Vikings v.s. Samurai?

[Blackthorn]

More to the point, raids are raids; you can't conquer anybody by raiding them.  Read up on how it worked out when the Golden Horde invaded Europe; if you can't be bothered to read up on Japanese history, at least know what happened when East met West in the area you can be bothered with- it didn't work out for the Vikings, or rather their descendents, to put it bluntly.

So we're now working on the system that the Rus were beaten by the Mongols, therefore Samurai>Vikings? That'd work fine if the Mongols hadn't >Japanese a good few times- and mainly been dogged with tremendous bad luck regarding their fleets (or divine intervention- take your pick).

The belief that the Samurai were in some way so -deeply- different to any established fighting elite element of a culture is usually ethnic propaganda and the desire in all people to try and find a single ''elite''- IE- let's argue what's better folks, paper, scissors or rock!

 

[xenoargh]

Mongols invaded Scandinavia?

Naw, just Poland, Germany, all the way into eastern France.

As for my point about the Mongols, it isn't Samurai boosterism; if you read the above thing you can see I was just giving an accurate view, and you can confirm all of it by reading the basics.

I was just saying that if he can't be bothered to read up on Japanese society c. 900 AD, the invasion of Europe by the Golden Horde is the closest comparison.  I think that's just lazy and a lousy comparison, but when people say "I can't be bothered to learn more about the thing I want to have a strong opinion about" I get a little tetchy 

Anyhow, I agree with you that the Mongols were very superior horse archers, but the point is that Vikings, or anybody who fought like they did, generally did poorly against horse-archer cultures.  What worked as a raider against mainly un-armored civilians along the European coasts would not have worked well against the Japanese during this period.

If we want to talk about Europeans beating Samurai, that's not a problem; put the Japanese vs. practically anybody during the later Hundred Years War and the Europeans were already superior.

 

[teh.frickin.pope]

Mongols invaded Scandinavia?

Naw, just Poland, Germany, all the way into eastern France.

Really? Thought Southwest Poland was as far as they got.

 

[Rath0s]

let's argue what's better folks, paper, scissors or rock!

Very good point there, and its completely true.

 

[FrisianDude]

@Xenopope and teh.fricking.argh; I thought the Huns went way into France, the Mongols didn't.

Thought i should point out that the Viking mastered making folded steel weapons 2-300 years before the Japanese, therefore i would say the Vikings would win by default. Vikings being tanks, berserker, fighting machines. They are the ultimate fighting machine. end-of.

you lump of limp limpetcocks, why did you resurrect a thread which had been in its ignominious shallow grave for more than two blessed years just to  post ignorant and anti-historic garbage like this? Why?

 

[Blackthorn]

Yes- the Mongols reached the gates of Eastern Europe- never reaching the ''Frankish'' states.
In a large field scenario, what you need to stress is the Danish lack of cavalry- which is a horrendous lack to try and make up with an all-infantry army facing organised cavalry.
Please don't use pseudo-history to support a sweeping claim.

 

[Kobrag]

Yes- the Mongols reached the gates of Eastern Europe- never reaching the ''Frankish'' states.
In a large field scenario, what you need to stress is the Danish lack of cavalry- which is a horrendous lack to try and make up with an all-infantry army facing organised cavalry.
Please don't use pseudo-history to support a sweeping claim.

The European heavy cavalry at the time would have been pretty useless agaisnt the light cavalry of the Mongols.
Though they would be pretty effective against the conscript infantry forces.

 

[Roach XI the Magnificent]

Depends what era samurai. The Samurai of the viking era were nothing more than irregular retainers. The Samurai of the Genpei war were heavily armored, "heroic" horse archers, who would often challenge each other to duels. The Samurai of the Sengoku Jidai came in all types - heavy cavalry, horse archers, infantry, etc.

I'd bet my ass a Samurai, riding a horse wielding a matchlock, would take down a viking. And that a viking would curbstomp an early samurai fighting on foot with a bow and short sword. The thread is way too general.

 

[xenoargh]

On the extent of Mongol raids, I could have sworn I read about them once raiding as far as Frankish territory once, before turning back, but I can't dig that up again, so I'll concede the point.

Anyhow, they conquered much of Russia (established and ruled by descendents of... Vikings), and my point about them was mainly in terms of tactical similarity (which, to be fair, is pretty murky- Mongols and Samurai were actually not that similar, other than riding horses and shooting bows; the Mongols, for example, were quite fond of using lancers).

The point here is that Vikings weren't really equipped to fight mounted armies, especially not a horse-archer army, which is its own special case. 

The history of ancient combat on this kind of matchup (i.e., infantry armies vs. horse archers) is very one-sided; a horse-archer army was one of the most powerful things in the medieval world, and remained so until the end of the Golden Horde.

The Samurai of the viking era were nothing more than irregular retainers.

Incorrect; by 900 AD, we're talking mid-Heian Samurai; they were already mounted archers with early suits of their famous lamellar.

But yeah, I'll concede your basic point; 'Samurai' is vague. 

Then again, so is 'Viking'- in 900 AD, the thanes and huscarls might have had maille shirts, but probably not the ordinary Viking warriors.  You don't see Vikings all in maille until the early 11th century, IIRC.

 

[RalliX]

Me and my brother had a discussion about a similar subject, which I will raise here rather than in a smaller, less frequented new thread.

The idea is this:

Hypothetical conflict between a Roman(Think Marian(Late Republican), to Early Imperial) force of approximately 10,000 men(two medium strength legions), versus a Mongol Tuman(10,000).

The armies are nearly opposites of eachother.
One is a highly mobile force consisting mostly of horse-archers, with a smaller core of a few thousand lancers. I will assume they have no infantry with them, except if some warriors dismount.
The Romans consist mainly of heavy infantry, followed by an insubstantial light infantry force, and then a few hundred equites for scouting & delivering orders.

Keep in mind, the Mongols would have saddles, strirrups, horse armour for the lancers, etc.

Me and Bro figure this would be a complete stalemate unless either side were to make a tactical error.
In the end, we figured that if no significant mistakes were made, then either side would simply redirect their forces somewhere else.

On a plain, grassy field: Romans draw their cohorts into formation, and dig in their position as best as they can.
The Mongols will fan out their light cavalry in a great wave, and fire volleys of arrows into the Romans, who will probably suffer only minor losses, though morale may begin to break.

The Mongols will play this movement out like a charge, then retreat just before they reach the Infantry.
They as well will likely suffer some minor casualties from Roman artillery and throwing spears/slings, or other ranged weapons they may have. Let's say this kills a couple hundred men on either side at most.

By this point, both generals will realize that the enemy force will have to be fooled into wasting their troops.
The Romans would fail by leaving any of their groups open to attack, or stranded, or by following a false Mongol retreat. The Mongols would fail by trying to break the enemy with pure force, probably in the form of a hail of arrows followed by a pincer-movement style lancer charge, both of which would(probably) be completely absorbed by the solid Legions.

Anyone want to add to this?

 

[Bromden]

The Hun warfare was similar to the mongols, horse archers in large numbers, plus auxiliaries from annexed nations.

They battled the Roman empire with great effect. Their main tactic were encircling the enemy just out of spear distance,
and fill them with arrows. I read about an excavation of such battle, and the majority of the dead had arrow wounds to the head,
coming from above in a flat angle. If they encountered heavy resistance, they feigned a retreat, luring their persecutors into a trap.

So, in the scenario you pictured, I'd bet my money on the Mongols.

 

[FrisianDude]

Like nuts the Romans stand a bogging chance against that Tumen. The mongols can choose practically everything of the fight while at the same time showering them in arrows. Mongols win, and they'll laugh their ass off at how easy it was.

 

[Bromden]

Seems it's Mongols vs. Romans now.

 

[RalliX]

Seems it's Mongols vs. Romans now.

Actually, you can look to the recent posts above mine for the necro.

 

[Roach XI the Magnificent]

Mongols =/= Huns. Huns, a conglomeration of Turkic, Iranic and Germanic peoples, were organized along tribal, semi-feudal "units" in battle and fought in whatever way the particular individual could.
Mongols had a giant, "professional" army strictly organized into units on all levels, rigourosly trained and drilled. They also had a fair share of uniformity since 6 out of every 10 fought as light horse archers, and 4 fought as lancers. They used auxiliaries for siege work, although the fighting was still usually done by dismounted Mongols.

 

[Suspicous Pilgrim]

How the hell did the Mamelukes beat the Mongols? They were the Egyptian equivilant of knights.

 

[Roach XI the Magnificent]

How the hell did the Mamelukes beat the Mongols? They were the Egyptian equivilant of knights.

You are confusing the Mameluke dynasty with the troops called mamelukes. Mamelukes/Ghulams were any cavalry troops who had been bought as slaves, and brought up as soldiers - so they weren't actual equivalent of knights - the Islamic states employed freeborn cavalry with fiefs of land or money as well . They were generally proficient with both the bow and melee weapons. But that is besides the point - since the Mamelukes in question were the Egyptian state, ruled by a mameluke named Baibars. Their army consisted of a wide variety of troops.

 

[Bromden]

Mongols =/= Huns. Huns, a conglomeration of Turkic, Iranic and Germanic peoples, were organized along tribal, semi-feudal "units" in battle and fought in whatever way the particular individual could.
Mongols had a giant, "professional" army strictly organized into units on all levels, rigourosly trained and drilled. They also had a fair share of uniformity since 6 out of every 10 fought as light horse archers, and 4 fought as lancers. They used auxiliaries for siege work, although the fighting was still usually done by dismounted Mongols.

It's true that they are not the same, and they used much more auxiliaries, but the core of the Hun forces were the horse archers, and the archeologic proofs tell that this was their main weapon against the Roman legions. So in the Mongols vs. Romans scenario the Hun example is valid, as it proves that the Mongol tactics would bring victory with a good chance.

 

[Leifr Eiríksson]

**** me. You're all retarded...

 

[FrisianDude]

**** me.

Okay.

You're all retarded...

No u.