For Fun samurai or viking berserker
 

A while back me and my friend were having a debate about who would be more likely to win. If a samurai stepped into a ring with a viking berserker which one would win. Samurai head to toe in armor with his katana and wakizashi counterpart. The viking with his sword and shield with his armor which was usually bear skin and chainmail armor.

Samurai.
messagetooshort

A katana can't cut through chainmail (learnt that from a friend her father who are avid weapon collectors and perform re-enactments unless of course I got mixed up memory again XP )

Also are we talking just a berserk viking (god that image is broken) or an actual berserker as in someone with the ability to shift into animal form like in the legends?

I WAS Gonna say Samurai, but Corpsey has a good point...


But samurais have cooler swords.

As much as I would love to say Samurai, I've recall Vikings as being kick-ass warriors for no truly defined reason. On that basis, it's kind of a moot argument, innit?

I think it might suffer a bit from boxer syndrome too: Samurai are excellent sword fighters, world reknown even, and they follow a very structured honor code that has endured countless hundreds of years. Vikings smash shit. They smash shit the fuck up. Battle Axes are not well known for percision fighting, becuase they are hard to fight percisely with. They just point and swing. At first, it may seem like the Samurai is left with the better weapons and the higher skill level.

But can you parry a battle axe? the point of using an Axe over a sword is the weight of the weapon is all compiled into the tip of the axe and best for penetrating armor and cleaving through wood. When the brittish took over China, they held a tournament where the brittish would pit boxers and wrestlers against well known Martial artist of the area, to show there sheer power and dominance over the people. The brittish lost these tournament over all, but only three Martial artist prevailed to the final 8 match ups. They were not use to fighting out side of their time honed honor code. If you are use to someone submitting when they see a truely impressive Butterfly kick, and landing in Horse stance, but your assailant just ignores it and lunges in anyway, it's a completely baffling experience. They couldn't read their opponents based on the signal they were giving.

I think that they would be evenly matched overall, and in the end, Batman would win.

Wait, a minute, there was no option for a Sayajin warrior?

This poll sucks.

And I think a viking beserker was a fanatically religious warrior that was used in battle to break up an enemies line. They used throwing axes, but I can't assume any more.

Samurais have more appealing weaponry and would just use a bow if they couldn't be fucked fighting against brute strength, so Samurai.

I prefer viking weaponry...

http://www.sword-buyers-guide.com/images/Damascus5.jpg

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...9.fig.2.lg.gif

I had to pick the viking. Simply because I prefer the axe to the katana. :)

As a sword, the Japanese katana is unmatched in its sharpness and cutting power. Furthermore, it is particularly good at cutting against metal (–but no, it only cuts through other swords in movies and video games!). However, Medieval plate armor is well known for its resistance to cutting, and cutting at a moving target hidden by a shield or a greatsword is not easy. While the edge of a katana is very strong with a sharp cutting bevel, it is a thick wedge shape and still has to move aside material as it cuts. Though this is devastating on a draw slice against flesh and bone, it is much less effective against armors. Realizing this, several styles of Japanese swordsmanship devised specific techniques not to cut at armor, but to stab and thrust at the gaps and joints of it just as the Europeans did against their own plate armor. The primary technique for fighting nearly any kind of armor with most any kind of sword is not to cut but to thrust at the gaps and joints.

Actually historians consider Samurai Armor to be superior to middle age European armor, the tightly woven armor possesses the power to stop bullets and is vastly more flexible. The only downside is the Samurai armor is actually heavier. So while the brute force of the vikings is vast, they would be too clumsy to take on the precision of the Samurai.

http://content.answers.com/main/cont...px-Samurai.jpg <Badass

No, you step out of the way.

A samurai would beat the living shit out of a viking and then piss in his eye sockets as a statement of his superiority.

Heh, also samurai swords were not as sharp as people thought they were it was the blade design that it had its power. The edge had to be a bit more broad so it didnt dull right away when you hit the armor and yes a katana can cut through chainmail. I saw a comparison between euro broad sword and katana and they performed the same except that the katana was alot faster pick up speed, recover from an attack and swing again. So by the time a broad sword cuts you twice the katana could hit you like 4 times. And yes attacking between armor cracks was common practice.

The design of a Katana was an attempt to recreate Damascan Swords, they layered hard and softer steel so the soft would grind away and the hard steel would be sharper, just like how obsidian forms around magma.

The edge of a Katana was fairly thin, compared to Europeon swords. Most easily put, Excalibur would have never happened, Europe was horrible at making swords. They had sharpened pieces of metal with handles, Japan and Mesopotamia had lifestyles incarnate.

Iaijutsu, Japanese sword fighting, is what they contribute to thier ability to swing multiple times in succession, not the Katana's build.

Attacking between armor cracks has always been common practice, against everyone everywhere. it's only logical, that's why people storm front gates of castles rather then the wall itself. why make a new hole when one already exist?

Samurai fanboyism is a pet peeve of mine. Not because I don't think Samurai are cool, just because certain people, for whatever reason, feel compelled by their affection for samurai to make outlandish generalizations like "Japanese swords/armors are works of art, European swords/armors are just big pieces of metal!" or "Samurai were schooled in the exquisite arts of BUSHIDO and IAJITSU! European warriors had no honor codes and didn't know what a martial art was!"
The proposal of a contest of martial ability between a viking beserker and a samurai honestly irritates me, because there is really no fair way to make the judgement. The two existed in totally different environments, they fought totally different opponents on totally different terrain. When one eliminates any variable that might interfere in the equity of the competition, we're left with an average viking and an average samurai completely naked in a 10x10x10 box, in which case the Viking would probably win, because the sight of an enormous, hairy, norseman would make the samurai think he was staring down an Oni or some shit, and hence he'd collapse in a fetal heap out of fear and crippling penis envy.

Oh yes..

'Nuff said.

Kendo, or kenjutsu, is Japanese swordfighting. Iaido, or iaijutsu is the art of drawing the sword. Killing on the draw tactics, if you will.

Minor qualm, I used to practice kendo.

Yeah, yeah, all Asian guys are sexually inept, and all Asian girls are dumb sluts. You know what? Fuck you.

It's funny because it's true! :D

If I remember right, Judo was invented as a form to immobilize your opponent because with so much armor, it's easier to knock them down than pierce them.
So a Samurai is best beaten not by cutting through him, but by bluntly pummeling him and letting him suffocate in his own armor: perfect job for a berserker.

Tough call. On one hand, the vikings sailed the ocean blue and were the first Europeans to make a North American settlement, on the other hand they got their asses handed to them in battle by the Beothuk and hightailed it back to Europe.

On one hand samurais are pretty damn cool, but are limited by the katanas versus chain mail, but could easily chop a head off if the neck is in any way exposed.. Also at least the samurai bathed.

Oh, and another theory is that the settlement failed not only because of the Beothuks but because the vikings didn't get along with each other, whereas samurai take loyalty very seriously. So if this is a strength in numbers thing....hmmm....

I could easily have been implying that Norsemen's penises are so outrageously large that anyone whose member is of average size would be daunted. This logical leap, coupled with your bold surmise regarding my opinion of asian girls, leads me to think that some insecurities may be bubbling to the surface here in the Samurai vs. Vikings thread.

Not much into the samurai fanboyism but yes they were more broad not more then the european swords but most people assume they were like a razorblade. Problem with being sharpened to a razor edge is if you hit a hard target it will dull very quickly. Not saying they werent sharp ive seen some pretty sick demonstrations i dont know personally i think they are an even match the samurai and viking.

There was a story that happened in england where it was a few vikings against the british military and they gave em hell. One berserker on a bridge held off an attack from like 15 minutes by himself before they were over run. The british won that battle but they payed dearly for it.

The Vikings were powerful warriors and no one is really sure why. Their armor and weapons were pretty, but not effective, as many were trophies from prior plunders and not really intended for combat. their tactics have been well known to be bat shit risky, and as far as anyone knows, they didn't have any organized training for their military other then send 'em out as young as possible, and they were (realitively) small in numbers.

but they still slaughtered, ransacked and pillaged when the day was done, against all odds and were rightfully feared.