Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 1:49:54 GMT
They all have their types of historical armor. Lets say that each army used the weapons that they historically used. Each army has the units in their army that they would have had historically(there are arrows and cavalry) (no projectiles as heavy as onagers). Lets also say that there are no terrain advatages, and each side had 5,000 of their finest soldiers and units with no fatigue to begin with. Who do you think based on opinions and facts would come out Victorious in a 4 on 4 battle between them? SAMURAI VS. VIKINGS VS. SPARTANS VS KNIGHTS |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 1:55:06 GMT
My best guess is the ones who can fight as a unit and not as individuals will win the battle.
|
|
|
|
Post by oos3thoo on Jan 17, 2008 1:57:50 GMT
Hard to say. I would vote on spartans or Vikings. Mainly because or their brute streangth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 1:59:53 GMT
I would say that spartans would die out first because their phalanx would be flaked like crazy
|
|
|
|
Post by oos3thoo on Jan 17, 2008 2:02:21 GMT
Well, think of it. Their tough slashes would tear through a spear and crack samurai amour. Would pierce knight amour. But vikings would stand more than a chance!
So maybe vikings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 2:04:54 GMT
id go with the vikings
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 2:07:39 GMT
viking barely wore armor, they usually wore some type of animal coating. And samurai armor was very thick and tough, dont underestimate it, I dont know about knights armor though. I think it was designed only to stop sword blows
|
|
|
|
Post by oos3thoo on Jan 17, 2008 2:14:04 GMT
Youforget one thing... They are extremely strong! Way stronger than anyone now a days anyway. A viking had incredible strength and were probably pretty damn fast. It seems the further you go back in time the tougher people were, and vikings were in the prime years of strength and weapons, seeing they balanced out really well. Although samurai's would do pretty friggin well and so would knights and Spartans, but I root for Vikings. It is just my opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 2:16:23 GMT
k ima add pics, hold on
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 2:21:21 GMT
They all have their types of historical armor. Lets say that the fierce Samurai were equiped with katanas, the brutal Vikings were equipted with Viking swords, the tough Spartans were equipted with spears and xiphos', and the shiny armored Knights were equipted with Long swords. Lets also say that there are no terrain advatages, no shields(except for Spartans), no arrows, and each side had 1,000 of their finest soldiers. Who do you think based on opinions and facts would come out Victorious in a 4 on 4 battle between them? Chuck norris |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 2:22:17 GMT
They all have their types of historical armor. Lets say that the fierce Samurai were equiped with katanas, the brutal Vikings were equipted with Viking swords, the tough Spartans were equipted with spears and xiphos', and the shiny armored Knights were equipted with Long swords. Lets also say that there are no terrain advatages, no shields(except for Spartans), no arrows, and each side had 1,000 of their finest soldiers. Who do you think based on opinions and facts would come out Victorious in a 4 on 4 battle between them? Chuck norris be foreal |
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 17, 2008 2:24:01 GMT
Knights or spartans. Samurai stand no chance, they fought as individuals not units. Vikings didn't typically enage in full scale war, and the most noticable example to the contrary (Stanford Bridge) ended in utter defeat for them. ---- Spartans could win do to the rigors of their group formation. No other group mentioned can fight as a single unit quite like the spartans. Unfortunately their lack of armour would prove costly. Kinhgts probably stand the best chance do to their jack-of-all-trades style of combat as well as their ability to work as multiple units. A conroi was one of the most effective fighting groups of its day and consisted of a group of twelve knights knee to knee with their lances crouched. A two knights in a conroi were said to be closer than their lovers. The longbow brought the demise of this type of tactic, but since their are no bows here.... Both spartans and european knights would have been far more diverse fighters after their encounters with other cultures. Samurai would be very limited, possibly unable to adapt after their very secluded fighting. Platemail was incredibly resilient and, for all practical purposes, impossible to cut through. It could be pierced under a very strong blow, but even then it's unlikely. Aiming for the weak points in armour (which, by the 16th c. were almost nonexistant ;D - ok not totally true  ) was the best way to defeat them, although ringen also works well. Consider ringen like judo for the samurai. Samurai armour was incredibly tough, but wasn't light like it is often portrayed. It was probably comperable to a knights armour in resiliency, however it was far less protective. katana kata are designed specifically for aiming for the many weakpoints in a japanese cuirass (the neck being the most famous of these places) however the majaority of these areas would have been very well protected on a knight. I'm leaning towards spartans though, just because of their abilities in formations, but as said before, they may get overrun. The knight is more flexible, but wouldn't work too well in a full scale charge (crecy anyone?). The samurai are completely out of the uquestion in my mind. The vikings are as well. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 2:24:11 GMT
well seeing as vikings knights, and samurais are different time periods none of this is "for real"
|
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 17, 2008 2:26:21 GMT
1700 ad vs 500 bc vs 700 ad vs 1500 ad.
Not a very fair battle ;D (A 1700 ad knight would be using muskets ;D)
|
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 17, 2008 2:27:35 GMT
They wore rivited maille wich is essentially impossible to cleave through. Only hauberks of course, nothing fully covering.
|
|
|
|
Post by themaster293 on Jan 17, 2008 2:30:58 GMT
How bout' if none of them had armor? Kind of a disadvantage for the samurai and the vikings. I would vote for the samurai.
|
|
|
|
Post by oos3thoo on Jan 17, 2008 2:32:53 GMT
I still vote viking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 2:33:45 GMT
And i still vote chuck, seeing as he has been around since the beginning of time.
|
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 17, 2008 2:43:38 GMT
If none had armour, it would come down to knight vs. samurai, niehter having any clear ground. The knight would be an expert in unarmoured combat, and the crossgaurd of a european sword is the knights best weapon. (Actually, the spartans would win, they'd be prodding each of the other with their spears not worrying about armour ) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 2:48:30 GMT
G unit that picture is of a macedonian phalanx soldier not a spartan, you can tell by the shield emblem  If all these units were geared optimally I dont think knights would have much trouble wiping the floor with the competition. katanas wouldn't do jack to full plate armor. on the other hand a broadsword wouldnt have too hard of a time breaking down bamboo armor ( I'm pretty sure thats what samurai used). vikings aren't properly armored for this kind of battle I wouldnt think and would be the first to go. and then the spartans and then the samurai. |
|
) was the best way to defeat them, although ringen also works well. Consider ringen like judo for the samurai.
