Viking vs. Samurai

Their decision: Samurai
My decision (1v1): Samurai - agree
My decision (war): Samurai

It's a close fight, but the samurai would win simply because of the bow. The yumi is extremely accurate and long ranged. Although the viking has chainmail and a shield that can stop arrows, his armor is incomplete. His face, neck, and legs are uncovered, and chainmail can be pierced by arrows in certain places. The spear throw is also very unreliable and short ranged, which is impossible to counter the yumi. In close combat, I believe that they're pretty much equal. The viking shield is the difference maker. Without it, the samurai would win hands down. In hand to hand combat, the ability to deflect an opponent's blows is a huge factor. However, the samurai's armor is much tougher and more advanced, and can also offer the same amount of protection. Aside from that, the samurai's weapons can also destroy the shield easily or render it useless. All things considered, since melee is pretty much the same, it's ultimately the bow that gives the samurai the advantage.

In a war of armies, the samurai would have an even greater advantage because massed arrows can easily destroy another army without reliable ranged weapons. As stated already, viking armor is incomplete and the shield doesn't cover everything. The more bows there are, the more that the advantage multiplies.

Vikings did actually use bows to soften up opponents before engaging in open battle, tho they considered it a less honourable way to kill an enemy than hand to hand combat. Add in shields to the Viking side and they would have the advantage in a war especially considering the two handed axes that can cut through bone and plate armour in kind. The Samurai sword on the other hand is designed for slicing and is not ideal for combating chain armour.

One on one the samurai may have an advantage if the battle started at a long distance where he would have time to fire of multiple shots before the charging Viking reached him but assuming the one on one fight is a duel and they start in close proximity the bow becomes useless and the advantage goes to the blocking power of the shield and the crushing power of the axe and Viking sword both of which are adapt at combating even full plate armour.

you're comparing that little shortbow they use to a 7 foot yumi? the range and accuracy are impossible to compare. the yumi would tear them to shreds. don't put too much stock on that viking shield. it's not enough to cover an entire body against a hail of arrows fired from such a long distance. again, arrows can pierce chainmail, there's no armor on the face, neck, and legs, and the shield is not big enough. if they do get close enough without suffering crazy damage (unlikely), they might be able to give the samurai a good fight. but you forget, samurai are trained and highly disciplined warriors that employ very good tactics in war while vikings were just savage berserkers who went into battle with just a 'charge' mindset. based on strategy alone, the samurai would win a war hands down.

and why would they start at close distance? that's wishful thinking. of course they have to start at a long distance. that's the essence of the duel. all the tools of each warrior should be available to them. therefore, in the normal case, the samurai would win automatically because of the bow. hand to hand is debateable. that shield can be destroyed very quickly.

I was just pointing out the vikings had ranged weapons. Also the sheild doesn't have to cover the whole body to be effective, legs while running are had to hit and the helmet protects the top of the head. And you put to much stock in the bows, vikings have delt with superior archers in the english longbowmen, you know some of the most effective bows ever used in war. Also half drunk beserkers can run suprisingly fast, blocking most of the arrows that don't miss with the sheld and then charging into the samuri ranks. Vikings were peerless worriors that overcame large armies with their ferocity and superior weaponry. They coqured a large part of the medevil world. And if all tools are available to each worrior I argue that the battle start with the samurai being attacked by suprise from the sea as that is how vikings role. 

In a duel it was traditional for samurai to aproch and announce their chalange, this would usally imply that they are within speaking distance at least which is unlikly to be time to string, draw and fire a bow (The Yumi is left reverse strung until it's time to use it, you could argue that they both preped for the duel and the samurai came with the bow ready but that seems unsporting for an honour bound samurai. Also compaired to the katanas samurai use viking swords and axes are buch stronger and could break the opponents weapons.

the english longbow was used widely only in the 13th century to the 15 century.

the vikings attacked england between the 9th century to the 11th century.

your history is wrong. the longbow wasn't even in use back then.

if it was, the vikings wouldn't have been able to conquer england. it can fire from such a long range that, even with a shield, arrows fly at such high velocity that it can get through. it's too small to cover, again, and chainmail doesn't provide good protection against arrows. it's not going to help them.

you're also saying that half drunk barbarians can destroy a professional army? impossible. discipline and training will overcome savage warfare any day of the week. you're trying to say that strategy has no place in battle, since going wild and crazy is better? sorry, that's never going to work. samurai were professional soldiers. that's all they do in their life. they perfect their battle strategy and weapon skills.

the yumi is a type of longbow, which was also commonly fired from a horse. can we add that too if you're adding a viking ship? sure. no problem. then we've raised the stakes. horse archers were the most deadly form of soldier prior to gunpowder. what can a viking do against such a thing? sure he can charge like crazy as always, but he can never outrun a horse. vikings also weren't notably good horsemen. they can't have many, since they always attacked by ship. if you want history on how good horse archers can be, see how genghis khan and attila the hun destroyed so many armies. horse archers.

what is a surprise attack from the sea? this is close to impossible. you're trying to say that the samurai is sleeping and not looking at the horizon before the battle starts? that's crazy. the ship can be seen from so far away and the samurai can even shoot already while the ship is still at sea. you're acting like the ship is some kind of stealth weapon. it's not.

we're not talking about who would win under certain conditions. we're talking about who would win in a fight to the death. in that case, the normality of all the weapons available in the arsenal would be the choice of battle. you can't dictate that they'll start close together. that's not fair. the battle has to be fought with all the skills available to the warrior since this is just a simulation.

oh fine Vikings suck and samurai are awesome I got nothing

lol :P

almost every battle boils down to range. in some cases, with enough armor, the advantage is negated. knights and spartans are the best example for this i think. i'll make a thread about that later.

don't forget the roman centurions that basiacally made arrows useless, with their interlocking sheilds.

yeah. legionnaires rule all.

ninja vs. spartan (stupidest matchup of all)

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=131328

I think that the Vikings typically tried to intimidate the opponents with war cries and face paint etc- I don't know if the Samurai would be phased by this.