Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 2:49:56 GMT
Even as it would sound illogical the Spartans had the best advantage. Not only their phallanx would protect them, but also their shields would become an inmense advantage since their lack of armor would be offset, and it would make them speedier than most (except the samurai). The only issues were that the xiphos would cut through heavy armor or not. On the samurai, they are being sorely neglected. Yes they fought on Japan only (add Korea to the equation), but dismissing them as katana wielders only is a grave mistake. Add to the mix the Yari (spear) to distance opponents, the Naginata (polearm) which could and would cleave like any western polearm, and the quintessential katana which in its overspecialization and uniqueness it is quite on of the deadliest of swords ever produced EVEN if it was isolated from 99 percent of the world. That said samurai could go mano a mano with all of the mentioned before them. The Vikings would rely on brute force and sheer power to intimidate and defeat their enemies, as the northern men used to be larger and thicker than most southern europeans and their Danish axes and lugged spears were deadly weapons. As for the knights if they could fight as a unit and not pursue glory and name in the battlefield they had the armor and weapons to finish the job.
|
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 17, 2008 2:53:27 GMT
dismissing knights as longsword wielders is also a mistake.
Knights were heavy and light cavalry, heavy and light infantry, scouts, guards, unarmoured champions, armoured battletanks, crossbowmen, archers, spearmen, pikemen, axemen, and just about anything else you can imagine.
They were not mere swordsmen just as samurai were not mere katana users.
(And the samurai were most certainly not any faster)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 2:54:17 GMT
I root for the samurai but would give the spartans my best chance for winning it. 3rd place would be a tie for knights and vikings AS them fighting unmounted would be rough equals
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 2:56:40 GMT
Ramm if you had read the bottom of my post you would have seen this:
"As for the knights if they could fight as a unit and not pursue glory and name in the battlefield they had the armor and weapons to finish the job."
|
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 17, 2008 3:03:24 GMT
I saw that and I agree. But I'm assuming we give the best conditions for each side.
Either way, this is all jsut speculation, it's pretty clear cut for me. Viknigs and samurai don't stand a snowballs chance in hell given the imposed situation ;D
(I'm out, nothing more I can add)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 3:06:25 GMT
My initial thoughts were along the lines of Rammstein's post where he boiled it down to Spartans & Knights. That does seem pretty plausible. I recall watching a History Channel program a few years ago there they were talking with the curator of the of the British Museum and this guy was saying that heavy blunt'ish weapons such as hammers, maces, etc were able to make a pretty good mess of the Knight's armour. With that in mind and our Vikings being allowed hammers....I think we might be at a Viking vs. Spartan battle.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 3:14:10 GMT
Isn't comparing spartans, vikings, and knights in that order like comparing royal army musketeers from 1642 to U.S. civil war riflemen to say any world powers modern riflemen. Where one would be considered obseleted by the other ..maybe not directly so but still obsolete to the other. I'm not sure where samurai would fall in the timeline though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 4:20:31 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. nope samurai used tempered metal plates that were painted |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 4:31:14 GMT
What I think would happen is the Vikings are laughing at the samurai and knights because they are puny. Then the Knights would diss them, then the vikings will charge the knights, the samurai would sit back with the spartans and watch them, the knights would win but suffer many losses. Now the Knights and samurai team up on the spartans by outflanking them because of the Spartan phalanx inflexability, once spartans are all dead the samurai finish off the wounded knights and win the battle.
The only reason the spartans beat the persians is because it was impossible to flank the spartans in thermopylae.
I'm not biased with the samurai, but they could possibly win if they dont attack first. Since their swords are usless against the powerful knights armor, they need to try as hard as possible to try and avoid them.. The Vikings probably would charge at someone first, then die....badly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 4:32:18 GMT
the answer is very simple it depends on the persons skill if you have a poorly trained samurai, spartan, viking and knight against a well trained knight, viking, samurai and spartan its pretty obvious who going to win. it depends on who has the better skill
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 4:36:48 GMT
When did samurai ride tigers  ;D |
|
|
|
Post by YlliwCir on Jan 17, 2008 4:42:17 GMT
The spartans no doubt.
Or MacGyver.
|
|
slav
Member
Senior Forumite
Katsujin No Ken
Posts: 4,457
|
Post by slav on Jan 17, 2008 4:44:03 GMT
Hate to say it, but Ninja would rule all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 4:50:22 GMT
the answer is very simple it depends on the perosns skill if you have a poorly trained smaurai, spartan, viking and knight against a well trained knight, viking, samurai and spartan its pretty obious who going to win. it depends on who has the better skill better skill doesn't always win battles it can play an imoptant/even crucial factor at some point but sometimes not at all. 1000 men in a tight line vs 1000 men in a tight shield wall/ or spearwall doesnt leave tons of room for individual skill to shine. The equalizer and sometimes winning factor would have been better weapons and armour and being able to utilze different tactics because of such. unless you are speaking or indvidual vs individual combat of course. Gunit yes you were right, touche bamboo was used though I didnt know they used plate.(dont know much about japanese armour) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 4:50:38 GMT
When did samurai ride tigers ;D like freakin always  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 4:54:00 GMT
The spartans no doubt. Or MacGyver. nope, spartans would get flanked and die rapidly, they are only good against other phalanxes unless at a pass like thermopylae |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 5:00:47 GMT
the answer is very simple it depends on the perosns skill if you have a poorly trained smaurai, spartan, viking and knight against a well trained knight, viking, samurai and spartan its pretty obious who going to win. it depends on who has the better skill better skill doesn't always win battles it can play an imoptant/even crucial factor at some point but sometimes not at all. 1000 men in a tight line vs 1000 men in a tight shield wall/ or spearwall doesnt leave tons of room for individual skill to shine. The equalizer and sometimes winning factor would have been better weapons and armour and being able to utilze different tactics because of such. unless you are speaking or indvidual vs individual combat of course. Gunit yes you were right, touche bamboo was used though I didnt know they used plate.(dont know much about japanese armour) I was talking one on one. 1000 vs 1000 brings in many other factors |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 17:21:42 GMT
Robocop, even chuck couldn't take down that babyfood eating mofo.
Comparing all of them is like comparing a f1, baja, sippy-hole racer. Each one has evolved for use in a specific type of situation against a known opponent, that's why the samurai failed against modern weapons and why the knight failed so completely at agincourt (sp?).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 20:49:25 GMT
The answer is: there is no answer. This is all pure speculation and while entertaining to some, is ultimately a waste of your time, as no final solution can be obtained. But, what the heck? If you enjoy such activities, have at it, boys! And take no prisoners!
|
|
|
|
Post by oos3thoo on Jan 17, 2008 21:26:53 GMT
I vote vikings because think of it, no matter how much speed you had, no matter how tough your sword is, nothing could stop a war hammer of a giant, super tough viking. But the Celts would obliterate all.
|
|
;D
