It's time we settle this once and for all.
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
It's time we settle this once and for all.
It's time we settle this once and for all.
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Samurai. Vikings were just a bunch of Black folk who raided defenseless farming communities and unarmed monks. They scattered every time the local King mustered an actual army.
Not necessarily.
The Danes were able to organize and consolidate locally right away in both France and England, although they benefitted from the influx of like minded Vikings from their homelands. They held onto their conquests for quite some time too, and even threatened the Franks directly from time to time.
North Sea Empire was short lived SOUL.
All things being as equal as they can be I would definitely give the edge to a Dane or group of them over a samurai or a group of them with ashigaru, of say the Heian Period. Vikings were around for most of that period. Really interesting match up of weapons, armor and strategies but Vikings would have had multiple advantages.
I think knights would completely BTFO Samurai, but they often struggled against Vikings and Varangians in the other periods. Anglo-Saxons and Rus would sometimes be used as Varangians but they were never of the same caliber. Varangians even gave Normans trouble.
>in the earlier* periods
This, they were similar to parasites.
Samurai were known for their archery and horsemanship in battle more than anything. All of the katana stuff is more ceremonious and only relevant in the context of Japanese courtly affairs.
Knights were just a bunch of Black folk that larped at jousts and slaughtered defenseless peasants. When a real army of spearmen and archers appeared they were slaughtered or fled.
>denying the use of cavalry
>heavy cavalry denialism
Weirdest take I've seen all day
Seething Christcuck sissy. Your desert cult is dying out.
Japanese samurais were extremely tall and built, I read records they were on average 190cm tall and could lift giant logs and push giant boulders. They were the absolute strongest in all of Asia
Weeb trannies are delusional.
>Japanese were extremely tall
Nah, I'd win.
Samurai had guns so them.
Samurai
You got plenty of responses on k already
There's never enough (you)s
These northern Samurais from retinues from northern Edo were heavily bearded, red haired and had light brownish, greenish eyes with pale hairy skin
Nordicist moment.....
Get out of here.
Japanese man can smash your skull into thousands of pieces, asiatic
I thought the main question was always samurai vs knight, not samurai vs viking.
Samurai vs Norman would be a more interesting one. I'm talking 1 on 1 as in larger groups (like 100 vs 100) very few can beat the Normans.
Given how the normal shield wall has difficulty moving and the samurai specializing in archery and guns, I think they'd whip the Norman's asses.
idk what this has to do with samurai and vikings. It is pretty fricked that IQfy only knows who the canadian rangers are because they use lee enfields, which the phased out in 2015-2019, even though a bunch of 3rd world countries still use them in some capacity.
False dichotomy. The real answer is Normans
fricking normans ree
Normans were filthy inbred French degenerates who ruined England. One day King Arthur will return and slay all the Norman mutt scum with the holy blade of truth and justice. Hail Arthur!
Arthur would start with the Saxons
Arthur was a israelite
It's ironic that it was the Anglo-Normans and Cambro-Normans that extolled the Arthurian mythos which is why the average Anglo is more familiar with a semi-mythical figure like Arthur than actual pre-Conquest English kings like Offa, Alfred, or Athelstan.
That being said, the Normans were the greatest synthesis produced; you took Viking raiders, turned them into fervent Catholics, and they adapted Frankish cavalry and castle-building. No other Viking offshoot comes close to their achievements and adaptability to absorb and learn from other cultures.
I do have a soft spot for the Rus since they're the Slavic counterpart to the Frankified Vikings and they instituted heavy cavalry (as well as retaining their heavy infantry roots).
Anyhow, I'm far from a weab and hate how samurai are overhyped but I'm not going to downplay them either. Many foreign accounts attest to the fighting spirit and martial ability of pre-16th century (when Japan adopted the arquebus thus changing their tactical formations) samurai. It all depends if the samurai are prepared (remember Vikings relied heavily on surprise raids) and other factors like level of weapons/armor as well as terrain.
Samurai were about 5'2 to 5'4 on average during the Mongol invasions. Vikings in the 9th to 11th centuries were about 5'6 to 5'8 average based on witness accounts and grave discoveries. So there's obvious physical advantages, but not as massive as one would think. The average Frankish soldier during Charlemagne's reign was 5'4 to 5'5 from skeletal remains. Being 6 foot was something of a rarity up until improved health and nutrition was more commonplace for the average man by the 18th and 19th centuries.
It's interesting, average heights were closer to modern day, pre agriculture, when we were hunter/gatherers.
>5'6-5'8
I don't think this's necessarily the case, I think that was the average for one site years ago that we haven't got any further genetic information on. It could have been a group of them perhaps or a group of like 5 half-starved 16 year olds who got yeeted on. The Vikings in a mass grave at Oxford were described as being quite massive, as was a Norman burial in Italy.
Bros it kind of rustles my jimmies that there isn't a physical anthropology database. As I've been getting more into AI I've been thinking about building one, because learning about ancient sites in this regard is interesting. And I think more people would like to have a collection of information they can look to, to see stuff like changes in bone morphology during Neolithization, measurements from groups like Vikings and Romans and the Scythians Valley of Kings, etc. Stuff like that is what many on IQfy find interesting and one could in theory be built that regularly allocates information from papers.
I'm well aware there were taller Vikings. Hardraada was massively tall for his era; he was at least 6'6, maybe even more. Bohemond was described as a massive Chad by Anna Komnenos; he was probably at least 6'2. But these were guys in the elite class (jarl and in Bohemond's case, minor nobility), they have access to better diet (meat) as well as physical exercise from training with weapons.
The rank-and-file had to worry about harvesting enough crops in the harsher environs of Scandinavia (Denmark was the only place where they could raise crops and livestock adequately) and while seafood definitely helped along with dairy products (which they consumed a lot of), the average karl, or freeman had to work damned hard to survive. So I think my estimate are probably closer to reality barring exceptions like anyone who was a Varangian Guardsmen (those dudes were constantly described as being at least a head taller than the average man) or a housecarl (the elite infantry of England that Canute instituted and later fought to the death at Hastings).
Even the average Anglo-Saxon warrior from remains they found at various battlegrounds were about 5'6 and 5'7. Harold Godwinson was described as a little shorter than William the Bastard (whose thigh-bone remains suggest he was probably 5'10 at best) so let's say Harold II was 5'8 and he was from the wealthiest most powerful family in England and had access to quality medical care, nutrition, and didn't have to do back-breaking labor like fyrdsmen had to.
And yeah there should be a database as you mentioned. But speaking as someone who majored in data science, compiling that kind of data and streamlining it would require massive logistical oversight.
> Samurai were about 5'2 to 5'4 on average during the Mongol invasions
Not even close, the japanese males did not reach the 5'2" to 5'4" range until the first half of the 1900s, during the Mongol invasions the samurai were in the 4'6" to 4'9" range
Keep in mind that the japanese royals banned all japanese from eating meat for about 1500 years, this permanently impacted the japanese on the genetic level and why even today with access to proper nutrition the japanese male average can't exceed 5'7" and over the past few years according to Japanese studies is actually shrinking again...this is why if you look at typical Japanese they are usually small, obviously there are very small percentage of outliers just like there are people in China that are over 7'6" and 400lb without being obese...this is also why if you look at native japanese sumo they are usually like 5'6" and 300 pounds with poor muscle composition, the 1500 year ban on meat consumption really fricked the japanese on a genetic level, also it does not help that the jomon admixture has a gene related to pygymyism possibly due to thousands of years of island dwarfism phenomenon
Let's be serious here, a male viking versus a japanese samurai is like an nfl football player versus a teenaged girl would look no different
What is actually a fair comparison is a female viking versus a japanese samurai
Let's review the facts:
Average modern japanese male: 5'6" 140lb 35kg grip strength
Average modern swedish female: 5'7" 155lb 35kg grip strength
This is why male nordics vs male japanese is ridiculous:
Average modern swedish male: 6'0" 190lb 65kg grip strength
If we extrapolate that they were of comparable size and muscle composition its actually a compelling matchup with the slight edge going to the female viking over the male samurai
A male viking versus a male samurai is like comparing a male lion vs a male hyena, a female lion vs a male hyena is actually the more closer matchup
Arthur and the Normans both fought against the Anglos
To this day the aristocracy and upper class of England is of norman heritage...anglos are generally the middle class with celts either middle class or lower class...let that sink in
Vikings, 100%
Viking is far too broad a category. A huscarl might be able to defeat a Samurai in a foot duel, but that would probably come down to personal experience. If the Samurai is on horseback with a bow he would obviously win.
>a bow too weak with arrows to broad to penetrate mail
Lmao
>source:
The Yumi draw weight was around 30-80 lbs.
With a quick search it seems that the draw weight isn't actually known; there are some studies on modern reproductions and those could reach 110lb. Though I doubt they would be ineffecrive since they were intended to go against heavy lacquered leather and metal lamellar armour
>If the Samurai is on horseback with a bow he would obviously win
Not obvious at all. Not sure when earlier Germanic migrations started getting good with war horses, I'm sure it varied. But when Goths conquered the Steppe from Sarmatians they largely did it with heavy infantry.
Samurai would have had stirrups but as other anon said the bows they had wouldn't have done much against the kinds of mail and armor of the Viking Age, nor would katanas.
The vikings aren't goths though
Viking
Vikings had crucible steel swords
They weren't the norm
>real samurai vs viking
Unfair fight by every metric, a trained, equipped, and professional soldier vs usually a farmer whose seasonally a criminal who boats around.
>ashigaru vs viking
More fair, this a peasant v peasant fight, starving robber militia vs scurvy robber mob. I'd probably give it to ashigaru because of their love of pikes, as well as having guns due to being from a later time period.
I know you all like to shit on Vikings as in seasoned raiders but their shields were fricking good at that period of time and they specilized in close combat that was brutal if we talk viking that had shield and one handed axe i can say samurai would lose because it is bad match up for them.
If we talk other weapons like sword and spear i can see samurai having edge but viking wielding broad axe then it is over for samurai because one swing will frick over samurai and chainmail is really good against katana and sword type weapons that usually samurai used.
I will admit that Naginata wielding samurai will destroy viking that uses spear, sword and no shield but it will be matched up against one handed axe + shield and broad axe.
Not everyone can be seasoned raider like stories tell usually those raiders are from warrior background and farmers or normal population that participated if survived like few raids then they could be considered vikings in general.
Also if we talk high of time period Vikings will outclass samurai because of better armor and weapons quality not to shit on Japanese samurai but their metal working were inferior to European ones.
>but their metal working were inferior to European ones.
They started using fully spring steel swords and forge welded bi-metallic harnesses by the late Sengoku Jidai. A viking has nothing to compare to that.
I like both Vikings and Samurai I don't want to answer this
Anyway, I feel like the film Sanjuro could make a decent Icelandic saga
Likewise I think something like Gisla saga could make a decent Jidaigeki
The Norse had superior equipment and it's not even close. Samurai were cool and all but there's no need to be delusional. The horse is the main thing going for the samurai here but on foot they would get absolutely decimated by the press of a Norse shield wall.
The typical samurai was between 4'6" and 4'9" and 80lb to 90lb based on skeletal bone/dna analysis
In comparison the typical viking was between 5'6" and 6'0" and 150lb to 200lb
However, this glosses over a critical difference, the japanese were genetically among the physically weakest in the world due to a ban that comprised 99%+ protein poor rice sometimes with fish and a ban from any non-royal japanese eating meat for almost 1500 years
This is why the japanese samurai tactic was simply to accumulate as many low quality soldiers as possible and with overwhelming numbers zergrush headfirst into an adversary, it was even more primitive a military tactic than the chinese approach which was even more primitive than say the mongols or westerners
Actual parity is probably 1 viking = 10+ samurai, keep in mind that the iberians had firsthand credible accounts of groups of 30 to 50 conquistadors slaughtering 1000+ samurai where it was essentially one shot from a musket followed by iberian swords and pikes
>based on skeletal bone/dna analysis
What analysis was this
It also boils down to when those remains were found.
Before Japanese adopted Buddhism, they actually consumed meat quite a bit like deer & boar as well as seafood. The bones of Japanese males pre-Heian were found to be at least 2-3 inches taller than post-Heian ones. And even after the meat ban, they still winked at wild game being consumed over domesticated animals.
And yeah, Scandinavians from the early 9th century (when they exploded onto Western Europe) to Stamford Bridge (the last hurrah of overseas Viking expansion), they were around those heights.
The Vikings definitely have an edge in strength and size as well as their shield-wall, extensive use of archery, and their ability to choose where to fight by landing wherever they wanted with longships (it's a crucial factor as to why they won a lot). But depending on what era of Japan and what conditions is something to consider. Never write-off the Japanese and their ability to fight and adapt.
> Credible
> Cagayan Battles
Bro japs are 5 feet tall
what do you think
Ah yes a weeb website, the perfect place to get an unbiased answer for this