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.
Skot the Sanguine said:
Don't also forget that vikings used bows plenty, so it isn't as though the samurai could just stay out of range and pepper them with arrows.  Where they would have the problem is that if the Samurai refrained from giving battle and simply shadowed the Viking army, at some point the Vikings must rest, eat, or travel back to a settlement...at which time the Samurai might attack quickly and cause casualties.  You see crap like that happen all the time with the Mongols, who were of course horse archers as well.

Yes, we all know that. Samurai cannot go toe to toe, but they have the one advantage of mobility. That's it.
 
Weren't Japanese horse archers an incredibly early form of samurai? As I recall I read about a tribe that did it but were sucked into the dominating demographic and stopped doing it. Their bows were not something to be feared as I recall. As far as I could find, their draw weight comes in below 90lb.
 
I saw a documentary where they matched the uneven shaped yumi with an English longbow. Their strength was about the same, usually the yumi pierced the target a little deeper. That it was not so strong comes from when it was matched against the mongol composite bows, and it failed miserably.
The horse archery in Japan comes from as early as the 4th century, but it's leading role was gradually replaced by the infantry, and the gunpowder made it obsolete for good. By the Sengoku era mass infantry battles were the shiz.
 
A lot of that is the economic shift of warfare that occurs everywhere as populations rise- essentially a cheap troop of Ashigaru with a sufficient number of bows, crossbows and yari can hold off cavalry archers and decimate them. You will probably lose more Ashigaru per head, but, well, large-scale armies. Easy enough.
Gunpowder just slams that trend home all the more sharply- the infantry now have a weapon that whilst not accurate, is devastating, and negates the difference in quality of armour.
 
Bromden said:
I saw a documentary where they matched the uneven shaped yumi with an English longbow. Their strength was about the same, usually the yumi pierced the target a little deeper. That it was not so strong comes from when it was matched against the mongol composite bows, and it failed miserably.
The horse archery in Japan comes from as early as the 4th century, but it's leading role was gradually replaced by the infantry, and the gunpowder made it obsolete for good. By the Sengoku era mass infantry battles were the shiz.

Yeah, but Sengoku era massed pike and shot would not be fair now, would it? What matters is that in the 10th century samurai were generally mounted archers.

@Blackthorn While I am not exactly a fan of the Japs, the ashigaru did become professional troops by the latter half of sengoku. And the teppo matchlocks were sometimes of exceptional quality. Note the sometimes - they were generally no better or no worse than European designs.
 
Precisely. The claim that the weapon is not accurate it not a reflection on Japanese firearms- more the nature of the firearms of that era universally. Sheer felling power they have in spades, as well as excellent linear penetration. But don't expect them to be picking their targets particularly closely.

And the fact that the ashigaru -developed- into close-order proffessionals isn't the initial -cause-, it's the effect- the main cause was economic pressures and the ''bang for buck'' scale of warfare- people are often shocked to learn that during the Napoleonic there was a great amount of scope for bullet proof armour- both formed from multiple layers of silk, or even the higher-end quality cuirasses. But the sheer cost involved in kitting out troops with such equipment meant it wasn't a serious consideration- again, the warfare focus has shifted from ''the elite few'' to the ''best economically balanced many''. The development of the 'soldier' as opposed to the ''warrior'' can be viewed in most cultures- and usually develops with the rise of formation weaponry, better formation strategy, and an emphasis on discipline before personal prowess- the rise of the bill, the pike, the zonal shooting archer- all of these are clear indicators of a society that is moving beyond the concept of a ''warrior class'' and developing a concept of ''proffessional soldier''- which was what I was commenting on- essentially that the ''rise of the infantry block'' and decline of the ''elite warrior'' isn't a solely Japanese cultural/military development- it's a universal development that occurs worldwide at some point, with usually the population rise and therefore economic pressure of trying to field large enough armies and not being able to develop a large enough 'warrior class'.
 
Bromden said:
I saw a documentary where they matched the uneven shaped yumi with an English longbow. Their strength was about the same, usually the yumi pierced the target a little deeper. That it was not so strong comes from when it was matched against the mongol composite bows, and it failed miserably.

Link? these sorts of comparisons are almost always awful. The most likely nonsense would be the used of bows with inappropriate draw weight.
 
Here is the first two minutes, with the measurement of the release speeds.

It's NatGeo, so I couldn't find the whole stuff on youtube, plus NG is generally full of sensationalist crap. But the comparing of the two looked okay when I saw it. Me too would like to watch it again with a more critical eye.
 
Urgh. Firstly Mike Loades wasn't drawing the longbow correctly- but that's relatively minor. The longbow shaft wasn't scarfed with oak and had quite a light head- so that throws the analysis again- and finally the range they tested them at would be key- samurai loose shafts at relatively close range. Given the people and the places, this looks like it was produced by the Leeds Royal Armouries in conjunction with the shrine they are twinned with on Japan. Ever since they twinned there's been a lit of Samurai Elite propaganda type material flowing through that place- which is a shame. Approach with salt at the ready...
 
Not sure, as I'm no expert, how much it may influence the test... Though the first thing I noticed was that the person using the Yumi is way taller and way younger.. Would that influence the test as well? I can hardly immagine a Japanese man of the 12th century(or any time previous to the last century, unless we consider the norther parto of the islands) being taller then 1,60m and consequentially he'll hardly be able, simply by the shorter length of his arms, to draw the arrow back quite as much as a more imposing archer. Probably nothing that would influence the strength of the bow but again..
 
Hmmm... Don't think so, as the bottom is barely at hips' height so it shouldn't impair riding too badly. Still thinking the height and age of the archer has a significant impact on the whole equation ...
 
Height and age might be not that important factor as draw strength and arm length. Of course, height can be a major factor in arm length. Age can have a word in draw strength, but it mostly depends on practise, and it's only a factor if you want to keep your bow drawn for a time, or want to take aim.

Amman de Stazia said:
isnt that bow a bit long for mounted archery?

yabusame.jpg

yabusame_a02-800.jpg
 
How cute! The vikings vs samurai thread is still going after what, three years? Anyway:

Blackthorn said:
Urgh. Firstly Mike Loades wasn't drawing the longbow correctly- but that's relatively minor. The longbow shaft wasn't scarfed with oak and had quite a light head- so that throws the analysis again- and finally the range they tested them at would be key- samurai loose shafts at relatively close range. Given the people and the places, this looks like it was produced by the Leeds Royal Armouries in conjunction with the shrine they are twinned with on Japan. Ever since they twinned there's been a lit of Samurai Elite propaganda type material flowing through that place- which is a shame. Approach with salt at the ready...
As I recall from the full program, both the yumi and longbow used in this video had a draw weight of 60 lbs., which is not unreasonable for a yumi, but on the weak side for an English warbow (for a regular longbow, as opposed to "the" longbow, it is fine). That might explain why Mike doesn't have to put his back into it (literally) in order to draw the bow. There is no reason I can think of why they would use such a weak longbow for comparison, except if it was to even the score for the yumi.

How relevant the video is for the topic depends on the parameters of the scenario: is it any which samurai from any which period? If so, the yumi is fine. If we stipulate that the yumi should be contemporary to the vikings, then it is moot. The bows used by early mounted samurai were very weak, and according to Karl Friday (Linky, p.107) would be used at point blank range (10 meters or less) and aimed carefully at weak points of the armour.

As for viking bows, I really don't know enough about them to comment.
 
Well, to my knowledge, the vikings did have large self-bows of around the length of the longbow(found in ship burials, mind you.), but they weren't the same thing, to my knowledge; the viking great bow might have just been a compensation of size for a better design.
Most of the time, the vikings probably used a heavy-draw hunting bow. In the Leidang, which was a seagoing militia formed by the danes(and possibly other Scandinavians), one of every two sailors had to bring a bow & arrows aboard.
 
The viking bow was a longbow, yes, but I think they used flat bows. Anyway, most bows used, ever since the stone age, have been longbows. As I understand it, a longer bow has less chance of breaking and so can stand heavier draw weights, and this is the reason why most simple bows have been longbows. As I understand it - archery is not my field, so I may be off base.
 
I think part of the issue is that people perceive the longbow as a specialized and specific weapon.  The English Longbow is simply a yew selfbow of great draw strength (and typically length).  However, its overall design is nothing unusual.  Germanic pagans (the Vikings being the last of such historically) often used yew selfbows.  These could be shortbows or longbows, seemingly from personal preference. 
 
Amman de Stazia said:
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.
Please tell me that was not a serious post.

If it was, I will be forced to point out that the samurai naturally brings along the tiger he has stolen, which eats up the dead horse leaving the viking a sitting duck. Hey, if we are to include stolen items as part of the kit, then anything goes.
 
why would it not be serious?  The first thing viking raiders did, if they were going to be more than a few hours on land, was steal horses.  They arrived by ship and therefore did not bring their own horses.  They fought on foot but - like many other armies - used horses for movement.

The post is of course somewhat tongue in cheek, as is only fitting for such a stupid discussion, but far more likely than a tame war-tiger.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom