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.
The knight looses out every time. The armor weighs too much and is a burden to work with.
The viking would crush the Knight and if the knight was on a horse, all that is needed is to knock him off the horse. Have you imagined being out in an armor suit in the day time?
The Viking relies on the team to get things done. Also the attack takes place on water. It is brute strength. On a one on one fight the Viking can over come the safety of the armor. Possibly not the skill of the samurai.
The Samurai uses not only the speed and the blade, but the mind and stealth.
My choice is the Samurai.
Seventh Century Vikings against Mounted Knights that appeared 120-150 later?
Mounted Knight, let's say the same mounted knights created by William the Conqueror, whose great-great-great-great father was Rollo, The Viking, would have cut Viking to pieces.
Vikings were just pirates and thiefs, their first weapon was terror, no different from pirates from the 17th century.
Romantics.
Franks and Ostrgoths would have crushed them to death.
They could never face a Roman cohort, they would receive their pilums 7 meters before approach.
Their advantaged? Attacking destroyed and uninhabited countries under political turmoil during the HIGH MIDDLE AGES. 8th century.
A Katana is not designed for piercing which you will need to get into a knights armor, only chance for samurai is to handle it from range. Once closed to melee range a knight with a long sword/mace which are designed for fighting armored opponents *and* a shield is going to be at an advantage, not to mention the average European has a general size advantage over the average Japanese person. The vikings don't really factor in as they were not really a military force, their expertise was hit and run on mostly undefended civilian populations.
Fight stays at range: Samurai
Fight ends up in melee range: Knight
An armoured mounted knight. They were to medieval warfare what the tank was to 20th century warfare.
And just like a tank today without lighter forces to scout for them are highly vulnerable to forces with enough mobility. An army with a knight shock force should be able to crash into things that a Samurai shock force was not heavy enough to bust through
I've always considered to the Vikings to be overrated as warriors. Their strength was the element of surprise, the classic viking "raid", striking unsuspecting enemies with overwhelming force. People always point to their rapid conquest of most of England. But the fact is that they were against a weak and divided enemy. England was divided into many separate Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, rivaled against one another. Once the Anglo-Saxons gained a sense of unity under Alfred the Great, they arguably proved themselves to be superior warriors, reconquering the Danelaw and reestablished Saxon supremacy for many years to come.
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.
