Knight, Viking, Samurai, or Spartan?

[ArlEammon]

In this version of "For Honor" The Spartans are a proud fourth faction of warriors to fight. Who would win, Knight, Viking, Samurai, or Spartan? Spartans had bronze shields which were unmatched in defensive ability for hundreds of years. Their short swords were good for close quarter fighting, and their shield walls, of course, were just as deadly as any other. Spartans held the choke hold of Thermopoly, along with 900 other Greek soldiers against the Persian soldiers, defeating them and killing far more than they lost. They ultimately lost, but their deaths at Thermopoly granted the Greek federation of city states the time they needed to raise and army and crush the Persian forces later. Spartans did not fight half nude. Spartans fought in armor like any other Greek soldier.

Knowing that, if Spartans are a fourth faction in the wars, who wins? Not only that, but how powerful are Spartans as a faction when thrown into the mix?

[GloatingSwine]

In this version of "For Honor" The Spartans are a proud fourth faction of warriors to fight. Who would win, Knight, Viking, Samurai, or Spartan? Spartans had bronze shields which were unmatched in defensive ability for hundreds of years. Their short swords were good for close quarter fighting, and their shield walls, of course, were just as deadly as any other. Spartans held the choke hold of Thermopoly, along with 900 other Greek soldiers against the Persian soldiers, defeating them and killing far more than they lost. They ultimately lost, but their deaths at Thermopoly granted the Greek federation of city states the time they needed to raise and army and crush the Persian forces later. Spartans did not fight half nude. Spartans fought in armor like any other Greek soldier.

Knowing that, if Spartans are a fourth faction in the wars, who wins? Not only that, but how powerful are Spartans as a faction when thrown into the mix?

In the real world? The Samurai shoots the others with a matchlock, because when he was fighting massed gunfire was already dominating warfare. (Especially in Japan. By the end of the Sengoku-jidai, the height of the Samurai in warfare, there were more guns in Japan's armies than anywhere else in the world).

They're not contemporary with each other, and outside of the mechanics of a game that matters a lot more.

[ArlEammon]

In the real world? The Samurai shoots the others with a matchlock, because when he was fighting massed gunfire was already dominating warfare. (Especially in Japan. By the end of the Sengoku-jidai, the height of the Samurai in warfare, there were more guns in Japan's armies than anywhere else in the world).

They're not contemporary with each other, and outside of the mechanics of a game that matters a lot more.

Samurai were around in the 10th century.

[warty goblin]

Against actual knights, samurai and vikings? They're totally obliterated.

Let's go through this one at a time

Vikings. It strikes me as plausible that the Spartans are better heavy infantry than 9th century Norse, and the lower technology level is mostly mitigated by the Spartan hoplites being the absolute elite of their society, while a Norse group would be drawn from both upper and somewhat lower (though still free) classes.

But, as the Peloponnesian War made clear, Spartan heavy infantry were vulnerable to skirmish tactics, and they were extremely bad at defending against seaborne raids. You know, sort of the entire Viking schtick. Combine this with the extreme difficulty that the rigid Spartan society had in replacing losses, and they may win a battle or two, but they'll be picked apart by endless longship raids.


Knights. Showing up to a 14th or 15th century battle in classical Greek wargear would be like showing up to a modern battle with a percussion cap rifle. They're simply totally outclassed, in every regard. Bronze armor won't offer adequate protection against the advanced anti-armor weapons of the late middle ages, their metallurgy isn't as advanced so their iron and steel weapons will be soft and brittle in comparison to the armor it is put up against, and the phalanx is a poor substitute for a pike block. Heavy shock cavalry will also be a really rude awakening.


Samurai. Basically the same story as knights.

[ArlEammon]

If I understand right, Bronze is just as good as steel or iron, maybe BETTER, but it's expensive, and maybe can't be as sharp, but can still be very sharp.

[Dienekes]

Knights win.

Alright, look at my username. That's a famous Spartiate who was awarded the the highest recognition of valor at Thermopylae. I love the Spartans, I think they are legitimately the most interesting ancient civilization, and have been given a bit of a bum rap by always being compared to the Athenians. They were fascinating, and some of their victories are downright astounding. They'd lose this fight, bad.

In a 1 on 1 fight, the Spartans were only considered a bit better than the rest of the Greeks, it was as a unit that they were considered so strong.

If we take an equal number of Spartans against an equal number of Vikings, I might see a possibility of a Spartan victory because the average Spartiate was better equipped than the average raider. But even that's iffy because the best equipped Norseman would have far better equipment than any Spartan could possibly have, since they're stuck in bronze age tech. As far as tactics go, they were fairly similar in pitched battle, both relying on shield walls and spears, and the Spartans seem to do very well against other people who use shield walls and spears, unless they start doing things that they just aren't prepared for, like in the battle of Leuctra (though this was far after Sparta at her prime, but still, I think the point stands that the Spartans didn't deal with changing tactics particularly well). They'd be somewhat uniquely immune to viking raids, since, Sparta itself was landlocked. But then we have to question if they're going to go out to aid allies or not, or if they even have allies with them. If they did, then viking raids would pick apart their allies. If they don't then they're even more screwed.

But ultimately, the Spartans have some of the best trained infantry soldiers, which is a point in their preference. But they had few archers, skirmishers that seem to have been nothing special, and barely any cavalry. They would be absolutely destroyed by shock cavalry commanded by anyone who isn't stupid enough to just send them charging face first into their spears.

Which brings up the next point, Sparta is 1 city. Actually, it's really just 4 villages that sort of combined together. They were monsters on the battlefield, and won a lot. But whenever they lost, even once, it tended to completely disrupt their social and army dynamics. They did not have countries full of reserves like the other factions should have.

Meanwhile the knights in the game seem to be using a mix of tech from around 1200-1600, are far and away the best armored faction, should have the largest population to draw from, and have been successfully using mixed units with pikes, halberds, better bows, crossbows, better siege technology, guns, they should trounce the Spartans in basically every way that matters.

[khadgar567]

buck naked in the world of guys and galls with full armor they get obliterated with out any effort

[ArlEammon]

Bronze weapons and armors were of equal or higher quality than steel, according to some anyway. The only reason why iron and steel became used in warfare instead of Bronze were because of production values.

[Aedilred]

If I understand right, Bronze is just as good as steel or iron, maybe BETTER, but it's expensive, and maybe can't be as sharp, but can still be very sharp.

Debatable. Early iron was certainly inferior to contemporary bronze; like gunpowder it owes its success largely to its ubiquity rather than its quality. However, the armourers of the late Middle Ages had over a thousand years since the terminal decline of Sparta (and nearly three thousand years since the advent of iron) to work on it, and the steel of the 15th century would have been superior to Spartan bronze at least for armouring purposes.

Aside from metallurgy, the armour itself would also have been immeasurably better in design and quantity. Spartan armour in its iconic period basically comprised a breastplate, helmet and greaves, with some additional protection from leather armour: no match for the fully articulated plate armour of the late Middle Ages in any respect. By late medieval standards, Spartans would be lightly but clumsily armoured. Indeed, by around 1400 knights were discarding shields for combat purposes because their armour was sufficiently protective that a shield was counterproductive.

And on the weaponry side, contemporary knightly weapons were also designed to trouble even the heavy armour of the day, and would have had no problem with Spartan armour, while the Spartans would struggle to inflict meaningful damage on an armoured man-at-arms.

I think it's also worth noting that hopla (Spartan shields) were primarily made of wood, not bronze, and probably more protective for it.

[ArlEammon]

Okay then who's more cool!? LOL.

[warty goblin]

Bronze weapons and armors were of equal or higher quality than steel, according to some anyway. The only reason why iron and steel became used in warfare instead of Bronze were because of production values.

Bronze was similar in quality to early iron and steel, but as smelting advanced steel starts to really substantially outperform bronze. So bronze gets slowly phased out for armor and weapons. You can see this starting with classical Sparta in fact, bronze was still a common choice for body armor, shield plating and so on, but swords and spearheads were generally steel.

(One reason that I suspect bronze hung on as long as it did for armor is that it's much easier to get large pieces of bronze than it is to get substantial pieces of steel from a bloomery smelter.)

By the Viking era bronze just isn't used in military contexts to any substantial extent. Occasionally you'll see a bronze mace head or something during the middle ages, but it's basically iron and steel everywhere. Even for the weapons and armor of the super-elite. Which should pretty much prove that by this point, bronze was totally obsolete.

[ArlEammon]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...eel-v-s-Bronze

Just throwing this out there for the discussion.

[Aedilred]

Okay then who's more cool!? LOL.

This is, obviously, pretty subjective.

But really I think it's worth pointing out that these four warrior types are much more similar than they are different. They're all members of the privileged warrior class of their era and location, utilising the best equipment available to them. Just as the Samurai was essentially the knight of Japan, so the hoplite was essentially the knight of classical Greece. And other than some of the technical distinctions to do with qualifications for "knighthood", the difference between vikings and knights is largely one of perception anyway.

[ArlEammon]

Hmm in particular, Normans, vs Heians, vs Danes, vs Spartans.

[Vinyadan]

The Spartans were simply too few, and ended up also being too inflexible in their tactics. They lost their prominence already before Alexander the Great came around and reduced the Greek poleis to a political nullity. Effectively, even earlier Greek politics ceased to revolve around single cities, and instead became the affair of large confederations, which immediately outslinged Sparta, if it had been to fight on its own. There's also the fact that Spartans recognized that they couldn't project their power too far from home, or their city would collapse. Vikings and knights were instead supposed to do just that.

The late Merovingian and early Carolingian knights were in a stronger position than the Northmen, who saw them as a menace; Charles Martel, the one of the Battle of Tours, also pillaged Friesenland, which scared the hell out of the Danes. However, this fear caused the construction of defensive systems that put Denmark out of harm's way, which might be why the Franks never expanded further north. In the meantime, their "selective strike" tactics gave the Vikings an edge: they would hit, collect stuff, and get away without risking battle they couldn't win. A war led by Denmark against Charlemagne might have ended with a victory, thanks to a well aimed strike against Aquisgranum that took the Franks unprepared, if it hadn't been for the fact that the Danish King had staid home, where he was murdered by his own nobles and substituted by a King who sought for peace with the Franks.
After the Frankish Empire broke up, however, Vikings had the upper hand for a while. Rollo even managed to carve himself a fief in France, effectively showing that his Vikings were stronger than the King's knights. This age ended quite fast, and the ex Northmen turned into Normans, who were knights and no Vikings. Norman knights then happily steamrolled large parts of England, Ireland, Palestine, Spain and Italy, and were much appreciated (read: feared) by the Greek Emperor, whose army had a large Nordic component, although these Northmen serving Constantinople probably can't be called Vikings in this time: Harold Hardrada is generally called the last Viking, and his death in 1066 is seen as the end of the Viking era, while the predominance of knights on the battlefield (and as a cultural ideal) would last for centuries.

As for the samurai, they never met any of these guys, AFAIK, so there's no way of telling. Maybe there could have been a time during the exploration of the Indies in which there was some sort of duel or altercation between a samurai and a knight, but I have no idea.

Anyway, this isn't really about "one on one" fights, as much as about the systems that generated these warriors, and their ability to survive each other.

[Aedilred]

Hmm in particular, Normans, vs Heians, vs Danes, vs Spartans.

Having Normans and Danes in the same list is pretty illustrative of the problem. The Normans started out as Vikings, indeed possibly even Danish ones, and retained some Viking characteristics until they stopped being definitively Norman. Danes, on the other hand - well, they're still with us today, but assuming we're talking about Viking-age Danes, the distinction still isn't clear-cut. Harthacnut, the last Danish king of England and son of arguably the greatest Viking leader of all, was described at his death as being "a noble knight and stalwart of body, and he greatly loved knighthood and all virtues", for instance.

Indeed, Normans and Danes in their peak period were pretty much contemporaries.

I would probably take an Anglo-Danish huscarl over a Norman knight, but that's mostly because I'm English and we're still a bit bitter about Hastings 950 years on. A later medieval knight from France, Germany or the Spanish kingdoms would be a tougher call.

[ArlEammon]

Having Normans and Danes in the same list is pretty illustrative of the problem. The Normans started out as Vikings, indeed possibly even Danish ones, and retained some Viking characteristics until they stopped being definitively Norman. Danes, on the other hand - well, they're still with us today, but assuming we're talking about Viking-age Danes, the distinction still isn't clear-cut. Harthacnut, the last Danish king of England and son of arguably the greatest Viking leader of all, was described at his death as being "a noble knight and stalwart of body, and he greatly loved knighthood and all virtues", for instance.

Indeed, Normans and Danes in their peak period were pretty much contemporaries.

I would probably take an Anglo-Danish huscarl over a Norman knight, but that's mostly because I'm English and we're still a bit bitter about Hastings 950 years on. A later medieval knight from France, Germany or the Spanish kingdoms would be a tougher call.

What about Heians, Danes, Lancashires and Spartans ?

[Murk]

I'm trying my best to find something to the advantage of the Spartans.

I have to admit I don't know much about the game or competition in question, but I think the title ("for Honor"), might touch on an interesting point: perspectives on honor.

As far as I know, typical vikings have to be courageous and aggressive. They are not the Danish that stay at home, they are the ones that go out to fight. They seek out the battle. I don't see raiding vikings going on the defensive - after all, they are not here to defend, they are here to attack. I assume that in any valid scenario of vikings vs Spartans, the vikings will be on the offense.

For knights, the same could apply. There are countless of examples of medieval armies losing battles because the knights didn't want to be cowards. If we take the stereotypical honorable knight, then again the knight will be on the offense. Cowering in bushes or harassing enemies in hit-and-run style isn't the knightly way.

I'm not sure on the Samurai, but I'm pretty sure they have some rigid honor codes too, right? At the very least they can't afford to stay locked up behind walls, because they have large swaths of land they need to defend. Eventually, they would have to face the Spartans head-on.

The Spartans, though, do not seem to find defensive battles dishonorable at all. Their type of "courage" and "honor" is more about being stalwart and enduring than about being fair and square to the opponent. If we take the most idiotically honorable of all four factions (which the name "for honor!" seems to imply), I can see the Spartans finding a good defensive position, and the other factions confronting them in a ridiculous way (Thermypolae 2.0?)


I'm not saying the Spartans would be better at defending, but I think they might be more likely to defend, simply because of their personality.

[Aedilred]

What about Heians, Danes, Lancashires and Spartans ?

Well, I'm a Yorkist as far as the Wars of the Roses go, so the Lancastians aren't cool at all.

I'm trying my best to find something to the advantage of the Spartans.

I have to admit I don't know much about the game or competition in question, but I think the title ("for Honor"), might touch on an interesting point: perspectives on honor.

As far as I know, typical vikings have to be courageous and aggressive. They are not the Danish that stay at home, they are the ones that go out to fight. They seek out the battle. I don't see raiding vikings going on the defensive - after all, they are not here to defend, they are here to attack. I assume that in any valid scenario of vikings vs Spartans, the vikings will be on the offense.

I'm not sure how reflective this is of actual viking practice. There's probably a difference to be borne in mind between a raid and a battle, from a "viking" perspective (notwithstanding that Vikings are raiders by definition). Raids will target undefended settlements, monasteries, and the like, with the aim being to find valuables to carry off. You're not really expecting anyone to fight back with a degree of competence - indeed they might well just run at the first sign of your banners - so you're free to be uncompromisingly aggressive. But battle against organised opposition is a different beast, and in that period and area mostly about shieldwalls. Battles end up being fought between two opposing primarly defensive formations. The Danes are perfectly at home in that sort of situation and that they were considered among the foremost warriors of their era we can reasonably assume were rather good at it.

Given that their primary focus is raiding, too, at a tactical level if they're forced into a battle they will probably be the defenders, being attacked by a relief force: their purpose is to see off the attackers and eventually escape back to their ship. Viking practice in this respect even when they wanted to force a confrontation was probably pretty similar to that of the English in the Hundred Years War (another group of invaders): they'd march through enemy territory, daring the locals to attack them and then fight the resulting battle largely defensively. It wouldn't be uncommon for them to find a spot that was easy to defend and hold it, until either they were forced off it, or (more likely) someone paid them to go away.

Stamford Bridge may not be the best example since that was a surprise attack, but the earlier Battle of Fulford was one where the "Vikings" were, despite being the invading party, actually the defenders in the battle itself. The same can be seen at Reading, Ashdown and Edington, among others. (Of course, some of those were Danish defeats).

[snowblizz]

I'm not sure on the Samurai, but I'm pretty sure they have some rigid honor codes too, right? At the very least they can't afford to stay locked up behind walls, because they have large swaths of land they need to defend. Eventually, they would have to face the Spartans head-on.

No, not really. Samurai honour codes are something from an age when they stopped being militarily releveant, and even more from an age seeking to instil certian values of sacrifice and duty for realpolitical reasons. Just like Western chivalry never really lived up to it's literary foundation.

Samurai spent a large part of the Sengoku Jidai period defending castles.

[Razade]

Samurai also started out as horse archers and retained that tradition even into the later eras.

[ArlEammon]

What about 11th century everything vs Spartans?

[Aedilred]

What about 11th century everything vs Spartans?

I'd have to give it to the eleventh century on almost all counts.

Spartans were impressive warriors but their reputation is heavily mythologised. Spartan hegemony in Greece lasted less than a hundred years and arguably was only ever illusory. Unlike Athens Sparta was never really able to project its power substantially outside the Greek mainland, and most of their victories came in conjunction with allies. Later, inflexibility and stubbornness led Spartan armies to defeats against more innovative generals; indeed, by the the fourth century it's possible that Spartan hoplites were no longer even the best in Greece (superseded by Thebes and, subsequently, Macedon).

Thermopylae, the battle most commonly associated with Spartan infantry quality and the one you mention in the OP, is itself one of the most mythologised battles in history. Like Dunkirk, it was a defeat that got spun into a moral victory through propaganda because it wasn't quite as bad as it could have been - and because the defeated party ended up winning the war and were free to write the histories how they chose. The Spartans didn't fight alone at Thermopylae: the 300 Spartans and 900 Lacedaemonians (Spartans in all but name) were supported by thousands of allied Greeks, not to mention an unclear number of helots. The legend of the 300 Spartans arises because they were the rearguard who eventually stayed behind to allow the rest of the army to retreat. In reality, the defenders at Thermopylae barely slowed Xerxes down, and the ineffectiveness of their stalling can be seen in the consequences - the loss of the whole of Attica and Boetia and the sack of Athens. Thermopylae was undoubtedly a testament to Spartan bravery, but not so much the invincibility of their troops.

Unlike the Roman legionary, who arguably was the best soldier that Europe saw for centuries after his disappearance, the logistics needed to maintain him falling away with the Roman empire itself, the Spartan hoplite didn't leave a void in his wake: rather he was superseded by other troops, repeatedly defeated on his own terms and rendered obsolete by changes in the nature of warfare that he had either no ability or no desire to respond to. There's no real reason to suppose that, put up against a warrior of similar station from a later era, he would perform significantly better.

[Dienekes]

I'd have to give it to the eleventh century on almost all counts.

Spartans were impressive warriors but their reputation is heavily mythologised. Spartan hegemony in Greece lasted less than a hundred years and arguably was only ever illusory. Unlike Athens Sparta was never really able to project its power substantially outside the Greek mainland, and most of their victories came in conjunction with allies. Later, inflexibility and stubbornness led Spartan armies to defeats against more innovative generals; indeed, by the the fourth century it's possible that Spartan hoplites were no longer even the best in Greece (superseded by Thebes and, subsequently, Macedon).

Thermopylae, the battle most commonly associated with Spartan infantry quality and the one you mention in the OP, is itself one of the most mythologised battles in history. Like Dunkirk, it was a defeat that got spun into a moral victory through propaganda because it wasn't quite as bad as it could have been - and because the defeated party ended up winning the war and were free to write the histories how they chose. The Spartans didn't fight alone at Thermopylae: the 300 Spartans and 900 Lacedaemonians (Spartans in all but name) were supported by thousands of allied Greeks, not to mention an unclear number of helots. The legend of the 300 Spartans arises because they were the rearguard who eventually stayed behind to allow the rest of the army to retreat. In reality, the defenders at Thermopylae barely slowed Xerxes down, and the ineffectiveness of their stalling can be seen in the consequences - the loss of the whole of Attica and Boetia and the sack of Athens. Thermopylae was undoubtedly a testament to Spartan bravery, but not so much the invincibility of their troops.

Unlike the Roman legionary, who arguably was the best soldier that Europe saw for centuries after his disappearance, the logistics needed to maintain him falling away with the Roman empire itself, the Spartan hoplite didn't leave a void in his wake: rather he was superseded by other troops, repeatedly defeated on his own terms and rendered obsolete by changes in the nature of warfare that he had either no ability or no desire to respond to. There's no real reason to suppose that, put up against a warrior of similar station from a later era, he would perform significantly better.

A few things, you're confusing military prowess with capabilities of empire building. Frankly, Sparta's entire political and economic system made them terrible at expanding their influence in a way that Athens didn't have to deal with. And yet, for a large portion of their respective times in prominence, Athens ran their league while Sparta ran their own. I should also note that the Lakedaemonians specifically called out at the battle of Thermopylae are those who live in Spartan territory, but not the ones who went through the agoge, so in one way you could call them Spartans in all but name, since they're in the same territory. But they really weren't Spartan hoplites in any way that matters.

The distinction between military power and empire building, can somewhat surprisingly be best seen with Rome. Some of Rome's largest military expansion happened during the Punic Wars, where notably, the Roman Army lost more battles than they won. They just won the right battles, and seemed to always have reserves.

There was a period, admittedly a poorly recorded period (Sparta didn't write things down, which really sucks, as all we get about them then comes from their enemies complaining about the Spartans) where they were considered unquestionably the best soldiers in Greece, and there was a good hundred plus years where we don't have a single defeat on record, which is astounding.

But yes, I do agree with the crux of the argument. The Spartans didn't or couldn't change, and they were outpaced by tactical and technological advancements.

Though I will say, there were two battles where the Spartans fought against the usurper dominant armies of the Macedonian soldiers and leaders. The first was an unquestionable crushing victory for the Spartans. But it was against Coragus, a barely known general and the army size was considered about equal. The second was against Antipater, one of the best generals of his era, with an army twice the size of their own, and they got crushed. And so ends any chance of Spartan prominence ever again. Though, truth be told, there wasn't much a chance anyway. This Sparta was a shadow of their former prominence.

[Aedilred]

A few things, you're confusing military prowess with capabilities of empire building. Frankly, Sparta's entire political and economic system made them terrible at expanding their influence in a way that Athens didn't have to deal with. And yet, for a large portion of their respective times in prominence, Athens ran their league while Sparta ran their own. I should also note that the Lakedaemonians specifically called out at the battle of Thermopylae are those who live in Spartan territory, but not the ones who went through the agoge, so in one way you could call them Spartans in all but name, since they're in the same territory. But they really weren't Spartan hoplites in any way that matters.

The distinction between military power and empire building, can somewhat surprisingly be best seen with Rome. Some of Rome's largest military expansion happened during the Punic Wars, where notably, the Roman Army lost more battles than they won. They just won the right battles, and seemed to always have reserves.

Oh yeah, I know that there's a difference between the two, and that lack of success at one doesn't necessarily translate to inferiority in the other. I was just trying to make the point that Sparta's military prowess has been heavily exaggerated in a number of respects, so the legends should probably be taken with a pinch of salt.

The hundred-year undefeated period, that was presumably before the Persian invasion(s)? My knowledge of Archaic Greece is pretty shaky.

[Dienekes]

Oh yeah, I know that there's a difference between the two, and that lack of success at one doesn't necessarily translate to inferiority in the other. I was just trying to make the point that Sparta's military prowess has been heavily exaggerated in a number of respects, so the legends should probably be taken with a pinch of salt.

The hundred-year undefeated period, that was presumably before the Persian invasion(s)? My knowledge of Archaic Greece is pretty shaky.

Yeah, definitely happened before the Persian Invasions. Sparta had been around and considered a Hellenic powerhouse for awhile before then. You could make the point that the second Persian invasion was the beginning of the end for them. They tried to do a bit of hegemonic pushing, had Pausanias do his whole shenanigans, then in response turtled up back home just letting Athens gain a much more secure hegemony and started to wither away in terms of population and economy.

Then the helot revolt and the whole Peloponnesian War thing happened, and you can just look at just how out of date they were, even though they technically won the war.

There was actually an interesting study I found that tied Sparta's prowess with their turnout at the Olympics. From 750 BC to around 400 BC Sparta had the most Olympic wins despite not doing any of the pankration events, more than double their next closest competition. Then after that they just stop winning, almost completely. The argument was that it shows now only the physical prowess of the people in comparison to everyone else, but more accurately the economic and social prowess in order to keep funding these winners. I'm not 100% convinced by the argument, but I do agree that whatever the reasons the flow of Spartan victories at the Olympics do correlate pretty closely to when they were a prominent power and when we can see the society faltering.

You probably know all this. But yes, I agree that there is a lot of myths around them being the best warriors ever or some bullcrap like that. There's no way you could quantify something like that, in any case.

I just wanted to temper it a bit, that while they were not living myths of perfect glory, they were pretty much universally recognized as the best soldiers in Greece for a few hundred years. They were amazing. They just weren't in any way close to perfect, and their failure to update their tactics to match the changing world around them, along with the glaring weaknesses of their society led to their downfall.