Roach XI the Magnificent said:
@Blackthorn - Yes, I see, although your final conclusion is childish and reeks of bias. Samurai suck because they're more suited to their own style of warfare than that of vikings?
No- I believe the most important point here is we're discussing a direct clash. Not judging the two military models, or making a final analysis of ''y is better than x'', but judging what would happen if the two military models streamroller into each other. The fact you're attaching a final judgement about the inferiority/superiority of the culture and/or military model suggests you've got more than an objective stake in the debate.
For instance- you can easily round up another scenario where the other form is more ''suited''. But you've presented a scenario where a group of Danes raid Japan, without support, and the Japanese have drawn up their full socio-military model and ambush said invaders. That doesn't prove who would win- that proves partisan tactics on home ground will almost invariably knock back anything short of a full-scale logistically supported invasion. That proves nothing of the ins-and-outs of Japanese military form versus Danish military form. To drag us back to the original point screaming and kicking (and ignoring a lot of ad hominem bickering in the meanwhile), the question was if a ''Viking'' and a ''Samurai'' fought, who would likely be the winner. Not, ''Which of these two cultures was superior'' or ''Which school are you a fanboy of'' or ''How eloquently can you accuse all opponents of racial bias/ignorance''. Admittedly as history goes, the question is somewhat moot- but does have some merit as a fun exercise and debating point.
Hence why a LONG while ago a lot of us discussed setting the era for both parties, and then debating the relative merits of their style of combat individually and en masse, likely style of encounter, and likely outcome. It was not meant to turn into a p*ssing contest where the stakes were shifted and scenario altered until the ''party'' you support won.
If you came into it with a ''party'' and a determination to change the scenario until they were the victor, the little merit the thread had (if any) is stripped out and replaced with somethng about as fruitful as the original programme- the whole stimulus of the first post.
But never mind.
Ultimately a contact between an insular culture and a wide-travelled culture is rarely beneficial for the insular culture- which is a fact ''Deadliest Warrior'' tries to ignore. Insular cultures tend towards conservative preservation of practice rather than evolution of methodology based on a success/failure ratio- which comes from the population failing dramatically overseas or domestically during a large-scale military project and forcing their own infastructure to match to meet the new threat. Without constant external stimuli a military system becomes more traditional than effective, and accquires more socio-economic connotations which give the foremost exponents a vested interest in maintaining the status quo- a good example is the Normans of the late 12th century.
In essence- in the scenario the biggest features to consider-
*Familiarity
Would the Viking in question have witnessed horse-archery before (likelihood based entirely on our 'background'- if served in the Varangians or has travelled the silk-road or visited Rus- then yes- if Anglo-Scandinavian only- clearly 'no',)
The Samurai is unlikely to have come across the form of Danish equipment unless we push the dateline back and assume he has had contact with Mongolian infantry- in which case depending on the era he may be familiar with shield/spear combinations- but be less familiar with Danish-construction maille.
*Strategy
The assumption reigned on the programme that the Dane would be the least cautious- the Samurai far more so. Arguably both cultures had developed a more 'wait and see' approach to personal tactics and wider strategy, so more likely we have the Samurai loosing a test shaft at the Dane to gauge reaction, and the Dane remaining in place with shield presented to observe the 'next move'. Arguably a direct clash is far from a foregone conclusion- it is unlikely a single cavalry archer would engage a heavy infantryman- or the infantryman would be foolhardy enough to attempt to chase down a cavalry archer on foot.
*Scale
Logically then we need to scale up the encounter- but at different numerical ratios we see vastly different outcomes- at a scale of perhaps 5 combatants, the cavalry archers have a distinct advantage- to present a sufficient 'frontage' of shields at least three Danes cannot use ranged weapons, and two archers trying to supress five moving targets is nigh impossible. Raise the scale to 50 and the Samurai lack of horse-armour and the effectiveness of zonal shooting (practised by Danes in ship-to-ship warfare) would see a relatively large number of horses, if not riders, killed, reducing the effectiveness of the Samurai force. Scaled again to a 500 vs. 500 encounter, the lack of -any- Danish cavalry makes the situation hazardous, and produces more a ''1066'' scenario, with a ring of Danes recieving fire and occasionally responding with archers clustered to the centre- the Samurai unable to break the Danish formation, but equally, the Danes unable to respond.
Rather than this being considered a cultural clash- or a simple ''x beats y'' thread, it comes down to the simple concept of Cavalry Archer Vs. Heavy Infantry. If that was a simple enough equation to answer with a single word (Samurai! Viking!) then surely all the published works analysing the Roman/Parthian arena of battle are needlessly long? No. The simple answer is- THERE IS NO SIMPLE ANSWER. There is a lot of posturing and grandstanding, but that is to basically cover the lack of real virtue to either argument or scenario- other than ''I picked this one because it favours my opinion''.
