There are so many things to consider when you ask that question. Besides the actual individual being whichever, there are so many circumstances that can influence a fight, not to mention which weapons and armour are used (are we talking early medieval knights, or the ones after the Dark Ages?), Without those parameters set, it is a pure stab in the dark I am afraid.
Alright, let's just say that
These warriors where equally matched. And they used traditional weapons and armour kind of like what we see in game, who would you think would win based on the technology provided during that time period and the training that each of these soldiers had and there fighting styles remembering that a knight is a lot more sophisticated than a viking
?Originally Posted by Optionism Go to original post
I am not sure still. Whenever the battlefield conditions become more troublesome, the more mobile fighter will win.
So on a sunny day with a flat underground and no major obstacles; Knight
On a Rainy day, in a forest; Samurai
In the midst of winter on a mountain; Viking
Assuming we are talking 1 on 1.
While this is a very interesting thought experiment, there are many reasons why one can't really draw any kind of valid conclusions about it. This video provides some decent reasoning as to why this is the case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TNjKg18VPo
That said, one can generally draw some conclusions on who might be more likely to win a fight if you establish more specific parameters than just "Knight vs Samurai". A samurai's armor in later periods is largely comparable to a knight's plate armor in terms of strength, comparisons there are largely fruitless. However if you were to pit a samurai wielding nothing but a katana vs a knight using a mace or hammer, the knight is more likely to win simply because a katana is virtually useless against plate armor. Samurai didn't typically use katana's in battle however, usually only using them as side arms/backup weapons to their spears or bows, for beheading defeated enemies, and in unarmored duels with other samurai. In this case, you'd really be comparing martial arts styles, which for the most part we don't know enough about (especially European side of it, as everything we know is from old manuscripts rather than masters who have been taught over generations) to make direct comparisons.
The Knights would win.
In history they had better armor, Weapons, and extremely advanced and complex martial artes, utilizing every part of the weapon in combat. Medieval Knight armor was so good that pretty much any of the current weapons in the game. Besides the Kanabo and the flail (flail is actually debated on whether it was really used) would be nearly ineffective. Hence the reasons why we had maces and Warhammers because a sword could not pierce the armor.
A historical Katana would never be able to cut through the Knights armor and would most likely break if they tried, Japanese steel was just not as strong as the weapons used in Medieval times. The Vikings are at a significant disadvantage due to their lack of armor and the only one that might actually stand a chance against the knights is the Valkyrie and even then her lack of armor would get her killed quickly. Of the knights the Warden probably comes out on top followed by the Lawbringer.
Technically true, but with caveats.Originally Posted by Optionism Go to original post
The traditional Viking Age---the aggitators within which being from where the game draws most of its inspiration---ended around the year 1100, while the sort of weapons and armour used by the Knights looks more akin to that of the mid-to-late medieval period, which would be roughly 1200-1500, meaning that's a few hundred years of technological advancement in terms of metallurgy and armour development the Knights depicted here have on the Vikings represented.
That being said, since we're discussing history, part of the reason the Viking Age ended was because people from Scandinavia made treaties, and integrated, with the rest of Europe---the most obvious example being the Normans (Rollo swore fealty to King Charles of France, who, in return, gave the Vikings Normandy)---which means from a historical point of view, the Knights would have a little Viking in them anyway.
The Samurai, on the other hand, existed well into the 1800s and still couldn't match the technology of historical medieval knights from two-hundred years before. They only weapons in their arsenal that would really be of concern to a knight in plate armour would be the yari and kanabo---the former because it could exploit armour's natural gaps and the latter for the same reason a mace or warhammer was effective---since the rest are primarily slashing weapons.
Now, having said that, if they were all to meet with equal technology, I personally think the Vikings could give the Knights a run for their money. There's a reason they were able to take land in a Europe where they had equal footing technologically and hold it long enough for the local kings to be willing to sign treaties with them instead of fighting and driving them off. Samurai's a bit of a wild-card, since if Japan advanced technologically in the same way Europe did, by the Edo (or even Kamakura) period it's entirely possible the katana would be nothing but a ceremonial object remembering a time when slashing weapons were viable in warfare, since their swords would have probably been oriented toward thrusting.
We'll never really know, though, since, as I said, we're not just looking at disparate cultures that never met, but also at culture that existed at disparate times, which would make meeting impossible.