- Jun 12, 2009
- Reaction score
Steel is harder than wood, when you hit wood with steel the steel wins. In europe the mace and polearm were devolped becuase the sword was ineffective against mail. In japan the katana stayed because it was effective against it's opponents armour.Samurai armour was made from resin laminated hardwood which was light and flexible, and could stop a razor sharp edge cutting through it. It was designed to protect specific parts of the body vulnerable to arrows and blades.
Chainmail could easily stop a strike from a katana.Viking armour was not.
Vikings were from just as much a martial society as samurai. If your calling the vikings undisciplined in the sense they lacked a cohevise military then the samurai are just as undisciplined. Vikings would have been just as agile as samuraiLight armour combined with superior weapons training and horsemanship made the Samurai fast and agile, and able to avoid lumbering and undisciplined attacks.
Vikings were a form a pirates eventually Scandanaiva didn't need pirates anymore, vikings just evoled into huscarls then into knights like the rest of europe. Samurai didn't begin until hundreds of years after the Vikings.that, and the Samurai outlived the Vikings by 400 years.
Vikings with no future = failed.
Not all Vikings wore chainmail, and according to historical references such as Gjermundbu, those who did (usually those with higher social standing as chainmail was expensive) wore short mail, that covered the torso only, leaving the arms, neck and legs exposed to critical attacks that Samurai would take full advantage of. Also, many wore leather armour and fabric which was not enough to stop an arrow or sword.Steel is harder than wood, when you hit wood with steel the steel wins. In europe the mace and polearm were devolped becuase the sword was ineffective against mail. In japan the katana stayed because it was effective against it's opponents armour.
Chainmail could easily stop a strike from a katana.
Heavier armour = slower. And Vikings in any armour would certainly be slower than a mounted archer.Vikings were from just as much a martial society as samurai. If your calling the vikings undisciplined in the sense they lacked a cohevise military then the samurai are just as undisciplined. Vikings would have been just as agile as samurai
Not so, Samurai history begins around the same time period as Viking history and survives it by 400 years, almost right up to the 20th century in fact.Vikings were a form a pirates eventually Scandanaiva didn't need pirates anymore, vikings just evoled into huscarls then into knights like the rest of europe. Samurai didn't begin until hundreds of years after the Vikings.
If this was true then it would essentially be:Seems there is some confusion as to what the Samurai were. They were not just regular footsoldiers. Samurai were the elite of the military, followers of the Bushido code that required many martial disciplines, one of which being superior combat training in mounted combat with bow and sword. They were often employed as bodyguards to their emporer or Shogun because of their skills. Conscript soldiers on the other hand were not Samurai, they were peasants and made up the bulk of the Japanese armed forces. If this thread was titled Japanese regular conscript footsoldier v Viking, then yes, they would be more evenly matched.
I'm sure they had quite they reputation... for being vicious. But I'm willing to bet you that most of them were just warriors and foot soldiers. Whereas the berserkers were the real insane, rage filled wildmen on the battlefield. I mean... berserkers were vikings... but, they were like a special classification.Wern't most vikings always crazy in battle?
A single viking would still totally win. You're basically telling me that the samurai is going to be able to get a kill with a single hit, and be in the right mindset to do this as he has a 6 foot maniac running at him screaming god knows what. If the samurai doesn't manage to kill the guy in one hit he's pretty much done for. Vikings were known for having incredible endurance and would take alot of punishment before they went down.CR0M said:Yes, but the poll is A Viking v A Samurai. One on one, the Samurai would run rings around the Viking. Clear winner.
You people never watched Kurosawa?
I'd have to disagree with those scholars who think so.Fun fact: There were never actually any Berserkers
It all just stems from all vikings in general being crazy mother****ers, but theres no actual historical documentation of rage filled killing machines being let loose on the battlefield and taking everyone out.
They were sea pirates too, bro. They were pirate pirates!Vikings were basically land pirates bro
We have ninjas approaching from the east! Maneuver into position, full sails! Fire the broadsides!theotherguy said:Pitting pirates against ninjas is also a losing battle-- for the ninjas. Ninjas were adept at stealth and deception; not at combat. Ninjas were the professional assassins of their day; and their only mission was to scale castle walls and assassinate high-ranking feudal officers. They did not go into open battle, and usually carried small, discrete weapons. Pirates, on the other hand (if we're talking about the pirates everyone is thinking about) had access to 18th or possibly 19th century weaponry. They had flintlock rifles; semi-modern steel weapons, and a whole host of other technological advantages that would make a pirate, even an untrained and ungainly one, able to take on a ninja with a single well-placed shot.
lol wutA viking in full battle gear would almost certainly lose to a samurai in full battle gear, assuming both had the same basic skill in battle.
Yup, they'd trade, murder your asses, rape your wives and pillage the shit they'd traded in the first place.Yeah and vikings had horns on their helmets. Seriously guys, you are generalising something crazy up in here.
First and foremost Vikings where traders. Yeah, look it up. Skill in battle yeah sure. But still.
Yeah but those were some swords, the majority of swords made back then were hilariously shitty and brittle.Although I think vikings would win in a battle, this isn't quite true. Some ancient samurai swords still rival the swords our best craftsmen can create today.
I remember reading somewhere about a samurai who blocked with his sword and it shattered causing a shard of it to stab him , which killed him. I am pretture sure it is BS but still.Yeah but those were some swords, the majority of swords made back then were hilariously shitty and brittle