Vikings v.s. Samurai?

Who would win Vikings or Samurai?

  • Vikings

    Votes: 273 59.3%
  • Samurai

    Votes: 187 40.7%

  • Total voters
    460

Users who are viewing this thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Back on topic:

Let's specify what period samurai. I don't think we're looking for 16th century ones with matchlocks, spears, swords and hotoke-do plate (yes, plate) armor. We should pick late 14th to mid 15th century, IMO, because then you'd have foot samurai in lamellar armor (inferior to mail but still good), fighting on foot with naginata/spears, bows and swords.
 
how about 2009?
Amman de Stazia said:
first scenario

if you unspoiler you will see Kasimir's research on the Samurai armour which was commonly available in the 12th Century...

Samurai equipment for the 'challenge' is therefore:
Armour:
heavy lamellar with breastplate, and shoulder-guards.  Cloth leggings and iron greaves. Leather boots and gloves.
(helmet?)
Weapons:
Long, curved slashing sword (hand-and-half). Shortsword in reserve.  Shortbow with 30 shafts.

****  if the samurai people want to replace the weapons with, say, a long (or short) spear, go right ahead.  I just thought this was a fairly sensible load.

This compares with the following for Haakon's warrior:* (Haakon, King of Norway)

Armour:
Mail byrnie which has elbow-length sleeves and falls to mid-thigh.  Thick leather jerkin under the mail, full-length sleeves.  Thick woolen trews. Leather boots and gloves.  Iron helmet with a nasal, and leather aventail and cheek-pieces.
Weapons:
Large roundshield (covers from shoulder nearly to knee) made of willow with iron rim and boss, covered with boiled leather.
6-foot long spear (can be used one or two handed but thrown has only 10-20 metres range), 1-handed sword in reserve.

OK, first challenge we have a slight advantage 'viking'.

Let's look at a second scenario.

Again, going for the overlap-period, this time around the turn of the 11th/12th Century, say AD1200 +/- 35 years.

Extrapolating the time-line of armour development in Kasimir's research
(click to show/hide)
I have this from the wiki on O-yoroi armour, which resembles a mix of plate armour and brigandine, started use in the 10th century (as a rich man's armour) and came into widespread use in the 12th century.


Quote
The Ō-Yoroi combines plate and lamellar elements. One specific advance over earlier armors is that the lamellae of o-yoroi are first laced together and then covered with lacquer, which enhances resistance to corrosion.[4] The cuirass, (called a dō), consisted of two parts. One (the waidate) was a separate defense for the right side and the other part covered the rest of the wearer's trunk. The upper part of the waidate was solid iron plate covered with leather. The lower part was laminated. When dressing for battle, the waidate was put on before the rest of the cuirass and fastened with cords that tied around the body. The rest of the cuirass was also iron plate covered with leather on top with laminated segments below. Various supplementary pieces included rectangular lamellae shoulder guards (ō-sode) and a fabric and plate sleeve (kote) for the left arm. Greaves (suneate) made from lacquered iron protected the shins and joined over fabric leggings (habaki). Specialized archery gloves were made from deerskin and boots were made of bearskin or sealskin.

There were weaknesses. It was designed as cavalry armour, so was heavy, and the boxy shape meant it did not give the full range of movement for swordsmanship on foot.

However, I just found a new source which blows me out of the water and means I will need to revise a lot of my assumptions about early samurai/predecessors.

http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_jpn_armour.html

The late tanko (I think around 9th century) is what we would call a coat of plates. The 5th-8th century kieko includes splint vambraces. That stuff looks like transitional armour.  From the 10th century the boxy o-yoroi appears which includes plate, but is less practical for maneuverability. I am tempted to say "screw it, these guys had transitional armour, vikings won't get through that any time soon" but I strongly suspect there is something I am missing when I read this article - particularly since they moved towards lamellar style armour later on (why?).

Also, I think the Japanese armour had more gaps in it, but I think viking weapons (mostly cutting) tend to be poorly suited to exploiting that weakness.

I do think I am seeing a pattern with the evolution of Japanese warfare, parralelling the French chivalry that started off really effective and then grew complacent in their success (which bit the Japanese in the Mongol invasion much like it bit the French in the Hundred Years War).

I have a lot of revision to do on this subject.
I will give the Samurai only the lamellar armour, with splint bracers and greaves.
The Viking will be equipped as a Huiscarl from Harold of Wessex' army was in 1066, taken from the Bayeux tapestry (which is actually a very decent historical reference, being (a) close to period, (b) a Norman creation {therfore unlikely to exaggerate the Saxons} and (c) corroborated in many instances by other historical references.)

Equipment is therefore:

Samurai -
A horse, unarmoured (Samurai people, did they have saddles or just cloths?)
A knee-length coat of lamellar armour, with splint bracers and greaves.  Leather boots and gloves. 
(helmet?)
A shortbow and 30 arrows.
A short spear, and a shortsword in reserve.

Viking:
A horse, unarmoured.  Leather saddle with girthstrap.
Mail byrnie which has elbow-length sleeves and falls to mid-thigh.  Thick leather jerkin under the mail, full-length sleeves.  Thick woolen trews. Leather boots and gloves. 
Iron helmet with a nasal.
A teardrop-shaped kite shield of willow boards, with iron rim and boss, coated in boiled leather.  The shield has forearm-straps as well as a handgrip, so the warrior can grip a pair of javelins in his shield-hand...
Three javelins (one in hand, two in shield-hand).  Can also be used as thrusting spears but are approx 30cm shorter than the samurai's spear.
A longsword in reserve.
 
In the second scenario, the viking of course has stolen his horse (so he doesn't care about it much) and he slits its throat, and uses the carcass as a makeshift defensive wall.  That, coupled with his shield, allows him to avoid being hit by any arrows.  As  the Samurai rides in a circle around him, he just moves around the other side of the dead horse.

After the samurai runs out of arrows he charges.  The viking stands behind his dead horse.  At short range he pumps all three javelins into the samurai's horse and it drops dead, and the samurai suffers a twisted ankle dismounting/jumping clear.

The viking proceeds to tire the limping samurai out before winning.
 
A samurai would easily somersault off the dead horse, and safely land anywhere within a 10 meter radius. After that, using a secret technique taught to every samurai as a child, punches through the shield and the byrnie, easily ripping out the viking's heart. This is a kung-fu tai-chi thing.
 
You are wrong. Kung fu was invented by proto-japanese cavemen, and all other martial art originates from it, be it tai chi, boxing, or drunken barfight. Think before you post.
 
Dear Gringo,

You are treading on thin ice!

I will not tolerate you spreading your Imperialistic ideology in this purely objective and innocent sub forum!  :evil:

I will fight you on the seas, I will fight you on the beaches and I will fight you in the bars! (This speech seems familiar somehow...)

Sincerly,
Ulf, professional Swede, destroyer of communists, drinker of vodka, invader of German countries, Wizard of IKEA, Esq.
 
The main difference is that the Vikings have shields. both parties have bows armor and swords. Vikings boasted how strong war bows (long bows) they could use. Height also means a lot. But there are approx. 300-500 years between. My answer is if it is at the same time weapons.
 
As I did say God knows how many pages back, both era and status needs to be defined to make any sense of this. But the shields a huge factor- it requires the samuraii to adapt his style of combat, which our Dane doesn't need to do as much. He is taller with a longer reach and something that will throw off the samurai combat wise. Advantage, Dane.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom