Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It all depends on what you value most in a fight. The samurai has speed, the knight has size/protection and the Viking has...ferocity?
The Viking is definitely 3rd place. Against a poorly trained foe, they're unstoppable...but against someone with real skill, I'm not sure they have the discipline to win.
The Knight may have the best skills on a horse (though technically they'd get slaughtered by Mongols on a horse), but I don't think we should include horsemanship. Can a NASCAR driver win a fight against young Muhammad Ali? Sure if the driver is in their car. Can they win that same fight in a open field? Probably not.
My money is on the samurai. Knight armor is heavy. Not a big deal when everyone is fighting with the same armor, but a significant disadvantage against more mobile foes.
Knight armor is heavy. Not a big deal when everyone is fighting with the same armor, but a significant disadvantage against more mobile foes.
The mobility/agility loss due to armor has been overstated. War is a practical business, knights weren't dumb, and historically, their role in defense would be to dismount and fight on foot among the lower ranks. For the knight, the mounted charge was perhaps the pinnacle of his craft, but he was very much an all-round soldier.
It was considered a major morale booster to be able to reinforce the ranks with knights, and that wasn't because they were liabilities when faced with enemies without armor.
Last edited by Dane_in_LA; 01-19-2017 at 10:12 AM..
mobile forces against armory were heaveyy specialised and became refined during remaissance, floret,
Armory became extinct with freamerms. and florets.
No the cases of armed chivaly.... that were defeated thanks to pikes.
The mobility/agility loss due to armor has been overstated. War is a practical business, knights weren't dumb, and historically, their role in defense would be to dismount and fight on foot among the lower ranks. For the knight, the mounted charge was perhaps the pinnacle of his craft, but he was very much an all-round soldier.
It was considered a major morale booster to be able to reinforce the ranks with knights, and that wasn't because they were liabilities when faced with enemies without armor.
A modern main battle tank can keep fighting and aid the local infantry if it loses a track. But then a light tank can easily maneuver around to find its weakness. Move, shoot and communicate. Samurai wins 2 for 3. Mobility shock effect and protection the European knight takes 2 of 3. Terrain will tell the difference
If the battle was in snow or a naval battle the Vikings would have a significant advantage. If close quarter combat I'd give the samurai the advantage. If we're talking mounted on horseback and wide open terrain then clearly a knight.
Knights and samurai both had some sort of honor code whereas the Viking did whatever he needed. The knight may also vary based upon chain mail vs plate armor. Also is he also an archer on mounted only. The inferior armor and smaller size will definitely hurt the samurai. Their weapondry and tactics weren't designed against full plate mail.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
