Who would ACTUALLY win in a battle in the eleventh century?

Who would ACTUALLY win in a battle in the eleventh century?


Knight, Samurai or Viking?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=oXWgJSpvbic
m.youtube.com/watch?v=gwoGVWgK8v8
youtube.com/watch?v=o_pCM6gFXXE
youtube.com/watch?v=EDkoj932YFo
dailymotion.com/video/x4zq1rk
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Vikings are the greatest warriors that the world has ever known. Sieg Heil

Viking all the fucking way

Is this a 3way free for all or more like a tournament?

So basically each of these 3 at their height? I guess you could use the Holy Roman Empire for Knights, and in that case, probably them.

Then again, at the Samurai's height they had fucking guns so

The OP specifically said 11th century, dum dum

I think in a battle between those 3, knight would win. Most plate armor that a real knight would wear pretty much mafe them invincible.

Knight armor protected against early guns.

Why not. 3 way free for all

This is a retarded question with no answer. Yet autists will still argue it to no end.

Well then.

By my calculations, the knight wins.

You're not going to throw your two cents?

How come?

Knights.

They all train for pretty much all their lives, they all have similarly impure metals for their weapons and stuff, they all use pretty similar weaponry (swords, spears/polearms, shields, etc.)

But knights have they have the best armor by far.

gonna have to pick knight
>flail mace
>shield

O whoops

don't know what a samurai is then, huh? don't know how a samurai sword is made?

Thought so.

Well it's irrelevant now but I was referring to 19th century weapons which def would've pierced their armor easily.

Samurai swords aren't anything special outside their meaning to a samurai himself.

Knight

knight

youtube.com/watch?v=oXWgJSpvbic

a sword is a sword is a sword, eh? ok kiddo.

Thats not even question, knights had the best heavy armor

Game theory already did a video on this. Samurai wins

m.youtube.com/watch?v=gwoGVWgK8v8

Well. Given the 3way ffa condition, i believe it works about like this:
The viking swings first, no doubt. But hes got that ring on his chest that samurais put on their training dummies. So, the samurai kills the viking, then takes a mace to the dome courtesy of the knight.

a samurai sword is made from folded metal because local metal was ridiculously shitty. european steel was far superior. also long swords were a much better weapon, samurai swords would break on plate mail.

youtube.com/watch?v=o_pCM6gFXXE
hmm...

What? Its the link to the video

probably a viking since theyd just flex and look in the general direction of their enemy and theyd just blow up

My mistake. Didn't see it was a different link

In 11C they were all essentially equipped the same and all fought largely unarmed poor people.

But the "Knights" of the time had slightly more sophisticated metallurgy so what little they had would have held up better

No it didn't, gunpowder is the reason armor is not around anymore. Do some fucking research you worthless pleb.

Knights. At first. Then it's either them or Vikings in the end. Cool as they are samurai have inferior gear self care and long term sustainability.
Samurai don't have a good enough diet to last. They'd be the first faction to die. They can't handle the zweihander nor the Viking weapons.

Knights are fucking dank but I don't think they have nutrition nor logistics as good as the Vikings. Really the winning faction between the two depends on how skilled the individual combatants are. Vikings have lighter armor than the knights but better mobility. They also have Massive shields. Knights however have historically come out on top. There's probably a reason but idk I'm not a historian

Yeah, it honestly comes down to this. Metallurgy was the fucking cheat code in ancient times.

In a battle?

The knights quite easily. The only reason there's contention about this is because Sup Forums is filled with retarded weebs who masturbate to ninja and viking porn. Seriously, the tech, military tradition, tactics, and overall effectiveness favors the knights heavily. Like what other advantage to the vikings and samurai are they thinking? Viking boats? Samurai bushido code? HONORABR NIPPON STEERU?!

The knight is from a period that at least matched, if not simply surpassed, the other two in all ways. Look at the photo for christ sake. You honestly think a viking in furs or a samurai in wood/iron armor would win against a full steel suit? And in a battle, the simple numbers of existing samurai vs knights vs vikings will still favor the knights having a larger population in general.

Like shit, this thread is stupid. Sage in all fields.

Knights, better weapons, armour and technique

European metal was probably about equally shitty to japanese metal, actually. It just came from a different source.

However, europeans may have had (I'm not totally sure, so correct me if somebody knows) a better smelting method which would've been able to get rid of those impurities, while the japanese didn't.

And yes, the curved shape of a katana made it shitty for penetrating tough armor which a straight blade was better at.

>Baiting this hard

> protected against early guns

Yeah, if you count keeping all your organs in one place after you get your innards exploded, then yeah.

Musketeers never wore armour hurr durr
Learn shit yourself you absolute bucket full of tard brains

Why? You're all ignoring the video. A single arrow from a samurai could easily take down a knight

Didn't the samurai refuse to use guns and leave those for the common footsoldiers?
Because they considered using them shamefur dispray?

Is skallagrim

In fairness, early guns were so shit that there was a solid chance of a misfire and no harm to you, possibly a backfire even that will hurt the gunner.

Samurai are shit and only weeb virgins think otherwise. They were just the army of Japan, doing some wiggly yoga and sitting under a waterfall doesn't mean that you can teleport away when a 5 foot claymore crashes down on you

But they really didnt. In that awkward transitory period between their role as pikemen and musket-men, they wore chest plates and the light, but those were mostly designed for melee arms.

>
Early guns weren't strong enough to get through plate as easily as you think. Most of the earliest hand guns were just shrapnel cannons.

You kinda have it backwards. Europe had better quality materials and worse methods. The folded metal is the only thing that kept the samurai in contention at all.

youtube.com/watch?v=EDkoj932YFo

dailymotion.com/video/x4zq1rk

this was a hot debate back in the early 00's. the samurai generally has the edge over vikings and knights

HOWEVER a spartan army would wipe the floor with all of em with.

I mean, thats. But when they hit, they werent really bothered by armor.

Look up a Rajput warrior.

Yeah the katana was made to make clear, easy deep cuts in the flesh, samurais could beat vikings but they have nothing to do against a steel armour simply because they swords werent meant to cut/go thru metal

LMAO
Matt is not a credible source
The vid is bullshit. A single arrow CANNOT instakill a historical knight.

>this

yeah, the only reason Japan developed such advanced metallurgy because they had such shit raw materials.

>11th century samurai
Not really tbh

Mostly true (early guns were sometimes really shit)). My unspoken point was that early gunpowder guns were so unreliable that many myths of armor protecting against bullets likely came from that period, when in reality is was likely more the poorly made firearm not functioning properly than the well made armor. deflecting a bullet.

The blunderbuss was not 'most guns'. The earliest hand guns were essentially miniaturized powder cannons (as in a single projectile), Cannons predated any firearm that could be picked up by a person by at least 100 years.

knights would have butchered those glorified pigs and peasant "warriors"

Err, well save firearms that just spewed fucking fire only. Those predated cannons.

This guy, this guy right here, I like him.

this game was shit

Gameplay was pretty good.

Connections and matchmaker were pure ass, though.

>Who would ACTUALLY win in a battle in the eleventh century?
>Knight, Samurai or Viking?

One on one? Knight, Tank wins

Vikings win at "no rules" warfare: infiltration, run and gun raids, intimidation.

Samurai wins only in very prescribed warfare rules. That said, if armed, instant win in barfight (offer void vs gunslinger).

what if all three are ass naked and just have to fight with their hands?

>this
theres a reason knights wore armor and thats that it was really fucking good a protecting you

>Vikings win at "no rules" warfare: infiltration, run and gun raids, intimidation.
what? what historical basis do you have on this. being a pirate is different from being a guerrilla fighting force

This is such an outdated question, with absolutely no answer.

To even pose such a question exposes your lack of knowledge to how an ACTUAL duel with swords works

their metallurgy was shit also. if it were better they wouldntve needed to use folded steel.

I dont think so.
During the spanish invasion at tenochtitlan (now mexico city) indians would shoot their arrows at the spanish soldiers and as its stated in history books "the indian's arrows did no damage to the invasors because of their shinning armours" this was in the XVI century, so if an arrow couldnt took down an armoured soldier in that time, it wouldnt 500 years back neither.
I have to say that if you think that the mexican indians of that time were useless, then you are wrong, the mexica empire was the biggest empire in america (before the arrival of the spanish of course) with the biggest army, and the best trained warriors (they tought that if they died in battle they would go to the last/better level of heaven) a mexica warrior would be match for a samurai or a viking for sure, none of them are rivals for knights tho due to their steel armours and heavy weapons.
Source: im a mexican history teacher.

knight or viking.

Knights, duh

Yeah, I fucked up. I meant metal working, not metallurgy.

5WRJH-G0Q9A-GFNYG
free game for who gets it

Plate armor wasn't invented until the mid to late 14th century, an 11th century knight would be outfitted in mail and a skull cap helmet wit a Nasal. Look up

Knights, reason? Better armour.

I got it.
Crazy Machines user? I ain't gonna say no to free stuff, but I got kinda disappointed that it's not For Honor
Cheers anyway

>And yes, the curved shape of a katana made it shitty for penetrating tough armor which a straight blade was better at.
Swords don't do shit to armor, blunt weaponry like maces and clubs do. Techniques like half-swording directed at gaps in the armor is how people fought.

We're assuming here that you just airlifted individuals from all sides into an inescapable, but fairly large arena and they are forced to fight to the death I presume?

Lot's of things, even the size and footing of the battle field could make an impact in a fight such as this.

A key here is that we assume these factions were unfamiliar to one another. Each one only developed their current arms, armor and technique by observing and innovating against their neighboring enemy's forces. If they ever repeatedly encountered one another they would all develop new techniques and reverse engineer much of each other's tech which would change the battle entirely.

I would generally agree here. The quality of material available to the nobility of Europe probably gives them the edge in armor which would make the greatest impact on an extended fight. This is purely under the assumption that each faction is using a "standard" set of weapons.

If anyone vs Knights possessed a blunt weapon, denting plate armor can often completely cripple the knight which would turn the tide of battle.

The Vikings also had metallurgy techniques and possessed fairly advanced armor. Sure the best armor from the other factions would probably surpass theirs, but the whole notion of Vikings entering combat unarmed is silly.

You should not be referencing to the artwork in OP, it's for a video game which is less about historical accuracy and more about flavor and how most people perceive these groups to be.

You're also underestimating the durability of the Samurai's armor. It's extremely effective at deflecting blows and it's "scale" design makes it very hard to dent. Slicing the bindings is the most effective way to circumvent it, hence the forked Samurai arrowhead.

I think a big flaw with this argument in general is assuming the entirety of each faction was equally armed/armored. Wealth disparity is the greatest factor in that regard.

Not true, Romans had plate hundreds of years previous, the tech and methods were available.

It wasn't cost effective though, nobles couldn't afford to outfit every knight with such gear, but it was possible.

I'll take the dudes with the plate armor winning over the ones with armor made of chainmail or silk and leather + some bits of iron.

No, that would be fucking stupid.

Were the Samurai extremely honor bound due to Bushido? Definitely. Would they let notions of honor prevent them from using a clearly superior form of projectile weaponry? Fuck no.

The Samurai bought the fuck out of the Dutch's firearms the moment they learned of them and proceeded to reverse engineer them.

Ammo and re-load time back then simply cut short the duration of combat in which you could feasibly keep shooting. Just like in early Western firearm combat, there would be a shooting phase at the start, and then would become open melee combat once most of the ammo was depleted.

In the 11th century most European swords, especially Anglo Saxon swords were made via pattern welding, In other words no better than folded steel. That said ulfbert swords and such were made from wootz or crucible steel that was a rare and expensive import from india

The viking empire was not around in the 11th century either, they were all christians by then.
That means when you talk about vikings, you are really talking about ~7th to ~10th century metallurgy and technology.
Except for the ulfbhert swords, but those were not really of viking origin.

The roman lorica segmentata was not plate armor and was all but replaced by the lorica hamata which was considered a superior armour

It's obvious that knights would win.

If we are talking about 11th century samurai we are not talking about dudes on foot with swords, but dudes on horseback with bows.
They emphasized the sword when the gun made the bow, and by extension, the samurai, obsolete.

yes it was.