Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 21:28:41 GMT
sorry but hammer is too slow and samurai would dodge it and counter strike like 3 times before the viking can return a strike. Vikings are only good for skirmishes.
|
|
|
|
Post by YlliwCir on Jan 17, 2008 21:37:44 GMT
Okay do the knights have horses? If so does anyone else have em?
|
|
|
|
Post by oos3thoo on Jan 17, 2008 21:37:58 GMT
The samurai were good warriors but that is biting off a piece they can't chew there my friend. The only reason that Japan was not conquered by other Asian invaders is because they couldn't handle Japan's climate.
|
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 17, 2008 21:41:35 GMT
where is all of this misinformation coming from?
I'll say it again - the samurai are NO FASTER THAN ANY OF THE OTHERS HERE.
There is no compromise in this fact regardless of what anime may tell you.
|
|
|
|
Post by oos3thoo on Jan 17, 2008 21:45:17 GMT
Agreed, although they are skilled warriors and I prefer their weapons of choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by YlliwCir on Jan 17, 2008 21:45:39 GMT
I still say the spartans, they had them long spears.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 21:45:41 GMT
The samurai were good warriors but that is biting off a piece they can't chew there my friend. The only reason that Japan was not conquered by other Asian invaders is because they couldn't handle Japan's climate. hahaha, sorry but that is a dumb excuse. Samurai got messed up by the Mongols for awhile, But i think when the samurai made the katana they defeated the mongols badly. vikings to me see more like brawlers than warriors. Like Ramm said, they never experienced a full scale battle except for once..and they lost that battle. The spartans would lose cuz their phalanx would be flanked and destroyed. the vikings would inflict many losses, but lose, then i think that the smaurai and knights would be equally matched. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 21:47:13 GMT
I still say the spartans, they had them long spears. not that long, maybe 8 feet. The samurai had that long of spears too. Their phalanx would be flanked and they would shatter and fall rapidly. And no, horses cant be used |
|
|
|
Post by YlliwCir on Jan 17, 2008 21:48:03 GMT
Between the knights and the samurai, the knights would win, easily
|
|
|
|
Post by oos3thoo on Jan 17, 2008 21:49:20 GMT
Hahaha... The vikings may have used heavy weapons, but they were not slow!! They had to use them as tools of survival! Their swords would not stand their hammer blows! Japanese also wore heavy armor while vikings armor was light and offered awesome movement. And no matter how strong armor is, remember that a hammer is the tool that created it!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 21:49:28 GMT
where is all of this misinformation coming from? I'll say it again - the samurai are NO FASTER THAN ANY OF THE OTHERS HERE. There is no compromise in this fact regardless of what anime may tell you. i dont watch anime, the katana was lighter than viking swords. Plus the katana was use with two hands to give it more leverage, strength, and speed. The technique would be effective against vikings and spartans, but not the knights cuz their armor is way to effective and strong. |
|
|
|
Post by oos3thoo on Jan 17, 2008 21:51:01 GMT
And how would you know if vikings didn't use 2 hands? And not all samurai used two hands! And samurai's battle plans were not any more organized or stronger than vikings.
|
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 17, 2008 21:51:28 GMT
No, it most certainly was not lighter.
How would a technique that has not ever seen a shield in its entire existence presume to be effective?
(I feel viknigs and samurai are evenly matched. Samurai are probably more skilled, but lack any experience against shields, wehreas the vikings would be incredibly used to fighting two handed weapons.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 21:52:02 GMT
Hahaha... The vikings may have used heavy weapons, but they were not slow!! They had to use them as tools of survival! Their swords would not stand their hammer blows! Japanese also wore heavy armor while vikings armor was light and offered awesome movement. And no matter how strong armor is, remember that a hammer is the tool that created it! the japanese sword would slice and dice the vikings up while the vikings hammers would smash the knights armor and crumple them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 21:52:59 GMT
Between the knights and the samurai, the knights would win, easily no not easily, but yes they would win. Only because of the knights armor. Without armor, samurai would own. |
|
|
|
Post by oos3thoo on Jan 17, 2008 21:53:00 GMT
What about Spartans? One hand would use a shield against the sword while the other jabbed with a spear.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 21:54:19 GMT
And how would you know if vikings didn't use 2 hands? And not all samurai used two hands! And samurai's battle plans were not any more organized or stronger than vikings. all vikings knew how to do is rape men and women, and beat the sh1t out of villagers. |
|
|
|
Post by oos3thoo on Jan 17, 2008 21:54:42 GMT
Dammit, read my siggy one the bottom of my posts... IT IS A QUOTE FROM A SAMURAI!! And not to mention that the vikings only did that sorta stuff.
BTW the samurai who said that was non-other than musashi miyamoto, the greatest samurai ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 17, 2008 21:54:52 GMT
I suggest you watch european unarmoured combat.
Where are you getting the idea that vikings ued hammers....?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 21:55:04 GMT
What about Spartans? One hand would use a shield against the sword while the other jabbed with a spear. yeah but their phalanx would be flanked badly |
|
