Viking vs Samurai, Who wins?

I watched Deadliest Warrior yesterday, but I don't understand the match up, they compared the apache, a dedicated warrior with weapons to kill, to a gladiator an entertainer, with weapons that were mostly used to look good, not to be effective, in fact it was very rare that a gladiator actualy died in the arena, unless he was a criminal sentenced to death in the arena.

why didn't they compare the apache, to something more along his rank, like a roman legionare, a dedicated warrior just like the apache and with weapons made to kill

also they compleatly ignored the gladius (from which the gladiotor got his name) in the match up althrough it was one of the finest swords of its time, but well tbh it wasn't that good in 1vs1, it was best used in the tight roman formation, where desbite everyone being so near to each other they could still effectivly use it while the shield provided them cover, for 1vs1 the latter spatha was better

Vikings have a power advantage, but samurai are more skilled. I say samurai.

The Samurai would win.

Samurai aren't standard troops. They are elite troops. On the other hand Vikings are common soldiers.

Samurai are more trained to duels. Vikings are trained to a large range of skills, melee combat but also sailing, looting, fight in group, etc..

The weapon of the samurai is far more fast. It is designed to win a duel. The viking's weaponery is designed to crush the front line of large group of foes.

In films, men resist to deadly blows ^^, in the real world an heavy axe can't win against a fast sword. And don't forget the range, a katana isn't a knife, it has a very long range.

.............Really. This is THE DUMBEST QUESTION EVER. Vikings have large , cumbersome axes. Samurai have light, nimble Katanas that can cut through virtually any organic material. This is a No-Brainer

SAMURAI ALL THE WAY

discipline always wins out---Samurai hands down will kick a Viking's arse. :)

[QUOTE="Buck_Hotep"]

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

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

THE_DRUGGIE

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.

A Buffer zone? Hahaha actually laughing.

Vikings would win. A samurai's bamboo armor is not designed to withstand the blunt force of a viking's hammer. Not to mention Vikings have a bloodlust like no other. Even if a little samurai managed to get close enough to a viking to stab him (because slashing wouldn't be ver effective against the layers and layers of leather and fur they wore) the viking could easily tear the samurai apart before he died.

Also, speaking as a martial artist, I know that a lot of people think that technique and speed win out over strength but there comes a point where that doesn't hold true. Technique does not always win out over strength and I think this is one of those times. I also saw someone say that vikings were common soldiers and samurai were elite soldiers. That is an unfair comparison. Vikings may have been common soldiers but they lived in a culture that thrived on war. These "common soldiers" began fighting from the time they could walk. And in a viking village I would say nearly everyone knew how to fight.

Vikings would win. A samurai's bamboo armor is not designed to withstand the blunt force of a viking's hammer. Not to mention Vikings have a bloodlust like no other. Even if a little samurai managed to get close enough to a viking to stab him (because slashing wouldn't be ver effective against the layers and layers of leather and fur they wore) the viking could easily tear the samurai apart before he died.

Also, speaking as a martial artist, I know that a lot of people think that technique and speed win out over strength but there comes a point where that doesn't hold true. Technique does not always win out over strength and I think this is one of those times. I also saw someone say that vikings were common soldiers and samurai were elite soldiers. That is an unfair comparison. Vikings may have been common soldiers but they lived in a culture that thrived on war. These "common soldiers" began fighting from the time they could walk. And in a viking village I would say nearly everyone knew how to fight.

Well since I am a viking you all think I am biased but I think we would win against the Samurais. I have reached this conclusion through fighting many a *** and killing many a ***. they just aren't strong enough and when I am high on shrooms I sometimes kill my own men.

If you disagree it is your choice but remeber I have first hand experience. Literally!

yours Sincerely,

An Interested Viking

Samurai would rip apart Vikings.

As a 'martial artist' then you should know that strength ISN'T everything. Technique and speed will win out over brute strength and this is a good example where it does hold true. By the time a heavy hammer is lifted up in the air, a katana sword can be used to strike down an enemy multiple times. [QUOTE="Thyeora"]

Vikings would win. A samurai's bamboo armor is not designed to withstand the blunt force of a viking's hammer. Not to mention Vikings have a bloodlust like no other. Even if a little samurai managed to get close enough to a viking to stab him (because slashing wouldn't be ver effective against the layers and layers of leather and fur they wore) the viking could easily tear the samurai apart before he died.

Also, speaking as a martial artist, I know that a lot of people think that technique and speed win out over strength but there comes a point where that doesn't hold true. Technique does not always win out over strength and I think this is one of those times. I also saw someone say that vikings were common soldiers and samurai were elite soldiers. That is an unfair comparison. Vikings may have been common soldiers but they lived in a culture that thrived on war. These "common soldiers" began fighting from the time they could walk. And in a viking village I would say nearly everyone knew how to fight.

feryl06

You are an idealist. There is a reason why heavy-weights and feather-weights fight seperately. If you think that technique and skill always overpower strength then I suggest you get in a real fight because that is not the case. I have seen fights go both ways. Strength is not everything and I never said it was. Likewise technique and skill are not everything. There is a point where technique is not enough likewise there is a pointwhere strength is not enough. I happen to think a Samurai would be able to do little in the face of a charging Viking.

A few points of notion for those grosely misinformed (note that I still voted for the Samurai, because the frist strike is all).

Viking axes were NOT slow, and cumbersome, they were very light and agile, and still capable of cutting through a shield, then an armor, and still leave you dead in one blow.

Also the Vikings used bows you know... the British Longbow is in the family of the bows that Vikings used (commonly known as shortbows in newer times). and the Viking bow were far more effective then the Japanese Bows. (400m pinpoint) opposed to the British Longbow (800m Pinpoint).

also the chainmail IS a rather effective defence against slashing weapons. The Samurais composite Armor (Made of Leather metal, and in some cases bamboo too) was a very good armor, especially against slashing. Both armors had the same flaw tho, they were near useless vs. Blunt weapons.

Also the Vikings were NOT slow in any way, they were really REALLY fast, using almost "blitzkrieg" like tactics.

In fairness I think they are pretty good matched, neither were stupid, and both were very tactical in thier approach. And they achieved some of the same things and used some of the same Defensive Strats. (like making nature do the work for them)

But Vikings were not dedicated warriors, they were as much merchants, and explorers as they were fighters, they observed, and sucked knowlage to them, adobting weapons from what they learned out in the world.

And it seems people here rarely does alot of background work:

Samurai were Nobility (of sorts) most of the Japanese warriors were not Samurai, they used peasents like the British did. The Ninjas were peasents who rose up against the Samurai, and made full work of the weaknesses of the Samurai, ie. lack of speed, using gurillia tactics, and backstabbing.

The Vikings did not just choose random people for the raids, and the Vikings who were fighters, DID train throughout thier lifes, bettering alot of the western forces of the time. Those were Noblemen aswell (usually 1-2 were picked in each town for thier renown as fighters).

The Vikings also prefered the spear over an axe, but axes were something most people were tought back home.

As I pointed out in my origenal post, As soon as Vikings lose thier advantage in speed and surprise, they lose thier edge. and in a 1 on 1, both would be lethal with thier first strike, nomatter who deals the first blow, would likely deal the ONLY blow.

That is why I chose the Samurai, they were basicly tought 1 motion untill it came naturally, theyd drawand swing in one continous motion, and if he connect that hit, it could very well slice a man in half (that was the way they tested the katanas btw.

At range Id give the advantage to the Viking, better bow, or a shield (a really massive one at that), up close the Samurai would edge up.

but bows against the Samurai has been tryied before, the Mongolian lost badly to the Samurai, when they assaulted Japan (The Samurai bringing portable walls).

mostly anything else vs a Samurai would be boring since the Samurai were far more advanced in war studies. As I said before the execption would be a Templar or Knight from the 13-1400 Europe, thier Armor alone would render the Katana useless and the shields they used were quite effective too (well unless they fought somewhere warm.

Best weapon vs a Samurai in close combat must be theKatar (from india), faster and way morekinetic energy harvested from its design.

Samurais usually followed their set of rules and fought with honor. I don't think Viking would have cared for any of that. They go with Nike's catchphrase: "Just do it!"

This makes me want to become a Viking :(

How come whenever people think of Samurai or Ninjas they think of a Ryu-Hayabusa type warrior of godliness? Not all ninjas were the deadliest, most nimble assassins the world has ever seen. Most were peasants who used farming equipment for weapons. Samurai were also mostly old landlords dresses up in fancy armour. Vikings were pretty much an army of drunken bouncers.Ninja-Hippo

That is hard, now if it was Viking vs. Ninja, Ninja totally. But Viking vs. Samurai, err, Samurai. I consider them pretty awesome. :P

I voted Viking simply because they are the epitome of manly warriors. Would they win? I don't know, and I don't care. Vikings are simply more awesome.

EDIT: I thought I'd post Noah Antwilers' opinion of the show Deadliest Warrior (The whole uncensored thing can be found here.)

But anyway, they go ****-deep into the ludicrous concept, bringing in "experts" in the respective weapons and fighting ****, and letting them argue about whose **** is bigger. In this case, they brought a Native American knife specialist who trains U.S. special forces and some chunkhead who apparently knows a lot about gladiatorial fighting. The whole thing is overseen by a scientist who provides them with ample analogues for the human body to stab and brutalize, lots of skeletal remains encased in ballistics gelatin, lots of martial arts practice dummies. But despite all of these experts, none of them seem able to point out that, geographical impossibilities notwithstanding, Roman gladiators were first and foremost showmen who rarely fought to the death. Their weapons were made primarily for wounding and effect, their armor specifically fashioned for dramatic effect, most of the time with the chest and arms exposed to showcase bloody injuries. Only criminals were usually left to die in the arena.

But whatever. The bulk of the show is showcasing the various common weapons and doing some **** evaluation of which ones are "better," depending on range, utility, and overall deadliness. What it all boils down to is, some big guy picks up the sword, hits a side of beef, and the doctor looks over the damage, scratches his chin and says "Yup, that could kill you!" Well no **** Doc. It's a good thing you're here, to tell me that a bow and arrow could kill you.

The scientist also has a simulator. Ostensibly, he's collecting a ton of data that he feeds into his computer (full of SCIENCE) that will eventually tell us who was more badass. Never mind that both sides had completely different fighting ****- the Apache with stealth, ambush, hit-and-run tactics, and gladiators in A **** ARENA. We couldn't have just pitted the Apaches against Roman legions?

I think the funniest part was how dismissive the gladiator side was of the Apache guys. They were totally in love with the gladiator's sica, trident and net, and scissor weapons, and were wholly unimpressed with the Apache's comparatively smaller weapons like the knife, war club, and tomahawk. Never mind that the special forces guy they brought in could kill you about twelve times in three seconds with that knife alone, especially with you wearing a gladiator's helmet that obscures all but 40% of your vision and no armor over your chest or legs. The weapon they brought in to counter the tomahawk was the cestus (a spiked gauntlet), even going so far as to bring Chuck Liddell in to demonstrate how hard he could punch with it. That's neat. You go ahead and punch the guy while he shanks you in the heart with one hand and splits your crown with a tomahawk in the other hand.

Even the Apache guy says "I don't know why we're talking about a fair fight, because the Apache never fought fair."

The best part is actually the ending where they stage a surprisingly well-choreographed battle between the two actors dressed in warrior garb- in this case, an Apache and a gladiator wandering around the American forests. It's ridiculous, of course, but it's still a good fight. It's just too bad that this show isn't educational. In fact, most of the time it's downright WRONG. Early in the show, the supposed gladiator expert gets on the camera and says "the gladiator lived for only one thing: to kill!" Most of the time, I think the gladiator lived either to make money or to win his own freedom. We learn the names of the weapons and armor, but not their significance or utility. Instead of being focused on choosing a winner, perhaps it would be more interesting to simply tell us what scenarios favor each side, and what weapons each side would choose.

Well, the Samurai do not fear death, their katanas are SUPER fast and not as slow as the vikings broadswords, and much much better at slicing. But I love the vikings, and I'm one myself, so I pick the obvious choice. GO VIKINGS!Deihjan

what the?

the katana and a viking sword have both a similar weight...

in the end the thing is that a samurai had very little expiriance (basicly none) in figthing an openent with a shield, people are talking about speed, but vikings weren't slow and a good swordsmen is never going to let the guard down on his shield side

[QUOTE="Deihjan"]Well, the Samurai do not fear death, their katanas are SUPER fast and not as slow as the vikings broadswords, and much much better at slicing. But I love the vikings, and I'm one myself, so I pick the obvious choice. GO VIKINGS!Enosh88

what the?

the katana and a viking sword have both a similar weight...

Viking wins.

[QUOTE="Enosh88"]

[QUOTE="Deihjan"]Well, the Samurai do not fear death, their katanas are SUPER fast and not as slow as the vikings broadswords, and much much better at slicing. But I love the vikings, and I'm one myself, so I pick the obvious choice. GO VIKINGS!Deihjan

what the?

the katana and a viking sword have both a similar weight...

well tell me whats the avarage weight of a 29 inch katana (which was the avarage lenght of a viking sword and the samurai won't survive without equal reach)? I can't find anything good on the internet, some things list them at 800g but then you see they are made out of aluminium and you can't do **** with them, some sites list the weight at 1.4kg, and those are aperantly made for cutting, so tell me

for reference the average weight of a viking sword I found was 1.1 kg (29 inch blade)

besides weight isn't realy a probelm, your average viking has no problem using his sword, what is more important is the balance of the sword and in that both were preaty much equal

the shield is also something new for the samurai with which he would have great probelms in a fight

Viking, Heavily armoured and just crazy.

The ninja, oh wait... :|

I have to go Samurai, i feel skill would best brute force.

P.S. Samurai= 88Viking=87 Yey my vote counts:D

I have to go Samurai, i feel skill would best brute force.

P.S. Samurai= 88Viking=87 Yey my vote counts:D

Wolls

[QUOTE="Wolls"]

I have to go Samurai, i feel skill would best brute force.

P.S. Samurai= 88Viking=87 Yey my vote counts:D

Infinite-Zr0

Even the guy on the Viking side admitted that they maybe they were relying way too much on brawn and brute force to try and win things.

Ok someone reinstall Age of Empires 2, get a samurai and a berzerker and have them fight and see who wins. I am going to guess the samurai wins because he has add damage to unique units (aka the viking).

Therefore samurai wins.

Viking.. They were serious bad asses that gripped the entire continent of Europe in fear for 100s of years.. They had more advanced weaponry as well.. Furthermore eastern warriors were no more skilled than western warriors.. This is a myth caused by the anime craze.. First of all they would NOT use their katana against the Viking.. Katana's were used against lightly armored or unarmored opponents.. They also avoided sword to sword contact.. They would use a spear or otehr such thing.. Vikings constantly fought in battles where it was victory or death on ship to ship battles..sSubZerOo

Even though the show has already picked which side will win I will have to ask you to provide some sort of data to prove just what advanced weaponry the Vikings had. Remember the two groups were separated by several centuries. Vikings rarely used steel unless stolen on a raid. Most of their swords, axes and speartips were made from iron.

The samurai will always have superior technology in terms of weapons over the Vikings. I say this not as an anime fan but as one who has studied military history and those cultures who dominated their era. The Vikings dominated their era of Europe because there was no one nation in Western Europe who had the military force to go up against them.

The Viking era of domination occurred during the Dark Ages when civilization and technological advancements seen during the Roman Empire had regressed. The Vikings also was not an organized nation but of loose-knit tribes and clans who fought against each other for the meager resources as much as they did with their neighbors. It was rare for a Viking raiding force to attack a well fortified town or city unless they had the numbers and surprise on their side. Most of their raids were conducted against villages, towns and cities near rivers and coastlines.

What made the Vikings so successful was how they appeared out of nowhere and their shock tactics. They always won their raids and battles when they fought it where they wanted it to with suprise on their side. The longboats and their ability to ford rivers allowed them to pick their targets instead of allowing their opponents to pick it for them: basic military tactics. Before the samurai fans mention it, Vikings were not dumb brutes. But they did rely on their aggressive nature to scare opponents. This made them look brutish which was probably an image they wanted to encourage: basic battle psychological tactic.

Viking era of dominance ended once their neighbors began to build more stone castles and fortresses and their military technology advanced to counter Viking advantages in battle. The Middle Ages and the onset of the Rennaisance pretty much doomed the Vikings as a military force.

Viking. It's not much of a contest and the fact that the show got it so wrong is proof toward this. People think of Vikings as mindless berserkers, but they were incredibly smart opponents, usually short on numbers and so absolutely requiring their own survival through numerous combats. They did not have the best gear, but they had incredible tactics, a battle training that, while crude, was very effective, and the gear they did have matches up incredibly well against samurai.

For instance, the katana (and about 90% of samurai melee weapons, for that matter) was made as a slashing weapon against unarmed or lightly armored opponents. For this purpose it excelled, but the katana never came up against chain mail or, worse, plate. Chain mail, fairly basic armor for a viking, was made for the sole purpose to stop slashing weapons. Through testing today we know that the katana would not cut through this, meaning on a basic viking opponent they would have to ignore the entire torso and arms and on a particularly rich or successful viking there would only be a bare few joints in the helmet or legs they could attack. Add a shield into the mix and that's even more they have to get around. Or if they try to parry against one of the larger weapons a viking owns their own weapon is very likely to break. On the reverse side, most of the weapons a viking would use would incapacitate or severely damage with a glancing hit anywhere on the body, not to mention either break through the armor the samurai is wearing or just the bones underneath. In a melee fight a viking has every edge.

Not to say Samurai have nothing going for them. They had better bows and better expertise at a range. But Vikings were not really the types to go blindly charging in a wide open space. Again, they had to be smart about survival. They did not have great numbers. Even so, at a range I'd take a samurai. At anything else I'd take a viking. And as a complete warrior, definitely a viking. Better tactics, better gear. Get a good berserker shot up on painkillers with good armor and he'd bulldoze just about any samurai who got in his way.

Really, there is no honest argument for samurai unless you want to go purely ranged. And that would just make a landslide victory into a helluva battle.