Vikings vs Samurais

Who would win?


  • Total voters
    90

Darkside55

The Freeman
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
12,089
Reaction score
90
Light armour combined with superior weapons training and horsemanship
lol insinuating all samurai were masters of the sword when really most didn't know shit aside from, "pointed end toward enemy"
 

Vigilante

Newbie
Joined
Sep 12, 2003
Messages
2,660
Reaction score
0
Vikings. Mainly because they have some sweet heavy metal associated with them.
 

Mr Stabby

Tank
Joined
Aug 18, 2004
Messages
2,279
Reaction score
0
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.
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.

Viking armour was not.
Chainmail could easily stop a strike from a katana.

Light armour combined with superior weapons training and horsemanship made the Samurai fast and agile, and able to avoid lumbering and undisciplined attacks.
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


that, and the Samurai outlived the Vikings by 400 years.

Vikings with no future = failed.
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.
 

CR0M

Tank
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
1,965
Reaction score
0
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.
Not all Vikings wore chainmail, and according to historical references such as Gjermundbu, those who did (usually those with higher social standing as chainmail was expensive) wore short mail, that covered the torso only, leaving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.

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
Heavier armour = slower. And Vikings in any armour would certainly be slower than a mounted archer.

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.

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.
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.

The fantasy image of gigantic berserking muscular Vikings swinging hammers the size of cars and wearing a ton of steel armour is no match for historical fact,

the

Vikings

lost.
 

Sheepo

The Freeman
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
10,578
Reaction score
79
the

Vikings

lost.
Yes, the Great Viking Samurai Wars were banished from the history books for being such a let down for such a ****ing awesome premise.
 

ríomhaire

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
20,874
Reaction score
414
A fianna could kick a band of vikings' or samaurais' asses (ass long as they were in a woodland). One of the trails to get in was having your hair braided and being chased through a forest. If you're caught, you're out. If you are seen to break a twig, you're out. If you fecked up your braid, you're out. Incidently, while running through the wood you're expected to be able to jump over a branch as high as your head, duck under one as low as your knees, and pull thorns from your feet, without slowing down. Other training involved having nine guys throwing spears at you while you're buried from the waist down and learning off volumes and volumes of poetry. If you got one word in one poem wrong, you were out. HARDCORE!
 

Sheepo

The Freeman
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
10,578
Reaction score
79
This thread has reminded me of what an awesome book this was:


and has also brought it to my intention that it was the start of a trilogy! Shit, need to do some reading.
 

Sledgehammer

Newbie
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
1,018
Reaction score
0
Ninja's won't win. They were mercenaries. Since the richest vikings actually had more money than most of the Japanese Lords had, they would be able to hire a large amount of ninjas. Since ninjas kill the Daimjo, all of the samurais under the Daimjo commits suicide, and vikings win.

Anyway

vikings

win
 

Danimal

Companion Cube
Joined
Aug 21, 2004
Messages
11,736
Reaction score
22
lol @ serious debates about samurai armour.
 

Adrik_Senturu

WIGWAMBAM!
Joined
Sep 4, 2005
Messages
2,711
Reaction score
0
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.
If this was true then it would essentially be:

A viking army vs. A handful of samurai.

Vikings win.
 

Kukaku

Newbie
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
59
Reaction score
0
Vikings.
Theres just too much rage inside them to be contained, they go apeshit in battle.
Samurai are too honourable to go crazy.
 

Raziaar

I Hate Custom Titles
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
29,758
Reaction score
132
Pirates and vikings are one and the same, baby!

Vikings.
Theres just too much rage inside them to be contained, they go apeshit in battle.
Samurai are too honourable to go crazy.
I believe you're thinking specifically of berserkers.
 

Darkside55

The Freeman
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
12,089
Reaction score
90
I feel kind of miffed that I voted before pirates showed up on the poll. Maybe I just wasn't paying attention. But in any case pirates beat everybody. There's no room for discussion there.
 

Kukaku

Newbie
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
59
Reaction score
0
I feel kind of miffed that I voted before pirates showed up on the poll. Maybe I just wasn't paying attention. But in any case pirates beat everybody. There's no room for discussion there.
QFT.
Pirates > Everything.
 

Raziaar

I Hate Custom Titles
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
29,758
Reaction score
132
Wern't most vikings always crazy in battle?
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.
 

CR0M

Tank
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
1,965
Reaction score
0
If this was true then it would essentially be:
A viking army vs. A handful of samurai.
Vikings win.
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?
 

Adrik_Senturu

WIGWAMBAM!
Joined
Sep 4, 2005
Messages
2,711
Reaction score
0
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.

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?
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.
 

Raziaar

I Hate Custom Titles
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
29,758
Reaction score
132
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.
I'd have to disagree with those scholars who think so.

I've been there man. I took one on! It was like wrestling a bear! And it looked like a bear! Only bears don't fight dirty! So I knew it wasn't a bear.

 

Adrik_Senturu

WIGWAMBAM!
Joined
Sep 4, 2005
Messages
2,711
Reaction score
0
That picture just reminded me of another thing.

Vikings were incredibly deadly with a spear. So deadly infact the mother****ers would throw two at ONCE. No matter which way you look at it the samurai dies.

Heres how the battle goes down:

Samurai gets into his bullshit stance and prepares to cut down the viking before him. Viking takes out two spears and throws them at samurai. Samurai is speared in the face and balls.
 

Darkside55

The Freeman
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
12,089
Reaction score
90
It's too bad the HL2 mod isn't Pirates, Vikings, Samurai and Knights, otherwise we could all settle this right here right now.




It's still pirates. YARR, PARROT!
 

theotherguy

Newbie
Joined
Jul 5, 2003
Messages
5,108
Reaction score
0
As much as I dislike samurai, I am going to have to say they would definitely win.

Samurai had steel swords and armor, crossbows, and sometimes even gunpowder weapons. Vikings were around about 500 years before samurai were in their prime, and had access only to iron and brass weapons and armor. Vikings had shorter, more brittle swords than samurai; so even in melee combat, a samurai could out-range a viking. A 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.

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 sabers, 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.
 

Raziaar

I Hate Custom Titles
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
29,758
Reaction score
132
Vikings were basically land pirates bro
They were sea pirates too, bro. They were pirate pirates!

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.
We have ninjas approaching from the east! Maneuver into position, full sails! Fire the broadsides!
 

Druckles

Party Escort Bot
Joined
Dec 13, 2004
Messages
10,655
Reaction score
15
I'd have to pick ninjas or samurai simply because they have style.
 

Adrik_Senturu

WIGWAMBAM!
Joined
Sep 4, 2005
Messages
2,711
Reaction score
0
A 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.
lol wut

A viking in full battle armor would literally be impervious to slashing attacks which is all the samurai would have up close, while a vikings axe would rip right through whatever the **** the samurai was wearing.

Edit: Also samurai steel back then was absolute SHIT.
 

Rizzo

Tank
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
5,255
Reaction score
0
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.

And you make it sound like every Samurai are a master swordsman.

Vikings whould win thou. They have Axes, helmets and eat mushrooms.
 

Druckles

Party Escort Bot
Joined
Dec 13, 2004
Messages
10,655
Reaction score
15
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.
Yup, they'd trade, murder your asses, rape your wives and pillage the shit they'd traded in the first place.
 

Adrik_Senturu

WIGWAMBAM!
Joined
Sep 4, 2005
Messages
2,711
Reaction score
0
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.
Yeah but those were some swords, the majority of swords made back then were hilariously shitty and brittle.

Also, I hate how everyone seems to think samurai are basically japanese jedi or some shit. Every middle to upperclass warrior in feudal service was called Samurai. Fearless, all of them? Are you kidding me?
 

Mech Man

Newbie
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
1,852
Reaction score
0
Yeah but those were some swords, the majority of swords made back then were hilariously shitty and brittle
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.
 
Top