In a real life fight | Forums

[Patient_Fodder]

..............
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.
.......

Not to mention that the vikings were forced into christianity, which will have fast forwarded the process considerably.

[T_Sesh]

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.

While it is correct that most of the weapons seen in the game would be mostly useless against plate armor, it would be naive to say that samurai would be incapable of defeating a knight based on techniques and weaponry. A samurai's armor during the Edo period was made out of riveted steel in addition to chain mail on certain parts made similarly to the Europeans, so rest assured they would be well trained in taking down armored enemies using spears and kanobos.

Speaking purely in terms of the game, the Knights would most certainly win. The kanobo is the samurai's only useful weapon for using against armor in the game, whereas the nights have halberds and (historically iffy) flails. Longswords would be useless as a cutting weapon of course, but using mordhau strikes would be effective against samurai armor since the sword effectively becomes a pick hammer. Vikings in this game are not historically accurate at all really (even aside from the obvious in accurate depiction of horns on their helmets), as they are largely shown wearing almost no armor at all, whereas in reality they would be wearing chain mail for the most part. I would disagree on the Warden vs Lawbringer bit though, as the Lawbringer is shown wearing later period armor that would be nigh-indestructible, and also uses a halberd, which provides both better reach and armor piercing potential than a longsword.

[yote224]

I think the armor plays as a positive and negative. Sure, slicing it open with a sword isn't the most likely way to defeat a knight but the other two factions have various ways to go about that.
For one, I've seen small heads on dane axes that could possibly smash into plate similar to a pick. Not to mention you don't have to use the sharp end, effectively doubling as a club to dismantle the tin man.

On another note, weapons are fine and dandy sure but are we going to overlook the unarmed techniques? In judo there was an old joke that it isn't a discipline of throwing your opponent but the art of hitting your enemy with the planet. The idea behind it is that a thrown opponent will be shocked by the force of impact long enough for a knife to be drawn and stab the opponent in a weak spot before recovering. Having had the displeasure of being on the receiving end of a good throw more than my fair share of times I would reckon it would be extremely hard to recover if in full plate.

Just some things I don't see people mentioning.

Personally, in terms of full scale war? Probably knights. The counter to a mounted knight in full plate is crossbows or another mounted knight in full plate.

Individual 1v1? ...I'd say a toss up between Samurai and Knight .

[sweeptheleg1981]

I think it honestly would come down to the Vikings and Samurai. If you've ever seen any reenactments of medieval warfare knights armor severely impedes their movement, speed, and range of motion. Not to mention carrying all that weight around will tire you out faster than a Vikings or Samurais would. A knight on horseback is probably a different story, but one on one and on the ground the Knight would get stomped by either Viking or Samurai. Also their helms seem more of a liability than anything. It's like putting blinders on a horse.

Don't get me wrong, my chosen class when the game comes out is going to be Knights, but realistically I don't think they have a chance with 1v1 in real life.

[iHunny]

I think it honestly would come down to the Vikings and Samurai. If you've ever seen any reenactments of medieval warfare knights armor severely impedes their movement, speed, and range of motion. Not to mention carrying all that weight around will tire you out faster than a Vikings or Samurais would. A knight on horseback is probably a different story, but one on one and on the ground the Knight would get stomped by either Viking or Samurai. Also their helms seem more of a liability than anything. It's like putting blinders on a horse.

Don't get me wrong, my chosen class when the game comes out is going to be Knights, but realistically I don't think they have a chance with 1v1 in real life.

Knights had superior weapons and armor. the two others would not stand a chanse. Reinactment is made of people not used to wear armor for long periods of time, and knights were.

[NephthysIV]

I think it honestly would come down to the Vikings and Samurai. If you've ever seen any reenactments of medieval warfare knights armor severely impedes their movement, speed, and range of motion. Not to mention carrying all that weight around will tire you out faster than a Vikings or Samurais would. A knight on horseback is probably a different story, but one on one and on the ground the Knight would get stomped by either Viking or Samurai. Also their helms seem more of a liability than anything. It's like putting blinders on a horse.

Don't get me wrong, my chosen class when the game comes out is going to be Knights, but realistically I don't think they have a chance with 1v1 in real life.

Samurai armour weights nearly the same like a European plate armour...
And can move quiet well in a European armour.

youtube has been deactivated.
Do you accept the use of cookies to display and allow you to watch the video content?

A complete suite of plate armour made from well-tempered steel weigh around 15–25 kg. The gear from special forces is often around 70kg and they walk more than 50km in one day. 25kg is nothing. And the really important thing is the weight of the armour is spread evenly throughout the body. You have no problem to wear it a whole day....

You can probably move better in a European plate armour than a samurai armour because the armour is much closer to the body.

I really hate it that most of humanity believes samurais were some super warriors.... I'm sure in a real fight samurai vs knight the samurai would have a really hard time because he can't penetrate the armour or block the attack from the knight, because the Katana would just break by a block. So he has to evade and parry which is much harder.

I believe in duels it would be better to fight without armour. But in war you want to have always an armour because you won’t fight 1vs1. You will always take some hits. But with armour they are often no problem. Without one you are hurt and will have a much harder time to stay alive. And every soldier who could afford an armour used it in battles. So they had to be useful.
And I really hate it that the Vikings fight nude in this game. Vikings used mail or Lamellar armour or at least cloth or leather.

[ZenBearV13]

On another note, weapons are fine and dandy sure but are we going to overlook the unarmed techniques? In judo there was an old joke that it isn't a discipline of throwing your opponent but the art of hitting your enemy with the planet. The idea behind it is that a thrown opponent will be shocked by the force of impact long enough for a knife to be drawn and stab the opponent in a weak spot before recovering. Having had the displeasure of being on the receiving end of a good throw more than my fair share of times I would reckon it would be extremely hard to recover if in full plate.

Knights practiced wrestling just as much as Samurai practiced Judo, and contrary to what pop culture will tell you, just because it's Japanese doesn't make it better. I've been thrown around plenty as well in my MMA training, and I can say that while it certainly does hurt to get thrown, it would hurt a lot less if I was armored in plate over thick cloth padding.

I think it honestly would come down to the Vikings and Samurai. If you've ever seen any reenactments of medieval warfare knights armor severely impedes their movement, speed, and range of motion. Not to mention carrying all that weight around will tire you out faster than a Vikings or Samurais would. A knight on horseback is probably a different story, but one on one and on the ground the Knight would get stomped by either Viking or Samurai. Also their helms seem more of a liability than anything. It's like putting blinders on a horse. .

The Knights' armor graduated over time from the chainmail that the Vikings wore into plate armor because plate armor was fundamentally superior. If plate armor slowed a fighter down so much that he was at a disadvantage against a mailed opponent, they wouldn't wear it.

***

The answer to this question is so obvious. The Knight would win, hands down, based on skill alone, because I'm on their team.

[Echo_Magnus]

It seems there is a lot of opinions basing a victory on the technological advances alone. While I believe technology gives the advantage over an inexperienced fighter, a trained Warrior is not as easily overtaken by technological advances.

All things being equal, I'd have to say that it really could go either way at any time. Each of these Warriors, while maybe not representing the Apex warriors in history, all have something unique to bring to the table, but they all have their weaknesses as well.

It really would come down to the individuals (Knight, Samurai, and Viking) ability to adapt to the situation on the spot, and recognize how to best maneuver around their opponents strengths in order to exploit their weaknesses.

My bias says Samurai, but my gut says any one of them.

[iHunny]

It seems there is a lot of opinions basing a victory on the technological advances alone. While I believe technology gives the advantage over an inexperienced fighter, a trained Warrior is not as easily overtaken by technological advances.

All things being equal, I'd have to say that it really could go either way at any time. Each of these Warriors, while maybe not representing the Apex warriors in history, all have something unique to bring to the table, but they all have their weaknesses as well.

It really would come down to the individuals (Knight, Samurai, and Viking) ability to adapt to the situation on the spot, and recognize how to best maneuver around their opponents strengths in order to exploit their weaknesses.

My bias says Samurai, but my gut says any one of them.

... Lets assume 3 equaly strong warriors, the one with the best weapons and tecnhology would win, since they are all 3 equaly good. Sorry, but your Samurai just lost. Or, why not have the strongest viking fight the weakest knight and samurai, now the viking won. Your argument makes no sence how to find the strongest since you throw around fighetrs skills around. They must be equaly skilled, then you count in technique, weapons and armor to see who would win. And knight would come top cos they had better technologie then both of the others.

[Echo_Magnus]

... Lets assume 3 equaly strong warriors, the one with the best weapons and tecnhology would win, since they are all 3 equaly good. Sorry, but your Samurai just lost. Or, why not have the strongest viking fight the weakest knight and samurai, now the viking won. Your argument makes no sence how to find the strongest since you throw around fighetrs skills around. They must be equaly skilled, then you count in technique, weapons and armor to see who would win. And knight would come top cos they had better technologie then both of the others.

Technique is factored in with Skill. More they are of the same makeup.

I am compelled to disagree with you that Weapons and Armor irreversibly change the tide of battle assuming Skill Level is equal. While I understand there is a bias in favor of factoring in Technology, etc.; this is not the end all factor when considering opponents of equal skill.

I'm sorry, but the reality is that technology does not play near the role we're giving it here. Technology doesn't actually become a factor until there are monumental differences between the two levels of technology.

And my Bias is because I identify with Samurai more then the others, but not because I genuinely believe they would come out on top. If I HAD to pick: Viking all day every day.