1000 Samurai vs 700 Vikings

Avatar image for violencejack
violencejack

1083

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

who wins?

Avatar image for contingency
Contingency

9172

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Depends on which Vikings and Samurai

With full gear Samurai's stomp with guns

Best Samurai vs Best Vikings in melee = Viking victory

Avatar image for mrmonster
mrmonster

25727

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Samurai. Even if they had even numbers they'd still win. They had superior training, superior armor, and superior weapons.

Avatar image for contingency
Contingency

9172

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Samurai. Even if they had even numbers they'd still win. They had superior training, superior armor, and superior weapons.

Not really, it depends on the Vikings some would dominate the best Samurai in melee

Avatar image for mrmonster
mrmonster

25727

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@contingency: Yes really. Viking melee weapons were not nearly as good as the samurai katana. And in a fight with bows and arrows, the Samurai, who were very proficient archers, would still win.

Avatar image for contingency
Contingency

9172

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@contingency: Yes really. Viking melee weapons were not nearly as good as the samurai katana. And in a fight with bows and arrows, the Samurai, who were very proficient archers, would still win.

I'd argue that their armor is probably better than the Samurai's and the Samurai's weapons will have a harder time getting through their armor than the Vikings

Do Samurai's carry shields?

Some Viking tactics with their shields were OP because they could bull rush through smaller and weaker people and kill them while they're knocked down

Avatar image for mrmonster
mrmonster

25727

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mrmonster said:

@contingency: Yes really. Viking melee weapons were not nearly as good as the samurai katana. And in a fight with bows and arrows, the Samurai, who were very proficient archers, would still win.

I'd argue that their armor is probably better than the Samurai's and the Samurai's weapons will have a harder time getting through their armor than the Vikings

Do Samurai's carry shields?

Some Viking tactics with their shields were OP because they could bull rush through smaller and weaker people and kill them while they're knocked down

No, they didn't. Samurai never carried shields.

Avatar image for contingency
Contingency

9172

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mrmonster: That's a big force multiplier for the vikings then, they can use the shields to protect from arrows and other stuff.

I'd say that in a crowded area the Vikings win but in a flat plain the Samurai's win due to greater mobility.

Avatar image for robertloucksjr
robertloucksjr

2360

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mrmonster: Katanas were actually made from crappy iron as Japan had no high grade ore and used the iron sands for metal.

Avatar image for chair-sama
Chair-Sama

2401

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mrmonster: Katanas were actually made from crappy iron as Japan had no high grade ore and used the iron sands for metal.

true. but think of it this way

its sub-par materials with exceptional Quality crafting of the weapon

VS

Exceptional Quality materials with mostly sub-par crafting of the weapons

Now dont get me wrong, among the vikings there were some very good weapon smiths, but for the most part, the average vikings had very basic swords or axes and they were not great quality. which is why they relied more on their brute strength and handling skills to bullrush opponents.

Avatar image for mrmonster
mrmonster

25727

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@robertloucksjr said:

@mrmonster: Katanas were actually made from crappy iron as Japan had no high grade ore and used the iron sands for metal.

true. but think of it this way

its sub-par materials with exceptional Quality crafting of the weapon

VS

Exceptional Quality materials with mostly sub-par crafting of the weapons

Now dont get me wrong, among the vikings there were some very good weapon smiths, but for the most part, the average vikings had very basic swords or axes and they were not great quality. which is why they relied more on their brute strength and handling skills to bullrush opponents.

This basically says it all.

Even if the katana wasn't made from the finest metal, it's still the finest sword ever designed. The curve of the blade gave it the ability to easily slice through their enemies.

Avatar image for apocofist
Apocofist

3028

Forum Posts

71

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

This reminds me so much of For Honor.

Vikings win.

Avatar image for beast_mode999
Beast_mode999

2588

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I feel we are using both at their prime then the Samurai stomp via guns and tactics.

True Vikings had superior metal but the swordsmanship and design of the Katana was meant to be a clean slice. There is actually a video explain the difference between Katanas and the swords the Vikings used.

The Vikings sword was not nearly as sharp as the Katana but is was also about to crush the skull of a human.

Avatar image for pipxeroth
pipxeroth

10000

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Good to see that samurais are still being wanked in 2017

Avatar image for tomtheawesome123
tomtheawesome123

2440

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15  Edited By tomtheawesome123

@pipxeroth: How are they wanked?


They win because guns.

Avatar image for zetsu-san
Zetsu-San

42399

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

#16  Edited By Zetsu-San

1000 guys with steel long spears and plate armor vs 700 guys with wooden shields, iron tipped short spears, and chain mail (assuming they are all rich high end warriors)... The outcome should be pretty damn obvious. This is a ridiculous mismatch.

Avatar image for zetsu-san
Zetsu-San

42399

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

Also, the comments in this thread are mind boggling.

Avatar image for wf_mxyzptlk
WF_Mxyzptlk

6794

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18  Edited By WF_Mxyzptlk

@zetsumoto said:

1000 guys with steel long spears and plate armor vs 700 guys with wooden shields, short spears, and chain mail (assuming they are all rich high end warriors)... The outcome should be pretty damn obvious. This is a ridiculous mismatch.

Don't forget the size difference.

Anyway, this obviously depends on the respective eras.

Avatar image for zetsu-san
Zetsu-San

42399

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

@contingency: Vikings had chain mail at best when wealthy. Samurai have lamellar/plate armor.

Chain armor provides little to no protection against steel spears. Lamellar on the other hand works quite well against spears.

Samurai did not use shields, but ordinary foot soldiers did. The protections granted by shields pale in comparison to full body armor. In fact armor makes shields completely redundant, and not worth the sacrifice in power/control granted by 2 handed pole weapons. Even European knights favored 2 handed pole arms over shields.

Avatar image for thatguywithheadphones
thatguywithheadphones

19859

Forum Posts

1872

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Basically

Loading Video...

but I'd go with the side with the most numbers.

Avatar image for zetsu-san
Zetsu-San

42399

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

@wf_mxyzptlk: classical samurai are far better equipped than classical Vikings. If you go too far back in time, it defeats the purpose of having samurai because they would be lacking all the equipment associated with them. Go too far forward with the Norse, and you may as well use knights instead.

Avatar image for wf_mxyzptlk
WF_Mxyzptlk

6794

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@wf_mxyzptlk: classical samurai are far better equipped than classical Vikings. If you go too far back in time, it defeats the purpose of having samurai because they would be lacking all the equipment associated with them. Go too far forward with the Norse, and you may as well use knights instead.

Classical samurai are much later in era than classical vikings. The modern image of Samurai that we have is up to a thousand years more modern. Obviously, at that point european weapons had evolved far beyond what was available in the east.

Avatar image for oocmikeyy
OOCMikeyy

335

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Going with numbers lol

Avatar image for supergoku17
SuperGoku17

7220

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for metaljimmor
MetalJimmor

6962

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

The side with the 300 man advantage almost certainly wins. Especially since the samurai army will have cavalry and horse archers.

When setting up battles like this it's useful to also designate what equipment each side has and what sort of troops they are mustering.

Avatar image for ygoox
ygoox

73

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Dude.

300 men is just too much to outfight. If the vikings are in the "hot gates" scenario from the 300 comics, they probably have a chance. Open field is just a massacre.

Now, every battle with many oponents in each side, comes down to shield wall. Vikinds had a pretty good shield walk. Samurai did not.

If is a "no archery, no horses" scenario, and in the hot gates or same numbers, the Vikings take it.

Otherwise, they lose. Bow where the atomic bomb of medieval times.

Avatar image for jamielannister
JamieLannister

159

Forum Posts

240

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Vikings..