Vikings v.s. Samurai?

[Bromden]

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.

isnt that bow a bit long for mounted archery?

(click to show/hide)

[Roach XI the Magnificent]

isnt that bow a bit long for mounted archery?

Not really, because it's actually meant for that purpose:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK7XdnIeH24

[Kissaki]

How cute! The vikings vs samurai thread is still going after what, three years? Anyway:

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.

[Rallix]

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.

[Kissaki]

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.

[Skot the Sanguine]

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. 

[Kissaki]

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.

[Amman de Stazia]

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.

[Kissaki]

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.

If they were to steal horses it would be for the purpose of using them for something constructive like hauling goods, not to use them as makeshift barricades. And a dead horse only provides limited cover anyway - it is far easier for a rider to circle a dead horse than it would be for someone to keep shifting positions around and behind the dead horse. The viking would exhaust himself long before the horse would, but of course he might hope that the comical display would have the samurai in a laughing fit.

Also, vikings didn't go on raids solo - if you assume he is on a raid, assume he is with friends. In which case they are far more likely to ready their shields against arrows than to give the order to kill the horses. If it's a one-on-one scenario, the stolen tiger for the samurai makes just as much sense as the stolen horse for the viking. Like I said, if we allow stolen equipment as part of the Deadliest Warrior kit, then anything goes. Hell, the samurai could have the exact same equipment as a viking, looted off a dead viking.

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.

Never said it was tame. Just that it was stolen.

[AWdeV]

Yeah, but the viking looted a laserrifle from a timetraveller who happened by the battlefield a few days ago and died of diarrhoea.

[Hugues]

Ok, I'm 3 years late but I chose Vikings - reason: shields.

[Amontadillo]

Oh, come on.

[SpruceTrap]

This is dumb.

[Suspicious Pilgrim]

Anyone who tries to reignite the argument from now on should receive a katana thrust through their rectum and a longship fall from Valhalla on to their house.

[Amman de Stazia]

I'll risk the katana (which is about as dangerous as a slice of cheese anyway) 'cos I'd love a genuine Aesir longboat.

the viking was so much better than the samurai.  Why?  because they had names like Sven, Bjorn, Harald and Erik.   These are the names of winners, my fir-ends, and no samurai, regardless of his steel-watered Strange Great Sword, can possibly stand up to them.