Viking vs Samurai, Who wins?

So I'm watching Deadliest Warrior for the Apache vs Gladiator, and next week is going to be the Viking vs Samurai.

So who wins. The Viking or the Samurai

And don't forget to state your case.

Vikings. Sure, samurai's were battle-hardened but Vikings were insane, battle-hardened, drunken, battleaxe-weilding, musclebound, pillaging rapists who ran at their enemies screaming at the top of their lungs and waving thier weapons around like they were made of aluminum foil.

A viking would crush the poor samurai.

Vikings. Sure, samurai's were battle-hardened but Vikings were insane, battle-hardened, drunken, battleaxe-weilding, musclebound, pillaging rapists who ran at their enemies screaming at the top of their lungs and waving thier weapons around like they were made of aluminum foil.

A viking would crush the poor samurai.

THE_DRUGGIE

When it comes to close combat the Samurai would own the Vikings. However, the vikings are rather good at long range if I recall correctly. Head_of_games

Actually, vikings win at close combat as well. If a samurai's sword hits anything that's not the enemy's unprotected body, it'll snap like a twig...Not to mention a samurai's armor is incredibly weak against a battleaxe.

Samurais have honor, Vikings will just rape your woman and burn your house.

Viking.

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

Vikings. Sure, samurai's were battle-hardened but Vikings were insane, battle-hardened, drunken, battleaxe-weilding, musclebound, pillaging rapists who ran at their enemies screaming at the top of their lungs and waving thier weapons around like they were made of aluminum foil.

A viking would crush the poor samurai.

Head_of_games

I doubt even a samurai could dodge the impressive swinging range of a viking's battleaxe. But even if the samurai somehow managed to stab him in the back, vikings would be pumped full of adrenaline and rip the poor guy to shreds.

I'd go with a Viking.

While I would like to say Viking, I'm pretty sure the Samurai would wipe the floor with them.

I admit that I dont know that much about Vikings though....

[QUOTE="Head_of_games"]When it comes to close combat the Samurai would own the Vikings. However, the vikings are rather good at long range if I recall correctly. THE_DRUGGIE

Actually, vikings win at close combat as well. If a samurai's sword hits anything that's not the enemy's unprotected body, it'll snap like a twig...Not to mention a samurai's armor is incredibly weak against a battleaxe.

Samurais have honor, Vikings will just rape your woman and burn your house.

Viking.

freek666

I think a samurai would win. The bow and arrow is great for long range and the katana is great for close range. Katanas were crafted to be razor-sharp and durable.

Samurais have honor, Vikings will just rape your woman and burn your house.

Viking.

freek666

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

[QUOTE="Head_of_games"]When it comes to close combat the Samurai would own the Vikings. However, the vikings are rather good at long range if I recall correctly. Head_of_games

Actually, vikings win at close combat as well. If a samurai's sword hits anything that's not the enemy's unprotected body, it'll snap like a twig...Not to mention a samurai's armor is incredibly weak against a battleaxe.

The vikings didn't act like madmen just for the sake of it, you know. Their insane battle tactics were the kind of psychological warfare that would make even the toughest foes wet their pants or at lease pause for a second or two.

Samurai will win. Their fighting technique and gear were much more advanced than the Vikings even at their height. Samurai armor may not have had metal in them but their composition and how they were worn made for very good anti-arrow attacks. Samurai katana swords and naginata spears were also forged to be very sharp so one solid slicing hit will sever limbs and even torsos cleanly. Samurai are also well-versed in long-range combat whether as foot archers or mounted archers.

The only thing Vikings had going for them in this fight would be their extreme aggressiveness and size. While to most of their opponents this would be enough to win them the fight samurai are taught and trained to always go into battle knowing that they're already dead men. So death would hold no fear on them which would free them to go all out with calm precision instead of crazed berserker.

[QUOTE="Head_of_games"][QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

Actually, vikings win at close combat as well. If a samurai's sword hits anything that's not the enemy's unprotected body, it'll snap like a twig...Not to mention a samurai's armor is incredibly weak against a battleaxe.

THE_DRUGGIE

The vikings didn't act like madmen just for the sake of it, you know. Their insane battle tactics were the kind of psychological warfare that would make even the toughest foes wet their pants or at lease pause for a second or two.

Samurai, if you dont think samurais are crazy watch the last samurai because they do not care if they die

Samurai, if you dont think samurais are crazy watch the last samurai because they do not care if they die

muller39

Well, they're not really crazy. They just know that every time they go out to fight they do so as dead men. Makes it easier to fight if you have already convinced yourself that you're a walking dead man.

Heh, I would say the Samurai, partly due to the equipment he has (thier armor was amazingly effective altho they seem primitive.

Also, that japan could defend against 10000 Mongolians, were quite a feat, especially when you consider how few Samurai there was.

The Vikings are a whole other beast, they had no great weapons, but they understood how to use whatever weapons they got thier hands on, with a brutal effeciancy rarely seen.

The Vikings biggest asset was shock attacks, and terror tactics, they came suddenly fast and hard. Overwhelming defences and crushing any and all.

When people started building good fortifications tho, the Vikings became outmatched, unable to use thier age old tactics, and vanished.

The Vikings had relatively good armor early on, they basicly invented the Ringmail, the granddaddy of chainmail, but far less effective.

The wildcard here must be the "drugs" they took before combat (technically those werrent Vikings, but Berserkers) They were hard as nails, close to impossible to take down, immune to pain and fatique. It was not unlikely for a berserker to fight altho he had lost and arm, or had cought several arrows, rage and madness kep them going untill they bled out.

At range the Vikings would be better I guess... but the Mongols had the best bows of the time, and if they failed soI can not see how the Vikings could suceed... well ofcourse there is a difference of an arrow and a throwing axe (which we are still tought as scouts btw ;P)

I would love to see a fullplate wearing European Templar vs a Samurai tho, the fullplate aint as heavy and clumbsy as people make it out to be, and it would be able to hold against atleast 1 strike with a katana, and if the Templae used a mace the Samurais armor wouldnt protect enough

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

[QUOTE="Head_of_games"] However, they are so nimble they would never even get hit! A Viking just runs like a madman swinging his weapon randomly. It's mind over matter.Head_of_games

The vikings didn't act like madmen just for the sake of it, you know. Their insane battle tactics were the kind of psychological warfare that would make even the toughest foes wet their pants or at lease pause for a second or two.

And what makes you think the vikings weren't hardcore and fearless? Trust me, vikings would mop the floor with the samurai due to sheer muscle alone. Swinging a battleaxe around the way they did made it impossible to engage in close combat without getting your head chopped off, even when trying to attack from behind. Now that's skillful.

Well, Vikings are very strong and their use of battleaxes and some swords with ease make them dangerous against unskilled or below-par opponents but samurai cannot ever be called unskilled or below-par. If a Viking swinging a sword or axe in figure eights to keep distance between himself and his opponent then he negates his advantage. Also, samurai do not have to just use the katana to kill. A naginata-wielding samurai would have a much longer-reach in close-combat than a Viking. A naginata being a spear with the spearhead replaced with a sword-blade forged in the same fashion as a katana.

Vikings, they have brutal aggressive behavior and there fighting skills are top notch. But a samurai wont go down without a long hard fight.

Well, Vikings are very strong and their use of battleaxes and some swords with ease make them dangerous against unskilled or below-par opponents but samurai cannot ever be called unskilled or below-par. If a Viking swinging a sword or axe in figure eights to keep distance between himself and his opponent then he negates his advantage. Also, samurai do not have to just use the katana to kill. A naginata-wielding samurai would have a much longer-reach in close-combat than a Viking. A naginata being a spear with the spearhead replaced with a sword-blade forged in the same fashion as a katana.

Buck_Hotep

And Vikings have throwing axes for their mid-range combat needs.

I think I might have to change my name to "VikingGuns". :lol::P

Viking. They just seem more bloodthirsty.

A sidenote: anyone here even know about The Training a Samurai had? they were NOT fast at all... let me rephrase that... they were not mobile at all* They relied and hoped for the first strike, if they missed they would be screwed. They were good tacticians tho, so it is not likely they would put themselves in a position where they would be compremised.

In truth I guess it all comes down to speed, since I doubt any of thier armors would last long (Maybe the Vikings metal enforced shields may acturally be a 2nd wildcard) because the Katana, is a one way hit weapon, and it IS a slashing weapon first and foremost, so if that one important strike misses, the Samurai will be screwed, due to the mass of the Viking, and the speed the Viking can keep hitting (an axe if used, would double as a blunt and a slashing weapon)

Altho it is a far cry from thebase fightingstyle Kendo acturally demonstrates my point, if you ever watched it.

[QUOTE="Buck_Hotep"]

Well, Vikings are very strong and their use of battleaxes and some swords with ease make them dangerous against unskilled or below-par opponents but samurai cannot ever be called unskilled or below-par. If a Viking swinging a sword or axe in figure eights to keep distance between himself and his opponent then he negates his advantage. Also, samurai do not have to just use the katana to kill. A naginata-wielding samurai would have a much longer-reach in close-combat than a Viking. A naginata being a spear with the spearhead replaced with a sword-blade forged in the same fashion as a katana.

THE_DRUGGIE

And Vikings have throwing axes for their mid-range combat needs.

True, but the samurai have their bows which would have a longer-range. It's really not a fair comparison who would win since at the very height of Viking dominance their gear and tactics were for the time when, as someone has already mentioned, heavily-fortified towns were rare so those they fought and surprised were usually in the open.

Japanese samurai tactics and gear at the height of their dominance allowed this warrior caste to fight in all types of battlefield and situations.

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

[QUOTE="Buck_Hotep"]

Well, Vikings are very strong and their use of battleaxes and some swords with ease make them dangerous against unskilled or below-par opponents but samurai cannot ever be called unskilled or below-par. If a Viking swinging a sword or axe in figure eights to keep distance between himself and his opponent then he negates his advantage. Also, samurai do not have to just use the katana to kill. A naginata-wielding samurai would have a much longer-reach in close-combat than a Viking. A naginata being a spear with the spearhead replaced with a sword-blade forged in the same fashion as a katana.

Buck_Hotep

And Vikings have throwing axes for their mid-range combat needs.

True, but the samurai have their bows which would have a longer-range. It's really not a fair comparison who would win since at the very height of Viking dominance their gear and tactics were for the time when, as someone has already mentioned, heavily-fortified towns were rare so those they fought and surprised were usually in the open.

Japanese samurai tactics and gear at the height of their dominance allowed this warrior caste to fight in all types of battlefield and situations.

But aren't we talking about a one-on-one between a viking and a samurai? If so, that information does not apply.

The samurai kills the viking, the other vikings find out and set out to conquer japan, they figure since they have japan they might as well take mongolia, they have mongolia so they might as well take over the middle east, they have the middle east, so they might as well take over europe. Then one of 'em says, "hey look there's an america just across the ocean, lets go snag it".randizzle93

[QUOTE="randizzle93"]The samurai kills the viking, the other vikings find out and set out to conquer japan, they figure since they have japan they might as well take mongolia, they have mongolia so they might as well take over the middle east, they have the middle east, so they might as well take over europe. Then one of 'em says, "hey look there's an america just across the ocean, lets go snag it".Infinite-Zr0

Vikings like to gang up on people, essentially.

[QUOTE="Buck_Hotep"]

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

And Vikings have throwing axes for their mid-range combat needs.

THE_DRUGGIE

True, but the samurai have their bows which would have a longer-range. It's really not a fair comparison who would win since at the very height of Viking dominance their gear and tactics were for the time when, as someone has already mentioned, heavily-fortified towns were rare so those they fought and surprised were usually in the open.

Japanese samurai tactics and gear at the height of their dominance allowed this warrior caste to fight in all types of battlefield and situations.

But aren't we talking about a one-on-one between a viking and a samurai? If so, that information does not apply.

Then if its one-on-one then definitely samurai.

I think its the samurai, no contest. A samurai is a fighter that has honed his skills for many, many, years and has crazy agilitycompared to a viking who is a drunken bard who was tossed a battleaxe and told to chop up some people.

[QUOTE="Infinite-Zr0"][QUOTE="randizzle93"]The samurai kills the viking, the other vikings find out and set out to conquer japan, they figure since they have japan they might as well take mongolia, they have mongolia so they might as well take over the middle east, they have the middle east, so they might as well take over europe. Then one of 'em says, "hey look there's an america just across the ocean, lets go snag it".THE_DRUGGIE

Vikings like to gang up on people, essentially.

samaruai ftw!

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

[QUOTE="Buck_Hotep"]

True, but the samurai have their bows which would have a longer-range. It's really not a fair comparison who would win since at the very height of Viking dominance their gear and tactics were for the time when, as someone has already mentioned, heavily-fortified towns were rare so those they fought and surprised were usually in the open.

Japanese samurai tactics and gear at the height of their dominance allowed this warrior caste to fight in all types of battlefield and situations.

Buck_Hotep

But aren't we talking about a one-on-one between a viking and a samurai? If so, that information does not apply.

Then if its one-on-one then definitely samurai.

Nope, Viking. Like I said, vikings can shrug off damage and create a buffer zone with their battleaxe and toss one of their throwable axes to finish the job. The samurai should make sure the first hit is a kill, otherwise the viking will eat the samurai alive...Not to mention a viking's weapon won't break on the first few hits.

Samurai since they dedicate their whole life to their art and are thier best at 1 on 1 fighting

Beserker rage is a myth, Samurai would win.Gallion-Beast

I assume the samurai are more skilled fighters, so my vote goes to them.

That's actually a really good comparison, considering both fighters existence revolves around violence. And both fighters would go into combat with the mentality of having a good, honorable death.

But, I would go with the Viking. Their size, strength and weaponry would overpower the Samurai. Having the ability to wield a shield and large broadsword gives them a huge advantage over a opponent with just a sword.

conidering the kings have weight height and strength on their side... let sface it japanese people are so bighannop

[QUOTE="hannop"]conidering the kings have weight height and strength on their side... let sface it japanese people are so bigInfinite-Zr0

or sarcasm

Samurai. They had much more discipline. Yes the Vikings were insanely brutal, but they were usually the strongest from mixed tribes, the Samurai were usually professionally trained soldiers.