Okay Sup Forums since For Honor has come out it's sparked a lot of controversy...

Okay Sup Forums since For Honor has come out it's sparked a lot of controversy. In real life who would win in a fight: knight, viking, or samurai?

Obviously the Knight would be the best at pinochle.

The best fighter and/or the luckiest fighter.

Knight. Every time. Heavier armor, stronger arms and a fairly refined fighting style.

Assuming all fighters are equally proficient in their field and the terrain is completely flat

Vikings people.. its proven

We've been over this MANY times.

Knight, all day any day.

pic or it didn't happen

Sams are shit. Pussy ass niggers hittin shit with a fucking plant.

Vikings are literally the niggers of those times. Couldn't do shit by themselves so had to push Jews in the mud.

Knights 10/10

If all weapons/armor have equal power/defense I would bet on Viking. Otherwise Knight ftw.

Obviously the fucking samurai would win. They're faster, stronger, and just better over all

I read it in a pamplet awhile back sorry no pic, but it's true

/thread. But I foresee much circle jerking for each person's respective favorite

Alright easy weaboo, don't get yourself all worked up

Spartan would kick the suit out of all 3 of them at the same time

>Assuming all fighters are equally proficient in their field and the terrain is completely flat then the Knight would win.

ftfy

Knight, it has the best armor, they have access to weapons designed to fight armored opponents and they had the english longbow, with would shred weebs and snow barbarians.

If you're comparing armies maybe, not necessarily one on one

I remember seeing a YouTuber, Skalla Skallagrim talk about who would win. From what I got it would be hard to tell and based on not only equipment but also skill. Of course the game is inaccurate in some areas, i.e. a samurai sword would bounce of knight armor you would need something that would Pierce.

Who said English Knights? There's far too many unspecified variables

All the Spartans died

I don't think he could win a 3v1 even with tech advantage

It depends.

A samurai could beat a viking because at the time vikings were at the height of their travels they did not tend to have much in the way of armor and used shorter weapons. However, vikings also used shields and spears which would cover the reach advantage and protect them against the samurai. So it would depend on the weapons.

Samurai blade are meant to slice rather than pierce, knights were heavily armored to the point where the only way to breach them was to pierce through their armor. However, a samurai with a spear could possibly land a blow to get through the armor. Again, it would depend on the weapons.

Knights versus vikings would be similar, as well. Most of the knights crushing weapons (mace, flail, hammer, etc) wouldn't be as useful as they're slow but can deal with heavy armor, which would leave them open to a faster attack from a viking. However, if they used a smaller sword that didn't take away speed or telegraph as well (a skilled enough person can see where a flail/mace/hammer is going to hit) they would suddenly just be a heavily armored guy who could land a blow much more easily.

All that being said, I'd give knights an advantage. The pinnacle of pre-firearm warfare in Europe were the knights. They were part of the advancements that began with the viking raiders (and earlier, of course). As for them fighting samurai, samurai had a very different fighting style that resulted from less heavily armored soldiers so they may not really be ready to fight a knight.

The Vikings were well equipped contrary to the media perception. The best sword in the world comes from there

C'mon. It's just fucking science. Samurai arms and armor are superior in almost every way to knights and, god forbid, vikings.

Whoever had the better combination timing, speed, reaction speed, reflexes, and fighting knowledge.

Ok, lay the science of it on me then

Heh.... Dumb children.....

A trained samurai can slice a tank in half with one swipe...it wouldn't even make him break a sweat to kill a knight and a viking....

Knights. Heaviest armor, strongest swords, refined strategy and battle-proven fighting styles from centuries of feudal warfare

But what if knight had gun?

Samurai armor is about 10 lbs less than knight armor while being equally durable, sometimes even more so, and every weapon besides the meme katana could pierce knight armor.

gr8 b8 m8!

I remember hearing about the Vikings using the shield tactics the Romans used in France I think it was. Vikings certainly could beat knights and vice versa. They both because of region had similar equipment.

Obvious troll is obvious

>barrel 3x wider than the bullets it fires
???

>Samurai arms and armor are superior in almost every way to knights

They not the smartest

I'm not trolling. The fight, as everyone knows, is hypothetical and completely opinion based but it's my opinion that a samurai would win with my minimal, provided evidence.

DEUS VULT!!

Okay. My favourite is samurai and I think samurai were some of histories most disciplined warriors, but I don't think they'd win.
This is simply due to the resources available to each group and the development of each style.

Obviously, samurai would win

pretty poor ratings on steam, did ubisoft shit out another one? is single player worth a torrent?

Knights had crossbows, weapons designed to fight armored enemies and fucking armored horses, samuri had mostly wooden or fucking paper armor, and vikings for the most part wore cloth with an iron helmet. Also Samuri didn't use shields. And at one point knights had access to primitive guns, like Vlad the Impaler.

And samurai's don't have a 'refined' fighting style? are you stupid?

Whoever kicks me off the ledge first

Face it buddy, Nobushi and Orochi are the only classes worth a damn in the Samurai faction. Shugoki might as well be a walking target dummy, and Kensei are made of wet cardboard in durability.

Yep, at the time almost everyone fought in a shield wall. The vikings were no different but, iirc, they were able to use theirs more effectively. I think it was something like they had more people from the back ranks putting their shields up as well to help cover the front than other kingdoms.

Your opinion is bad and you should feel bad.

That is actually a lethal move. Knights swords weren't razor sharp and the hand armour was so that you could grab a blade. If an opponent had a good enough helmet your blade wouldn't damage them.

If you grabbed your blade and did an axe swing though that made contact using your hilt/cross guard it would have a smaller impact size and cause more damage.

Tl:Dr knight using sword wrong is actually breaking his opponents skull.

nigga their shitty flimsy sword doesn't do shit against metal, and good luck having literal paper armor against a mace or real sword

Weaboo

If this is on foot only, samurai has the advantage completely. Contrary to popular belief, samurai were not all katanas. Especially during the 14th century, polarms were a huge deal, and were taken to battle as the primary weapon with a katana as sidearm. This was also around the time where they developed steel of their own (tamahagane), and it was used for swords and spears alike. Also, they further developed sōjutsu, the art of using a yari (spear, usually around 7–9 feet long with a sword like blade) or other polearm. This spear would out range most European weapons used by knights. So, on foot samurai were typically equipped with lighter armor that still protected all parts of the body and allowed for good mobility, a yari, a katana or other sword, and maybe a tanto. So, I believe samurai would win because of their perfected technique with the two handed spear, and if that was grabbed, they can simply resort to a sword. If the sword is lost as well, they’ve got the knife, and if the knife is lost, they have their unarmed combat, which they developed at this time. A knight would have trouble getting past all of these weapons and skills the samurai has to offer, so the samurai would best the knight on foot.

Racist faggots can't accept the truth.

It's nice attention to detail that one of the finishing moves in the game also does this

Knights. People say that they are slow and that the Samurai are faster but there are videos of people doing flips and rolls in full plate armor. Also they used tempered steel which is much better than folded steel.

Probably whichever one of them is more skilled with a bow

This debate is ridiculousness I'm sorry. Have any of you read the art of war? Samurai win.

Samurai would win cause their glorious nippon steel is folded ten billion times

Knights from that era didn't get iframes

Chill out weeb, stop trying to make an interesting topic make you feel good.

Fuckin stealth archer fags

superior technology means winning

Nobody!!!1! Fighting is bad!!! REEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!111!!

#WorldPeace

>samurai use folded steel while knights used tempered steel

Obviously you haven't. It was written by a Chinese Philosopher called Szun Tzu and said more along the lines of "if you get to the battle first the advantage is yours" over "japanese katana so weeabu it melts steal beam"

>be viking
>have no cavalry
>be dead

Samurai can't outsmart bullet

You obviously haven't, if you think it has any bearing on this discussion.

Doubt a samurai could get through a heavily armored knight one on one. They wouldn't know what to think If a full plate armored knight stepped onto the battlefield against them. God forbid he have a shield.

>oh shit they set up pikes
>cavalry made moot
>cavalry now on foot
>weapons for horse riding
>wrong equipment for ground combat
Pleb

When someone starts claiming that a spear and shield was revolutionary for japan and that only they could have learned such mastery. A roman militia could manage a pike. Its the oldest method of getting a scrub useful in a fight short of throwing stones. They are there to make up the numbers on the cheap with less chance of death. With Japans tiny population compared to feudal Europe its ridiculous to suggest every Japanese farmer was a god with a spear over your average French peasant with a pointy stick

One on one, probably the knight. Anything else is assuming anyone in this thread knows about military science.

Unlikely, because you are all dumb niggers.

I've not played it yet because I'm poor, but it looks freaking fantastic. I also teach samurai sword classes and I think Knights would win simply because off the resources/equipment of the time. Not that the style is better.

Not that you asked just thought I'd share.

The vikings power was in mobility at sea. Smash up the opposing force before they are ready and demoralise the populace so the lord they raid isnt gonna raise an army any time soon

As a dumb nigger i suggest spear chucking. Tried and tested for generations

The game is fun. Mechanical decisions are what brings it down.

Microtransactions, season pass, no dedicated servers. And you know the whole Uplay thing if on computer.

Summary of this thread:
>A bunch of white people want to be told that knights, aka white euro fags, are superior to other races.

FU samurai win 10/10 times hands down no contest knight can't even beat unarmed viking no contest.

>I also teach samurai sword classes

>I also teach samurai sword classes

>I also teach samurai sword classes

Cringe thread?
Cringe thread.

Not even necessarily stealth. If you can strike the head with a strong enough arrow (bonus points for flaming) then you win

...

no, that's a low quality picture, stupid.

Fucking uplay....

USMC!

It's one of the most cringe things about me.

Please apply Dr Luger's patented 9mm dosage intracranially for best results.
Repeat as needed.

praise the sun

>weaboo
>fucking kek

you are still shilling the game OP.

Vikings are clearly out matched, they never really mastered any tactics. They were basically a bunch of rapists, not a lot of real war experience.

Knights and Samurai would be a close tie. They both fight for feudal lords, but they do have the most battle experience. I believe feudalism in japan actually lasted longer though... also the title "For Honor" would imply a Japanese bias, honor being their greatest virtue.

It's all down to the armor
Viking has none, so not vikings clearly
Samurai had plated armor which was tied together, meaning it could be cut to fall off
Knights typically wore chain mail under the optional plate, making them the clear favorite

...

Knights had the heaviest armor for sure, but that just meant that to kill one, you would have to either use a crushing style weapon to dent the metal, or knock em down and use a dagger to stab them between the armor plates and bleed em out.

Out of the 3, the Vikings probably adhered least to any sort of Warriors code of honor, so I'd give it to them.

>honor being their greatest virtue.

But that's WRONG you fucking stupid weeb.

RECTITUDE is the strongest virtue of Bushido.

everyone ive seen that played the beta bought the game
who cares about ratings

Defo a medieval knight

At least the samurai have it as a virtue...
Chivalry was more about serving lord and country than honor.

Fold the steel all you want this is why England dominated the world. And still does to this day

It's called perspective. If that is to abstract an idea for you then try to not think about it too much.

they HAD to fold the steel because they had shitty iron to make it with.

This was literally a TV show for years op. Go watch it. Deadliest warrior in case you're a bitch

Seemed to be pretty well liked by my friends. Its pretty competitive online play of that's your bag.

Going to fall for this, and post some factual statements about the trio:
The European Knights had the best heavy armor and metals.

Japan had better techniques with duels

And the Norse were a bunch of overly macho men capable of surviving the harshest climates possible at the time.

Vikings wouldn't win, as they aren't all that great in a perfect scenario, they aren't meant to fight fair, it was pillage and raid and farm what they could in the snow.

The Japanese culture didn't have the supplies to get a strong, powerhouse military force as they are on a fucking island, forget anything about "Greatest metal on earth" bullshit. They had the metal they could for the weapons and armor they needed. Only thing they have on the armor of a European knight is stab it, as plate is weak against piercing.

The literal choice is a knight, as they can just take the slash and blunt attacks without worry, and simply use the utter force of a broadsword or long sword, or a shield for that matter, to annihilate their opponent. This is why they have jousting, so they know who can kill each other better.

I'm all for Vikings and all, but Europeans slaughtered each other for a century and more, so they got it to an art.