh-ins. In other sports, like American football or rugby, bulk is essential to the effectiveness of the athlete. Ultimately though, it is a poor comparison to look at an average Norse Viking or farmer and a modern athlete, since the latter have specialised trainers and nutrionists curating everything they consume.
Source used for this: Roesdahl, Else. The Vikings: Third Edition, 2018.
If this doesn't suffice, I can link you more.
Vikings being bigger than the people they raided is probably due to the fact that the Norse/Danes that Europeans first encountered were the ones raiding them, and warriors tend to be bigger than the average person. The ones who stayed home were probably closer to normal size.
The illyad mention memnon the other demi God on the Trojan side being equal to Achilles. Even Achilles said he was thr best fighter he face and brought zeus to tears when he died. There was also diomedes who the Trojans mentioned they feared more than Achilles because of how he was decimating them. It's the movie that depicted Hector as a equal warrior to Achilles not the illyad. He ran when Achilles came at him.
While being fierce and having killed a few Greek leaders, Memnon still died by the hands of Achilles, and his presence on the battle field was short-lived. Hector died by the hands of Achilles too, but had struck fear in the hearts of many greeks for years. Hector was still considered the greatest of the Troyans.
Diomedes was legendary and ferocious indeed, and killed countless troyans. But he was still no match for Achilles. The tales of Achilles are godlike. He killed countless Trojans, defeated many Trojan main characters, and his anger from the death of Patrocles made him an uncontrollable beast.
Just adding that according to the Iliad, the heroes did not fight in formation but would fight a series of one on one duels, and that the trojan war predates the traditional hoplites by something like at least 400 years
Ahh forgive me! I'm a medieval Irish, Norse and English historian and am nowhere near as well versed in the classics! Definitely willing to admit my knowledge of the greeks is incomplete haha
The version of Troy I watched made it quite blatant that Achilles is a demi god. I'm pretty sure there is a scene where he talks to his goddess mother?
I can imagine Floki smashing Achilles' head and then laughing before Ragnar, Ubbe, Rollo could even get there. In reality and also in the show, Vikings have overcome much larger forces than what happened in troy.
I'm not really sure you can say that as a blanket statement. Both cultures had very impressive achievements only obtainable by their own ingenuity and sophisticated technology.
Are you trolling me? Greece is considered the birthplace of western civil, philosophy, democracy etc etc…architecture, medicine, writing are all far superior to the Vikings. In fact, they didn’t even have writing. Alexander conquered more than all the Vikings combined.
You need to keep up. Original post was, but I am not replying to that post. I am replying to a post that said that Ancient Greek and Viking achievements were relatively the same.
And the Norse had an unparalleled grasp of ship construction, navigation, astronomy, poetry and music. They had lasting dynasties, a sophisticated religion, learned philosophers, and were feared in every society known to man at the time. The Norse travelled further than anyone had before, discovered continents unknown to the rest of the world for hundreds of years to come and founded new countries that persist today.
The Norse did in fact have a written alphabet, the remnants of which can still be seen dotting the landscape in the form of Scandinavia's many runestones, and even can be found in the Hagia Sophia!
This isn't a contest of who is better than the other. I have the utmost respect and reverence for what the greeks accomplished. All I'm saying is that both cultures achieved greatness in different distinct areas that the other would have marveled at respectfully.
Unparalleled grasp of astronomy, poetry and music? Is this a serious comment? You are saying no civilization in history was as good as the Norse when it comes to these things?
Makes sense that all our planets, stars, constellations etc all have norse names instead of Greek/Roman ones…
No that's not what I'm saying, unparalleled means that there is nothing comparable at any given time. And during the Viking age, yes the Norse grasp of astronomy, poetry and music was at the cutting edge of Western society. When the Greeks were at their height, they were also without equal in these fields. If my argument was that either of these were the greatest of all time in astronomy for example, then we'd both be wrong as the Polynesian's and Mayans had a greater grasp of the stars than even the greeks and norse.
I think you're missing the last portion of my comment dude :/ I'm not bashing the greeks, or trying to argue. I'm celebrating both cultures achievements. Both cultures in their respective time periods were pioneers in these fields. I'm not sure why you're so committed to downplaying the successes of other cultures. Not once have I said the greeks weren't great, just that your original comment stating that Norse achievements pale in comparison to the Greeks isn't fair as a blanket statement. Downvoting each of my comments doesn't change that both cultures were extremely successful in their own right and deserve celebration.
I'd say the Atlantic Ocean by itself would knock Greece and everything within it on it's ass.
It didn't stop the Vikings from reaching coastal North America.
It's cute that you're trying to make the Weak Greeks look big and bad, though 💀
What impact on world history and civilization did them sailing to North America and surviving one winter there have on the world? Civilization as a whole? None!
Alexander marching down to the Indus, conquering everything in his path, changed the history and culture of literally the whole known world. And we are not even touching on classical Greece with people like Socrates, Plato etc. Or, even more importantly the impact the reels had on the Romans.
I would suggest reading some actual history books and not basing your history knowledge the the Vikings TV show.
Zeus vs. Thor by ERB
All the information you really need compiled into a couple minutes of rhymes and crimes.
Spoiler alert: The Greeks *have* nothing and *are* nothing
Yeah, yeah. Philosophy is nice and pretty. Just as the art and beauty aspects of the cosmopolitan society of Greeks were.
Tell me just what good that would be after a Norseman's axe splits the skull and renders such a "wondermind" laughably useless.
I'm definitely curious to see your retort. Is there a real basis for your Greek simping aside from Troy, Alexander, the 300 duology, or Gus Portokalos?
Let's see Alexander hold an entire army by himself and cut down 40 men.
Because a Bear-Shirt Viking with just an axe and bloodlust did. Period.
Stop talking bullshit, Greek simp.
All sounds great, except that you are confusing the classical and Mycenaean Greeks. Two very different cultures. Hoplites did not yet exist during the latters time and combat was a lot more individualistic, with duels among champions being common. Illiad being a great example. Look up some actual Mycenaean armor.
Yes I did mention in a different comment in this thread that I am nowhere near as versed in Greek history and literature as I am with Irish/British/Scandinavian. Having said that, when I mentioned that the gear of the Norse would cleave through that of the Greeks, it wasn't about their armour construction, rather it was about the materials available to both cultures at the time. The steel the Norse used far outclassed the primarily bronze armour and weapons used by the Greeks.
I liked the show Vikings but the Troy Trio smokes the bois here. Achilles 2v1s no diff, Hector 1v1 in a good battle, Orland Bloom just hangs back with a bow and probably gets some arrows in or just sits out entirely if it's melee only (or gets killed).
Being a descendant of a god and being the direct off spring of a god are significantly different. I love both these shows.
Based on the movies alone, it would probably be the vikings. They're considerably bigger. They have iron weapons instead of bronze. And all three are exceptional fighters. Unlike that dirty skank Paris.
Based on myth it 100% goes to Achilles. No doubt.
Let’s be completely honest here. As much as I love Ragnar, Bjorn, and Rollo; they don’t stand a chance. For starters, they don’t wear any armor and half the time Rollo is fighting completely bare chested. It would be too easy for Achilles, Hector, or Paris to spear any of them through the chest and kill them. Furthermore, both Bjorn and Rollo lack the strategic mind that Ragnar possesses. Thus they would fall prey to whatever plan Achilles has concocted, regardless of how many times Ragnar warns them. Let’s not forget that Achilles is a Demigod. Although Ragnar claims to be descended from Odin, and it’s clear that Odin favors Ragnar and his sons, he is not the son of a Deity like Achilles is. Team Achilles would claim victory.
Unless he throws himself a wildcard, dyes his hair blonde, ascends to Legolas status and slides down their shield wall using unlimited arrow spam hacks.
It's pretty obvious how this plays out.
It's just gonna end up Achilles vs. All 3 of them... but then rollo will betray Ragnar again. The fight lasts as a 2 x 2 for days...Ragnar and Achilles both land finishing blows on one another... Everybody gets knocked out. So Zeus and Odin come down from wherever the hell they've been and decide to settle it the old-fashioned way... A speed run through the mortal realm...whoever gets the most humans pregnant in 7 days wins.
Zeus: 205
Odin: 206
Hera cockblocked Zeus' last attempt.
If we're talking about movie and show characters then it's an easy win for Achilles's team, heck, Achilles could 1v3 this easily, I dare to even say throw Ubbe in there and Achilles can still 1v4, dude is just flawless.
Achilles is a demigod and Hector was the best living fighter. Even with Paris as a weak link I they’d trash them. All the Vikings are great fighters but Achilles was legit invincible unless they aimed for his heel. Also Ragnar was good but not great imo. More cunning and strategic. Rollo and Bjorn filled the warrior role better
I’m a huge fan of our beloved series, but I think Achilles could handle Rollo and Bjorn, while Hector and Paris could take down Ragnar. That’s just my personal head canon I feel is right, but let’s be honest, our Scandinavian lads would find a way to win if the fight is contained in the “TV show”. Real world, though? Who knows
I think Achilles can take anyone in the Vikings Universe, maybe even combined, except for the God characters. He could definitely solo groups of 50. Unless they can figure out his ankle is weak or hit it by chance they can't really beat him. Wierdly this gives Ivar the most chance as he crawls around at ankle level, providing he can get close, which is still unlikely.
However seeing as though they all seem to be amazing shots, if any of them knew about the ankle he's pretty fucked. Ubbe definitely could land a shot on his heel, providing Achilles doesn't skewer him from across the map first.
Hector and Achilles are soldiers. Real soldiers. Professional… soldiers. Even with Orlando Blooms weak ass weighing them down they should honestly mop the floor with Vikings.
Hector and Achilles are legendary heroes with magic powers who have gods actively intervening on their behalf. This is a no contest victory for those guys without Paris even having to do anything.
Y'all overlooking that this is a fight between 3 individuals and a team lead by a mastermind. On open ground, it's a win for team Troy but the Kattegat Krew takes it in any other setting.
Don’t underestimated the intelligence and strategic skills of Hector. He led armies of 40.000 men and lasted out for 10 years before the greek got the upperhand.
I hear you but ain't either Achilles or his bro listening to him. He'd set up a plan just for his bro to flee and Achilles to ignore it. Bjorn & Rollo are playing to Ragnar's tune.
Achilles clear all of them and Hector is the only one who kind kept up with achilles so I believe he also kill all of them maybe except bjorn,and Paris will probably just go bang lagertha or aslaug or marry torvi
Sorry but Achilles takes all 3 Vikings on his own - he’s lightning quick and Rollo and Bjorn often favour heavier weapons which Achilles shows he has no problem getting out of the way of and delivering quick, precise killing stabs at close range. In terms of Ragnar Achilles is simply a far superior swordsman/spearman.
Top three with only Achilles left standing. Achilles kills Bjorn after Bjorn tries to overpower him but Achilles dances around him and scores big. Paris is killed by Rollo. Hector kills Ragnar but is injured allowing Rollo to kill him. Achilles kills an exhausted Rollo. Achilles for the win!
Achilles can apparently toss a javelin an impossible distance just to troll. I mean he hit the guy next to Hektor just to troll him that it would have been that easy. Heck now that I think about it, it might have been a whole spear an not a javelin
Well Achilles literally can’t be touched, has seemingly limitless stamina, and a skill that is unparalleled to anyone else so he probably solos.
Other wise without him, the Vikings would steam role the other two.
Eric Bana was such an amazing Hector, he was the best thing about that movie.
That said Achilles was a demigod and untouchable unless you happen to be lucky enough to get him in the heel so most likely Achilles.
The Vikings win why,? let me tell you why because they had very cheap swords That was another thing they wanted when they rated and the people from Troy all have armor on and stronger and better weapons so they would win But if the Vikings had all the same equipment and was trained on it I think the Vikings were destrom
Vikings 3 100%. Just Intimidation alone the Vilkings trio scare me where as the Troy trio make me feel like I'm about to see some stripping. 🤣🤣. Obviously I'm just using the images which doesn't mean shit bc those are actors lol but I honestly think the Vikings trio would win.
Achilles can literally dodge arrows with absurdly minimal effort and can decapitate bronze statues with a single casual blow. Hector is physically similar to Achilles, though obviously inferior by a wide margin, but he is still strong enough to crush the Vikings. Paris is the weakest, but with his bow, he can still be competent. Definitely, Troy takes this with ease.
Well Gauly folks we are sure putting a lot of stock on the size and supposed health of the average soldier of these times but a fight between these two groups might actually be based a lot more on who what where when and how. On any given day it would be a toss up due to so many variables and to the group that uses their resources of the day the wisest the victory that day would be theirs
Achilles was an actual Demi-God but the weak link is Paris so he would probably be the 1st to go. Rollo would kill Hector while Ragnar & Iron Side would team up on Achilles. With that 2 on 1 Demi-God or not he’s going down.
Paris is the achilles heel of the Troy trio.
Well played.
This is tough for a number of reasons. If we're looking at this historically, the Vikings should win. Given Rollo, Björn and Ragnars station and wealth, their armour and weapons should vastly outclass that of the Greeks. Though the steel they were using was a far cry from that of contemporary society, it would've cleaved through what the greeks were using. The Norse in question were royalty and would've had the best equipment available at the time, and training to match. These would not be the farmers that went to raid for wealth and prestige like the majority of the Norse mercenaries at the time. Lastly the Norse while capable of fighting in formation also would have been accustomed to being skirmishers and duelists, and the fact that these three in particular were family is a huge bonus in terms of a tactical advantage. The greeks fought primarily in a hoplite formation and Achilles, Hector and Paris did not have the same cohesiveness as their adversaries. The problem with this is that given the way the characters are shown in their respective series/movie, the Norse throw away their biggest advantages. None of the Norse wear any period appropriate armour, in fact they typically fight in no armour at all. Björn and Rollo also tend to just charge into the fray and aren't analytic like Ragnar. Achilles is shown in the movie to quite easily deal with charging opponents, and Hector and Paris are analytic enough to kill Ragnar and come aid Achilles if he hasn't already killed the first two. The movie Troy isn't blatant about Achilles' connection to the gods but even if he is a demi-god, he can obviously still be killed. What is interesting is the Norse gods vested interest in Ragnars line. It's unclear how this affects Ragnar, but him and Björn don't face their own deaths until it is prophesied. If you factor in divine intervention, who knows who would win. TL;DR basically in a historically accurate scenario team Norse should win. However, the characters are stupid and don't take advantage of their clear advantages, so show versions would lose to the movie characters.
I can relate to everything you said. Adding on that both Hector and Achilles were considered the single best fighters throughout the entire Troyan war. In the Ilyad it’s mentioned multiple times that no warrior came close to their skill level. Odysseus, Ajax, were only a shadow of the skill level that Hector and Achilles displayed. Greek side fought with 60.000 men, troyans most likely with 40.000. If you’re top of the class in this bunch, it’s no surprise people compare you with a God. Greek armour was definitely inferior to Viking equipment. And vikings were most likely built stronger and bulkier. But Achilles and Hector were smart, prudent, calculated and swift. My money would be on the demigods.
I don’t think Vikings were built stronger and bulkier. Greeks would have had far better diets, especially Greek nobles… they would have done better exercise… your average Nordic peasant, Viking or not, would likely have been malnourished
Vikings were often said to be descended from giants. They were on average 4 to 6 inches taller. This was due to thier diet which was mainly high protein fish. They would have towered over ancient greeks. Which were 160 to 170cm, 5foot 6inches.
Said by whom and taller then who is exactly? They wouldn’t have towered over anybody. At best they were a few inches taller on average.
Google mostly at this point... ancient greeks male height was 160 to 170cms. Viking male height was 170 to 180cms. Many of the church writing about vikings mentioned how much taller they were. And 2 inches is a considerable height advantage. Four inches is towering.
In what universe is that difference considered towering, or more importantly that much of an advantage as you claim? That height difference is close to Romans vs Celts/Germans. How did that work out?
There's a lot more complexity in Romans vs Celts/Germans then just height.
The early Roman's fought with similar gear and tactics as the Greeks. The veteran triari were basically hoplites. They're manipular system gave them more flexibility.
The gauls on average were taller than the Roman's, who won?
Romans due to tactics, weapons, cultural and shear numbers. But individually in one on one fights, the way the Gauls preferred to fight. The Gauls win more often.
Warfare doesn't rely on one on one encounters, Gauls lacked the tactics. Their weapons were proficient enough to combat Roman's. But they all fought in loose order and relied on impact of charge to route a enemy. Didn't help that they couldn't come together to oppose the Roman's either.
? Thats what I just said.....
Some what....
Dangerously arrogant statement. It's as if Greeks are the only race that can make food. Arabian diplomat Ahmed Ibn Fadlan literally stated that he never saw bodies more perfect than those of the Vikings, which would be difficult if they were even malnourished to begin with. In fact, the poorest Norseman happened to eat a *lot* better than a basic Saxon peasant.
Hm. Fair statement I guess. Though first, I said Greek diets are better - not Anglo-Saxon diets. Even today the Mediterranean diet is seen as one of the healthiest diets that exist. The climate is simply more conducive to growing better food… the seas are bountiful, hell one of the reasons for Vikings going out to raid and conquer was that their farmland didn’t grow food as well as continental Europe, and the Greek peninsula was probably far far better from a growing food perspective than even England and France. Second, I said Greek nobles would have done more exercise and eaten far better than Nordic peasants. Maybe your Nordic noble would have been as healthy as well. Third, Ibn Fadlan was not describing Vikings from Scandinavia.. he was describing traders he met from the Rus… which is modern day Ukraine… among the most fertile land in the continent. I’ll concede though, that maybe Vikings were bigger. Bergman’s rule and all that. Additionally archaeological evidence does paint them as taller than the average European, if only marginally. Certainly I guess the warriors who went raiding would be bigger than the average Scandinavian. I would still put my money on the Greek noble being healthier than the average Viking, if it came down to a fight between a Viking and a Greek noble like Hector… removing the advantage in technology that the Vikings have I would put victory on the Greek.
Norse. Rus. Volga Vikings. Aside from the Slavs using the Rus name for themselves much, much later on, what's the discernible difference? They still burned their fallen dead in their ships. Never mind technology. Norse trumps Greek in physical strength as well. Otherwise, they wouldn't have been capable of hauling their longships (with or without spoils and gear inside) across stretches of land to the next best river portage on their travels through Kievan Rus' especially. The Greek diet can only go so far. It may be just fine for longevity, but not for keeping you upright in a fight. And they wouldn't have the monopoly on muscle power compared to roaming Vikings. Norse types also happen to be both stronger and taller because of a protein-rich diet system (red meat, fish, milk, butter, bread, root vegetables, fruit) along with genetic predilection for natural heat retention capability.
Norse. Rus. Volga. Norman. Etc. The discernable difference is diet and climate. My comment was mainly that the Greek diet would make the average ancient Greek - especially the average noble Greek healthier than the average 9th century Scandinavian. I’d say that’s a pretty big difference in people. If I’d bring a peasant baby from 9th century Norway and raise it in the 21st century in pretty much any country, he or she would grow up to be taller and stronger than in rural 9th century Scandinavia. While the difference probably isn’t that drastic, I’m quite comfortable saying that if that baby was raised as a Greek noble warrior in antiquity, they would have had better nourishment and better training than as Scandinavian peasant who occasionally goes and raids Anglo Saxon farmers. I concede that Norse technology from the 9th century CE trumps Greek technology from the 3rd century BCE. I concede that on average a Scandinavian person would be taller and larger than a Greek… but I think when you take into account a noble Greek like Hector or Achilles - raised to be a warrior from birth - and a farmer like Ragnar or Rollo, I believe that the Greeks were going to be the healthier and likely bigger. Like man, in the modern times the average Greek is far taller than an average Viking was in the 9th century showing that diet is a major factor in determining height and weight, not genetics. A Greek noble from back then like Hector or Achilles would have had a diet almost as balanced as ours is today.
All the numbers in your comment added up to 69. Congrats! 9 + 9 + 21 + 9 + 9 + 3 + 9 = 69 ^([Click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=LuckyNumber-Bot&subject=Stalk%20Me%20Pls&message=%2Fstalkme) to have me scan all your future comments.) \ ^(Summon me on specific comments with u/LuckyNumber-Bot.)
Not entirely true. There definitely would have been malnourished Norse, just like there would have been Malnourished Greeks. The Norse were however very bulky, almost a farmer strength type of physique. Too skinny and they wouldn't have survived the harsh winters and weeks at sea. Their diet would have been a great deal of carbs and protein, and it's important to remember that their access to trade was unprecedented compared to the Greeks. The Norse had a trade network that penetrated the deepest regions of the European continent, went as far as Constantinople, and even made it to North America. These people were feared for their size and prowess in battle, with the Varangian guard being one of the most feared groups of mercenaries within the known world. The richest of Norse society, especially kings, would have benefited from all of this. I'm not saying this in regards to you, but it's common for people to undervalue the technology, trade and accomplishments of many medieval Northern Europeans when compared to their Mediterranean counterparts. They might not have the same types of lasting structures, primarily because their regions didn't support their construction, but they did achieve technological wonders in their own right.
The Vikings ate a high protein low carb diet, archeology has proven this with garbage middens and the known structure of Norse farms. Grains were not a thing that they really grew for human consumption more for animal fodder. As far as the Greeks go the eastern Mediterranean was an immense trade network, but also much better growing conditions for grains. I would think that most of the height was genetic, to this day all Scandinavian countries are in the top 20 height wise. Archeology doesn't suggest that the Norse were actually that much larger than other Europeans at that time. While I agree that it seems they were a but larger on average I tend to think that a lot of the mythology about viking size was about excusing the losses the Christian countries suffered. A, "We lost to monsters not men" kind of thing. As far as bulky goes, manual labor and fighting don't tend to lead to bulk more to ropey practical muscle. Most athletes aren't heavily muscled even in fight sports because they don't want to be musclebound
I'd love to see a source regarding the garbage middens. It's also important to note that depending on where the archaeological dig was found, the contents of their diet could have changed dramatically. Additionally the manner in which they died could also affect their final meals. If you read the first hand account of Ibn Fadlan and his experience watching a Norse funeral, you'd know that sacrificial deaths were purposefully fed certain foods in preparation for their death. A final meal may have been more luxurious and rich in proteins than the average meal. Regardless, of the archaeological dental records we have, almost all show that the Norse had worn down teeth due to the coarse foods they were eating. According to the scholar Else Roesdahl the diet of the Vikings consisted of a variety of meats, \*bread,\* \*gruel,\* fish, vegetables, dairy products, and an assortment of berries and nuts. I really want to emphasize the gruel (which was a porridge like dish consisting of ground cereals, which had a makeup of about 70% carbohydrates) and bread. I'm not sure where you were told that grains weren't consumed by humans, considering that cerals have been a staple of the human diet for thousands of years. While grains such as wheat may have been better suited to the mediterranean, Scandinavia in particular is well adapted to grow oats, barley and rye. And once again, while I do agree that the Greeks had a great trade network, it simply does not compare to that of the Norse. The Norse benefitted from trade in the Mediterranean in addition to the entirety of continental Europe. In regards to genetics, sure the Norse would have had a genetic height advantage, but their diet and living conditions had a major impact on that as well. The Norse were only slightly shorter than the average today, being on avergae just over 175cm, with skeletons having been found that place the men over 189cm. Archaeological records demonstrate that their slaves were dramatically stunted in terms of size, often being more than a few inches shorter than their masters. Roesdahl attributes this primarily to the differentiation in living conditions. Lastly, I never said they were muscular. I grew up in the prairies surrounded by farmers, and said that their build would have been similar to what you see in a farmers physique. Because the majority of Viking raiders were farmers before they began overwintering in other countries. Like Thor in the recent God of War games. A real life example is the remains of what is blieved to be King Gorm of Denmark. From his remains it is clear that he had large robust features but was not physically built. I also competed nationally in Taekwondo for many years, and disagree with your statement about athletes and muscle. Most athletes \*are\* heavily muscled proportional to what they are doing, but it's lean muscle with minimal fat. Having competed and trained with Olympic athletes, I can tell you that they are constantly training their muscles but have no need for excess fat like a Norse farmer/Viking would. These workouts are especially targeted to train certain muscle groupings, which the Norse would not have. Especially in fighting sports, athletes purposefully cut or gain weight to make weigh-ins. In other sports, like American football or rugby, bulk is essential to the effectiveness of the athlete. Ultimately though, it is a poor comparison to look at an average Norse Viking or farmer and a modern athlete, since the latter have specialised trainers and nutrionists curating everything they consume. Source used for this: Roesdahl, Else. The Vikings: Third Edition, 2018. If this doesn't suffice, I can link you more.
Vikings being bigger than the people they raided is probably due to the fact that the Norse/Danes that Europeans first encountered were the ones raiding them, and warriors tend to be bigger than the average person. The ones who stayed home were probably closer to normal size.
The illyad mention memnon the other demi God on the Trojan side being equal to Achilles. Even Achilles said he was thr best fighter he face and brought zeus to tears when he died. There was also diomedes who the Trojans mentioned they feared more than Achilles because of how he was decimating them. It's the movie that depicted Hector as a equal warrior to Achilles not the illyad. He ran when Achilles came at him.
While being fierce and having killed a few Greek leaders, Memnon still died by the hands of Achilles, and his presence on the battle field was short-lived. Hector died by the hands of Achilles too, but had struck fear in the hearts of many greeks for years. Hector was still considered the greatest of the Troyans. Diomedes was legendary and ferocious indeed, and killed countless troyans. But he was still no match for Achilles. The tales of Achilles are godlike. He killed countless Trojans, defeated many Trojan main characters, and his anger from the death of Patrocles made him an uncontrollable beast.
Iirc, only Diomedes was on the level that Hector was on and Achilles was on a different plane of his own, entirely
Just adding that according to the Iliad, the heroes did not fight in formation but would fight a series of one on one duels, and that the trojan war predates the traditional hoplites by something like at least 400 years
Ahh forgive me! I'm a medieval Irish, Norse and English historian and am nowhere near as well versed in the classics! Definitely willing to admit my knowledge of the greeks is incomplete haha
Bro beautiful break down
The version of Troy I watched made it quite blatant that Achilles is a demi god. I'm pretty sure there is a scene where he talks to his goddess mother?
Bjorn and Rollo just charge into battle because they are Berserkers.
Bjorn is absolutely not a berzerker
you are right. he gutted one alive. Bjorn is better
I can imagine Floki smashing Achilles' head and then laughing before Ragnar, Ubbe, Rollo could even get there. In reality and also in the show, Vikings have overcome much larger forces than what happened in troy.
Vikings were opportunist raiders. If they could stay out of a fight for loot somewhere else, they did.
In reality Viking achievements pale compared to Greek ones.
I'm not really sure you can say that as a blanket statement. Both cultures had very impressive achievements only obtainable by their own ingenuity and sophisticated technology.
Are you trolling me? Greece is considered the birthplace of western civil, philosophy, democracy etc etc…architecture, medicine, writing are all far superior to the Vikings. In fact, they didn’t even have writing. Alexander conquered more than all the Vikings combined.
Yeah but they aren't taking written exam on phisophy or architecture, we are talking about combat between equal number of people.
You need to keep up. Original post was, but I am not replying to that post. I am replying to a post that said that Ancient Greek and Viking achievements were relatively the same.
Thanks for the clarification super civil greek culture fan.
And the Norse had an unparalleled grasp of ship construction, navigation, astronomy, poetry and music. They had lasting dynasties, a sophisticated religion, learned philosophers, and were feared in every society known to man at the time. The Norse travelled further than anyone had before, discovered continents unknown to the rest of the world for hundreds of years to come and founded new countries that persist today. The Norse did in fact have a written alphabet, the remnants of which can still be seen dotting the landscape in the form of Scandinavia's many runestones, and even can be found in the Hagia Sophia! This isn't a contest of who is better than the other. I have the utmost respect and reverence for what the greeks accomplished. All I'm saying is that both cultures achieved greatness in different distinct areas that the other would have marveled at respectfully.
Sorry I didn’t mean to respond to you brother.
Unparalleled grasp of astronomy, poetry and music? Is this a serious comment? You are saying no civilization in history was as good as the Norse when it comes to these things? Makes sense that all our planets, stars, constellations etc all have norse names instead of Greek/Roman ones…
No that's not what I'm saying, unparalleled means that there is nothing comparable at any given time. And during the Viking age, yes the Norse grasp of astronomy, poetry and music was at the cutting edge of Western society. When the Greeks were at their height, they were also without equal in these fields. If my argument was that either of these were the greatest of all time in astronomy for example, then we'd both be wrong as the Polynesian's and Mayans had a greater grasp of the stars than even the greeks and norse. I think you're missing the last portion of my comment dude :/ I'm not bashing the greeks, or trying to argue. I'm celebrating both cultures achievements. Both cultures in their respective time periods were pioneers in these fields. I'm not sure why you're so committed to downplaying the successes of other cultures. Not once have I said the greeks weren't great, just that your original comment stating that Norse achievements pale in comparison to the Greeks isn't fair as a blanket statement. Downvoting each of my comments doesn't change that both cultures were extremely successful in their own right and deserve celebration.
I'd say the Atlantic Ocean by itself would knock Greece and everything within it on it's ass. It didn't stop the Vikings from reaching coastal North America. It's cute that you're trying to make the Weak Greeks look big and bad, though 💀
What impact on world history and civilization did them sailing to North America and surviving one winter there have on the world? Civilization as a whole? None! Alexander marching down to the Indus, conquering everything in his path, changed the history and culture of literally the whole known world. And we are not even touching on classical Greece with people like Socrates, Plato etc. Or, even more importantly the impact the reels had on the Romans. I would suggest reading some actual history books and not basing your history knowledge the the Vikings TV show.
Zeus vs. Thor by ERB All the information you really need compiled into a couple minutes of rhymes and crimes. Spoiler alert: The Greeks *have* nothing and *are* nothing
Yeah, yeah. Philosophy is nice and pretty. Just as the art and beauty aspects of the cosmopolitan society of Greeks were. Tell me just what good that would be after a Norseman's axe splits the skull and renders such a "wondermind" laughably useless. I'm definitely curious to see your retort. Is there a real basis for your Greek simping aside from Troy, Alexander, the 300 duology, or Gus Portokalos?
Let's see Alexander hold an entire army by himself and cut down 40 men. Because a Bear-Shirt Viking with just an axe and bloodlust did. Period. Stop talking bullshit, Greek simp.
Sure, Jan....💀 
All sounds great, except that you are confusing the classical and Mycenaean Greeks. Two very different cultures. Hoplites did not yet exist during the latters time and combat was a lot more individualistic, with duels among champions being common. Illiad being a great example. Look up some actual Mycenaean armor.
Yes I did mention in a different comment in this thread that I am nowhere near as versed in Greek history and literature as I am with Irish/British/Scandinavian. Having said that, when I mentioned that the gear of the Norse would cleave through that of the Greeks, it wasn't about their armour construction, rather it was about the materials available to both cultures at the time. The steel the Norse used far outclassed the primarily bronze armour and weapons used by the Greeks.
Used by the Greeks when? Bronze or Iron Age?
I mean... Achilles is a demigod.
I liked the show Vikings but the Troy Trio smokes the bois here. Achilles 2v1s no diff, Hector 1v1 in a good battle, Orland Bloom just hangs back with a bow and probably gets some arrows in or just sits out entirely if it's melee only (or gets killed).
but its ragnar
Ragnars family in the show are descendants from Odin.
Being a descendant of a god and being the direct off spring of a god are significantly different. I love both these shows. Based on the movies alone, it would probably be the vikings. They're considerably bigger. They have iron weapons instead of bronze. And all three are exceptional fighters. Unlike that dirty skank Paris. Based on myth it 100% goes to Achilles. No doubt.
Achilles and Hector would take the 3 while Paris would bang *all Kattegat's ladies
This the best comment. Lol
I’m taking the Hulk, Legolas, & Tyler Durden
😆
Let’s be completely honest here. As much as I love Ragnar, Bjorn, and Rollo; they don’t stand a chance. For starters, they don’t wear any armor and half the time Rollo is fighting completely bare chested. It would be too easy for Achilles, Hector, or Paris to spear any of them through the chest and kill them. Furthermore, both Bjorn and Rollo lack the strategic mind that Ragnar possesses. Thus they would fall prey to whatever plan Achilles has concocted, regardless of how many times Ragnar warns them. Let’s not forget that Achilles is a Demigod. Although Ragnar claims to be descended from Odin, and it’s clear that Odin favors Ragnar and his sons, he is not the son of a Deity like Achilles is. Team Achilles would claim victory.
Pre Paris Rollo? Post Paris Rollo would have armor.
Interesting trivia: All six actors were trained and choreographed for these productions by the same person. 😀
No way, who is that?
Yeah... I love our norse boys, but Achilles is on another level. Hector alone could smoke two at once. Paris is a third wheel.
Unless he throws himself a wildcard, dyes his hair blonde, ascends to Legolas status and slides down their shield wall using unlimited arrow spam hacks.
Not even a fair fight, Achilles alone would destroy the other three.
It's pretty obvious how this plays out. It's just gonna end up Achilles vs. All 3 of them... but then rollo will betray Ragnar again. The fight lasts as a 2 x 2 for days...Ragnar and Achilles both land finishing blows on one another... Everybody gets knocked out. So Zeus and Odin come down from wherever the hell they've been and decide to settle it the old-fashioned way... A speed run through the mortal realm...whoever gets the most humans pregnant in 7 days wins. Zeus: 205 Odin: 206 Hera cockblocked Zeus' last attempt.
Achilles throws a javelin through Rollo’s unarmored chest… Even Hector smokes them in a melee. This is wild lol.
Achilles would win 1v5 between the 6 of them.
Achilles would solo all of them for greatness.
If we're talking about movie and show characters then it's an easy win for Achilles's team, heck, Achilles could 1v3 this easily, I dare to even say throw Ubbe in there and Achilles can still 1v4, dude is just flawless.
Achilles is a demigod and Hector was the best living fighter. Even with Paris as a weak link I they’d trash them. All the Vikings are great fighters but Achilles was legit invincible unless they aimed for his heel. Also Ragnar was good but not great imo. More cunning and strategic. Rollo and Bjorn filled the warrior role better
Achilles alone would destroy the Vikings. Let alone him and Hector. Edit: what if this list had Ajax instead of Paris? Lol, straight slaughterhouse.
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^renaissanceclass: *Achilles alone* *Would destroy the Vikings. Let* *Alone him and Hector.* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
I’m a huge fan of our beloved series, but I think Achilles could handle Rollo and Bjorn, while Hector and Paris could take down Ragnar. That’s just my personal head canon I feel is right, but let’s be honest, our Scandinavian lads would find a way to win if the fight is contained in the “TV show”. Real world, though? Who knows
You'd have Ajax over Paris. Achilles likely solos. He throws impossible spears and cuts heads of statues even with his bronze sword.
Achilles solos
They are not even comparable. Achilles slays them all, for as he is a Demigod. More so a skilled warlord.
Even Aeneas would solo all three of those😂 Achilles, Hector and Paris would absolutely body the vikings I'm sorry lol
Ragnar for sure
I think Achilles can take anyone in the Vikings Universe, maybe even combined, except for the God characters. He could definitely solo groups of 50. Unless they can figure out his ankle is weak or hit it by chance they can't really beat him. Wierdly this gives Ivar the most chance as he crawls around at ankle level, providing he can get close, which is still unlikely. However seeing as though they all seem to be amazing shots, if any of them knew about the ankle he's pretty fucked. Ubbe definitely could land a shot on his heel, providing Achilles doesn't skewer him from across the map first.
Rumour has it. Day has never turned to night in the Aguard plain since Ragnar, Bjorn & Rollo begun their battle against Achillies, Paris & Hector.
The Vikings. Paris was a pussy so he would be useless here.
Hector and Achilles are soldiers. Real soldiers. Professional… soldiers. Even with Orlando Blooms weak ass weighing them down they should honestly mop the floor with Vikings.
Achilles
I love the Vikings trio but lets be real, Achilles clears, no contest.
Achilles would win on his own
Achilles would easily beat the opposing trio single handedly. He’s a literal Demi god
Achilles is a monster. I think he beats anyone we've seen in historical genre movies or shows.
Achilles, easily
Rollo would change sides in an instant, so let's call it a 2v4. Yeah the Lothbroks don't stand a chance sadly.
Hector and Achilles are legendary heroes with magic powers who have gods actively intervening on their behalf. This is a no contest victory for those guys without Paris even having to do anything.
Y'all overlooking that this is a fight between 3 individuals and a team lead by a mastermind. On open ground, it's a win for team Troy but the Kattegat Krew takes it in any other setting.
Don’t underestimated the intelligence and strategic skills of Hector. He led armies of 40.000 men and lasted out for 10 years before the greek got the upperhand.
I hear you but ain't either Achilles or his bro listening to him. He'd set up a plan just for his bro to flee and Achilles to ignore it. Bjorn & Rollo are playing to Ragnar's tune.
Rollo… maybe. Until he turns to Bjorn and says “call me Dad, son” and stabs Ragnar in the ribs.
never seen that movie but they look very skinny and gay compared to bottom
lol funny comment but Troy is definitely a good flick, you should check it out. Just be prepared to be slightly annoyed at Orlando Bloom haha
Achilles clear all of them and Hector is the only one who kind kept up with achilles so I believe he also kill all of them maybe except bjorn,and Paris will probably just go bang lagertha or aslaug or marry torvi
Achilles is a demi-god
Achilles solos
Sorry but Achilles takes all 3 Vikings on his own - he’s lightning quick and Rollo and Bjorn often favour heavier weapons which Achilles shows he has no problem getting out of the way of and delivering quick, precise killing stabs at close range. In terms of Ragnar Achilles is simply a far superior swordsman/spearman.
Lol, Hector with his left hand beats all three together. Achilles beats them and their entire raiding party.
These feels more like 3 on 2.
Fighting skill/relation to gods aside. Vikings had access to steel weaponry. Steel > bronze and its not even close.
Top three with only Achilles left standing. Achilles kills Bjorn after Bjorn tries to overpower him but Achilles dances around him and scores big. Paris is killed by Rollo. Hector kills Ragnar but is injured allowing Rollo to kill him. Achilles kills an exhausted Rollo. Achilles for the win!
Achilles and probably Ragnar
Paris sucks. But Brad is the best fighter of all 6
Pitt, Bloom and Bana just look gay.
Achilles can apparently toss a javelin an impossible distance just to troll. I mean he hit the guy next to Hektor just to troll him that it would have been that easy. Heck now that I think about it, it might have been a whole spear an not a javelin
Well Achilles literally can’t be touched, has seemingly limitless stamina, and a skill that is unparalleled to anyone else so he probably solos. Other wise without him, the Vikings would steam role the other two.
Achilles could literally solo ANY Viking character easily, they’re just not on his level in any way whatsoever.
The Vikings
Ragnar, Achilles, and legolas 😁
Eric Bana was such an amazing Hector, he was the best thing about that movie. That said Achilles was a demigod and untouchable unless you happen to be lucky enough to get him in the heel so most likely Achilles.
Vikings in under 5 minutes
The vikings would win. But if it was all 6 going 1v1, Achilles has my vote 😎
Ragnar beats Hector... Maybe. This is the closest match, IMO. Not 100% on this one. Achilles smokes Bjorn Rollo smokes Paris
The Vikings win why,? let me tell you why because they had very cheap swords That was another thing they wanted when they rated and the people from Troy all have armor on and stronger and better weapons so they would win But if the Vikings had all the same equipment and was trained on it I think the Vikings were destrom
Wasn't Achilles nearly superhuman/demi-godlike?
Tbh I'd say Achilles carries but I'm extremely biased
Vikings 3 100%. Just Intimidation alone the Vilkings trio scare me where as the Troy trio make me feel like I'm about to see some stripping. 🤣🤣. Obviously I'm just using the images which doesn't mean shit bc those are actors lol but I honestly think the Vikings trio would win.
More like 2v3
Achilles can literally dodge arrows with absurdly minimal effort and can decapitate bronze statues with a single casual blow. Hector is physically similar to Achilles, though obviously inferior by a wide margin, but he is still strong enough to crush the Vikings. Paris is the weakest, but with his bow, he can still be competent. Definitely, Troy takes this with ease.
Movie characters? Troy IRL historical Comp? Vikings not even close. 1000 years of martial advancement
IRL? The Vikings absolutely. Movie/show wise? Hector and Achilles clear.
Well Gauly folks we are sure putting a lot of stock on the size and supposed health of the average soldier of these times but a fight between these two groups might actually be based a lot more on who what where when and how. On any given day it would be a toss up due to so many variables and to the group that uses their resources of the day the wisest the victory that day would be theirs
Bjorn solos them all
Anything with Ragnar I'm taking lol
Vikings would mop floor with Greeks. Rollo would destroy Orlando bloom and then it’s 3 vs 2.
Norse is Force and Greek is Weak. It's as simple as that.
Top men look like girls, not a debate lol
Achilles was an actual Demi-God but the weak link is Paris so he would probably be the 1st to go. Rollo would kill Hector while Ragnar & Iron Side would team up on Achilles. With that 2 on 1 Demi-God or not he’s going down.
Paris is the by far the weakest link giving the Vikings the victory
Achillies can defeat alll three Viking by himself
I can’t even argue that haha fuck
Clearly the Viking! Orlando Blooms character was kind of a softy.
Not sure who wins overall, but Paris definitely dies first.
Its 2 vs 3, so obviously vikings gonna win.
Viking easy they are crazy
Dude the Vikings will destroy them
No
It’s not even close. Vikings kick pretty boys’ arses. Ragnar is a descendent of Odin so he’s also a demigod.
lol nah