Samurai vs Viking THE ULTIMATE SHOWDOWN! 

So the viking runs away?

As much as I love the samurai, I think that's fair, and what's more, the samurai were pretty bad at naval warfare and I'm sure the vikings would have a very strong edge in that department.

So if the Viking has a ship, the samurai has guns.

​@@r0derick439Yeah cause gun vs anything is fair

It's just like grabboids. Stand on a rock and they can't touch you!

Eh, depends on the Vikings in question. Some might see the warriors and go "fuck that, I want to raid a village not fight professional fighters" or they might be absolutely crazy and charge in yelling and laughing. Or they might have a smart leader or be experienced enough to fight smart. Depends on what type of Vikings you are dealing with. A jormsviking fights very different to your average jarls team of raiders.

And get slaughtered if they didn't retreat fast enough. Hit and run vs mounted enemies is quite risky.

Horses and viking longboats are kind of comparable in speed. A longboat's average speed is 5-10 knots (6-12mph), with a max speed of 17 knots (20mph). A horse just trotting can go 8-12 mph, and they have canter and gallop speeds above that. The mounted archers should be able to keep up going along a coast or river, so the vikings would have to go so far out to sea they'd be out of sight in order to be not followed by the samurai.

@@lightsabermario This is very dependent on both the terrain and on the winds and currents. In a lot of places it would be very hard to ride along the coast due to all kinds of obstacles. In addition, if the winds and currents are favourable, a longship could outsail any horse.

@@lightsabermario Horses are not machines! They can't run for very long without being rested. A ship will sail forever if the wind keeps blowing.

the plot armor thickens

It seems the Pirates and ninjas have fallen by the wayside. You will be remembered with honor. (Dishonor? Remembered at least either way).

@@Grandwigg (hands you a baked potato)

Well at the end of the day the knight wins

@@guts_and_glory

I mean…. SHIELD tho

Horse archers. F your shield wall.

Matchlock arquebus.

@@lloydgush Imagine depending only in open terrain to use your most powerful weapon

@@lloydgush samurai in horseback weak against guerilla warfare.

Good to hear, my notification popped up about half an hour ago as well. 👍👍👍👍😎😎😎😎

Weird, this was the first time I have ever had a Shadiversity video not pop up right away.

Maybe just subscribe and turn on notofications and it will always come up.....moron

That is basically what Shad and Co said as well minus the knights (obviously few war bows can get through the later knight armour unless you are an amazing shot.) The Japanese would probably have had a rough time if the Vikings got to them in numbers because they were a bit behind technologically but peak Viking fighters vs a peak Samurai army (from more than 1/2 a millennium later) the Vikings would probably have just retreated to their ships and raided a less well protected town.

@@glenecollins Maybe, but shad said it well, the existence of a shield alone, even the thin ones the norse made use of, goes a LONG way in utterly rendering bows less useful. I'm assuming it's a Dane warrior, and not just some random norse pirate, so this is less a raid and more a tactical war front. So in a 1v1 the norseman has a shield to act as defense, as well as access to his own ranged weaponry (which the horse of the samurai is vulnerable) but I HATE when these debates needlessly gives one side an advantage. Because Medieval era Norse warriors also had access to cavalry and horsemen, so the advantage feels lost. Ultimately, I believe it comes down to shield and armor, and thus I'd give the norseman the win by a fairly large margin

​@edwarddavis7858 I don't think Norse cavalry would have the ability to counter samurai cavalry to any functional extent. Best the Norse can hope for is a kunted infantry style advantage where the samurai can't quite catch them as long as the Norse keep moving before the samurai figure out where they went. Same applies if the Norse are operating from their longships. However, if they get caught in battle, the samurai should be able to easily win as long as the for es aren't in the thousands. Once it becomes armies clashing, you have to consider the ashigaru from the Japanese side, and the archer formations and cavalry from the Norse side. Since the Norse cavalry won't be able to hold up to the samurai, I suspect they will either try to avoid a cavalry clash and preserve their cavalry for pressing an advantage or parrying a flanking maneuver if necessary. Their archers shouldn't have a major issue since they would be VERY well practiced in using them on the hunt, and thus they should be able to limit the samurai a little while directly facing the ashigaru archers. The viking heavy infantry against standard ashigaru spearmen probably have a massive advantage, since their formation is harder to hurt and still has spears to reach the ashigaru with only a slight advantage in reach for the Japanese. Overall, Japanese infantry struggles, Japanese cavalry dominates, Norse may get flanked and retreat or maybe too much for the available samurai force to affect significantly unless the ashigaru archers manage to come out on top, in which case the Norse foot definitely looses. It' rare for infantry alone to win when archers and cavalry face them alongside even and inferior infantry force.

Yeah bro. Ask the Romans how their big shields rendered the horse archers useless.... 🤡 ​@edwarddavis7858

@@kyleheins I'm not so sure about that. Doing some research, I can see that Japanese Yumi typically have draw strengths of about 40 pounds, give or take, and while they def had higher poundage bows around, there's no hard confirmation of how common they would have been. In that light, a shield, and even close knit chain, would have a high likelihood of rendering those arrows moot, especially if the Danish warriors made use of padded armor underneath (Of which there is no archeological evidence to say they did, that's mainly a "Sites too old to have surviving pieces", but they did have chain and lamellar armor. So even in a 1v1, and we don't be stupid and force the norseman on foot and give the samurai a horse (which would be an unfair advantage), the bow would hold next to no superior aid in this battle. And even if we want to give a horse to the samurai, the best course of action would be to run the norseman over, instead of plinking him with a bow. When it comes to cavalry, while we have not a lot of info on the tactics of norse cavalry, let's just assume the Samurai have the advantage in this regard. The issue now is that the Norse also had access to their primary form of weaponry; Polearms. Spears and other forms of anti-cavalry weaponry was some of the most commonly deployed in Medieval Norse forces. Swords were often reserved for the more wealthy, so you see far more spears, javelins, and axes. Not to mention bows. Let's assume they don't have access to the English Warbows, but would have at least a halfway decent bow. If we assume it's not viable against Samurai armor (Just to be fair) it still is really effective at killing horses. So at that point there is no point win in either direction, it comes down to luck and better skill of warfare on the commanding forces part. So once again, this boils down to the main forms of defense, and much like the debate with a knight, a shield is a MASSIVE contributor in who would win. In a 1v1, where the combatants meet one another in melee, assuming equal skill, I'd give a point advantage to the Norse by virtue of superior armor. And if we are counting Ashigaru gunmen (which is what comes up first then I look them up) if it's the same relative time frame, the Swedish and Danish armies also got a hold of firearms in the same century that the Ashigaru did. So this stops being a battle of shields and bows, and is now a battle of guns, which nothing else matters anymore.

it's there now ^_^

@@shadiversity OMG OMG!! SHAD ANSWERED ME! ILL NEVER CLEAN MY PHONE SCREEN AGAIN! Seriously though bud love your content!

​@@OrthoJihadican i shake your hand to share in the Blessing? I've gotten a heart in a comment before! But not a comment in response. (I keep picturing a scene in one of the later Babylon 5 episodes after Kosh saved Sheridan. "You go poke the plant while I do these customs forms" or something like that)

Don't see the poll. But I vote for the Viking

HE LOOKED AT ME! I AM AWAITED! I AM AWAITED IN VALHALLAAAAA!

I think I know the story you mean, it was an invasion of the northern province wasn't it? The arrows cut the straps on the early lamellar armour until it fell apart?

@@riverraven7359 Although that sounds like a fascinating story that I actually would love to know more about, it's not the one I'm thinking of. The one I mentioned is a duel between Minamoto no Atsuru and Taira no Yoshifumi. They got into a spat because their subordinates kept badmouthing each other until the two lords decided to take it personally, set up a fight, both demonstrate their martial prowess, and then decided that each is a worthy warrior and that killing each other would be a terrible waste so they become good friends after that. It's quite the amusing folktale and I love it.

@@TalesofDawnandDusk if I remember, the incident I mean was when the minamoto clan began pushing into northern Honshu against the Ainu and related clans. Nine years war I think, two generations before the genpei war.

@@riverraven7359 Ah, it's from the Former 9 years war. I know of those wars but I haven't read anything on them. I'll have to look into it though and see if I can't unearth what the original sources for it are because that sounds like it's absolutely packed with good stories, the one you mentioned being included.

Samurai's main weapon is katana. The source of the theory that katana is not samurai's main weapon is Masaya Suzuki's book Katana to Kubitori published in 2000. Masaya Suzuki is a civil servant and is not a historian and does not have a degree. His book is not an academic book, with a lot of speculation and few primary sources. Many errors in his theory have been pointed out by qualified historians. In Japan, it was customary to keep records of soldiers' injuries and causes of death on the battlefield. Historian Thomas D. Conlan created statistical data from many records. His statistics conclude that katana and spears cause more blade kills, and bows and arrows cause more injuries. The period when spears were prevalent on Japanese battlefields was from the late Sengoku period (around 1540) to the peace after Genna era (1615). Katana was also effective against polearms.That is why China, Mongolia, Korea, and Southeast Asia imported katana from Japan after the 10th century.The "wo" in the name of the sword wodao, which became mainstream in Asia, means Japanese style.

Don’t try me

Welp, turns out that the Dane axe and the shield are huge equalizers. The main equalizer that samurai has would be horses.

@@TheSteam02 I think the horse archery really gives the samurai a big advantage.

@@TheSteam02 The Norse sl@ughtered the Steppes people who were mounted archers with higher poundage bows then brought them into their tribe. How do you think Varangians form the garthrriki=walled/fenced Reich/empire that formed Ukraine & Russia. You have any idea how many nations the Norse formed in Europe & the fact they were the most sort after mercenaries in across Europe, North Africa & the middle east.

​@@arnijulian6241 Eh I mean, lets not forget that it was steppe nomads that ran rough shot over Byzantine and large swaths of Eastern Europe and conquered Nordic founded/ruled societies like Rus under the Mongolians

Yeah I remember that episode!

It's Deadliest Warrior

@@Madmax45247 And in their samurai/viking episode, they used the bow and hit the viking in BOTH EYES, exactly where he was unarmored.

@@benwagner5089 I have a love/hate relationship with that show. Some of the conclusions they came to for who had the "edge" in something was often times quite too generous.

I agree, however, my wife and I LOVED watching that show with nachos and pausing it to debate!​@Th1sUsernameIsNotTaken

@@Madmax45247 Apparently it was called Ultimate Warrior in some places, Shad also refers to it by that name

Despite the naginata, the Vikings still win unmounted. I am surprised that they left it out though, as it was a very important part of Japanese warfare.

Changes nothing.

most samurai would never touch a naginata

Yeah, I would have pitted the naginata against the dane-axe, or just use that as the special weapon rather than the huge sword that we already know isn't going to change the outcome of the fight.

@@benwagner5089 I thought the Japanese spear was a great idea against the dane-axe. The examples they showed of the Japanese spears showed how it wasn't uncommon to have, and I don't know the technical term, but attachments that could be used to grab/trip.

When they did vampire vs zombie I think it jumped the shark a little...

@@TheRedBaron1917 I think that episode was more of a one-off Halloween special.

I loved that episode, felt my heart burning in pride. It came down to culture tradition in that show and there gave the edge to the samurai, if I remember correctly.

@@matthewsuchomski2593 And series finale

I agree

If you fit it to the same time period when all there coexisted, around the 1000s, the classic samurai armor hadn't existed yet and Vikings and "knights" of the same social status would have worn very similiar stuff. Thegnthrand did a vid of this a long time ago. I disagree cus just Viking comes from that just means raider. Knights but most denitions are elite heavy calvary with more formalized training and social system (feudalism) to support becoming a warrior elite heavy calvary. Their would be few Knights but each knight in average would a more skilled head to head fighter than a Viking. It comparing a religion that glorifies combat to having a social/economic to produce well trained warriors. Basically comparing more self taught to those that have semi formal combat education. Knight verus Samurai would come down to terrain cus you basically comparing a elite heavy calvary shock trooper to a heavy armored horse archer. A horse archer than can fire and run and resupply at his leisure is hard to beat. A horse archer than been forced to is just a large target to be run over.

@@anderporascu5026 The amount of maneuverability avaliable to the person in dependent of the terrain the fight is set in. The Mongols had a ahrder fighting in heavily forested areas and laying sieges to castles cus that both hampers mobility. Renaissance knights and late crusades didn't coexist with Vikings at all and Samurai armor very different at that time to.

@@anderporascu5026 The Mongols, and even you can argue against them. The Huns were essentially nomadic pillagers of a decaying empire whose leader died of a nosebleed, not that impressive.

@@PJDAltamirus0425 The Samurai as people imagine them didn’t appear until the 13th century, and really we mostly think about 16th century samurai. The Vikings stopped existing in the 11th century, but really people mostly think about them in the 10th century. This is fundamentally anachronistic. If you want to compare people who are contemporaneous and of the same social class, you do not want to compare Samurai to Vikings.

I'm surprised how nobody is talking about the body fighting there. A norse Viking would be seen as a superhuman compared to some tiny japanese dude.

If you pick your ground carefully (forest, hilly, marshy) that can negate the cavalry advantage.

100% as real as studded leather!

from my 20ish years of riding i can say it also depends on the kind of riding your doing, a casual slow - med paced trail ride isn't bad after 6+ hours, any form of racing or higher paced trails can get rough after long periods

Personally I think the Viking would be a way better kisser

Very good point about the Mongol invasions. That’s a solid parallel despite someone else’s comment that Vikings tended to be bigger and stronger than the Japanese of the same era.

Also Japanese: relying on storms to take out many Mongols. 😂

The Mongols came over ready for war, but died in a tornado. But they tried again and had a nice time fighting with the Japanese, but then died in a tornado. - Bill Wurtz

The Mongol invasions are quite a bit after the Viking Age though. The Gempei Wars would fit a bit better but still be a bit late. That's a problem the video completely omits: The Viking Age is a lot shorter and ends a lot earlier than the Samurai. Wanna compare late Edo Period Samurai to Vikings?

Thing is the viking was cunning ppl, I would say more then Mongols, however if a samurai wear chainmail I counter with a berserker drugged up out of he's mind.

They covered that, with the blunt force weapons, but that went both ways

The handgun comparison is apt. Primary weapon of war would be a rifle, and the handgun a backup sidearm of convenience and last resort, much like the katana would be to the samurai.

@@TenMillionYearProgram42 Swords in general, really. A lot of people mention that the spear is a better weapon than the sword, which then makes people wonder why people care about swords so much. The reason is because even warriors don’t spend every day of their life on the battlefield. Most of the time is spent living their everyday life. So that tends to favor the more convenient to carry swords (like handguns) over more powerful spears (like rifles). After all, the pistol you have on you beats the rifle you left locked in a safe at home because it was too much of a pain in the butt to carry, just as the sword you have on you beats the spear you left hanging over the mantle place at home.

There's also the edge construction. A Tachi is more robust so not to get damaged too easily whereas a Katana is as sharp as possible because it's not supposed to be used against armour. Of course early Katana were basically shorter Tachi for infantry use.

I personally strongly suspect that the term sidearm is literal. It's the weapon you keep at your side ready to use at all times. The arming sword, the everyday carry weapon of history is probably where the term originated. There's even a sword called a side sword if I remember correctly. Today, pistols serve the same function, so we transitioned the name, sidearm, from the sword to the pistol. I have no idea if any of that is accurate or not, and I enjoy it too much to go look any of it up because I'm probably wrong in there somewhere.

@@CowCommando At least for pistols, that’s very much accurate. A sidearm is something you wear on your side, since most pistols are carried on your right hip (though appendix carry is popular for concealed carry, but even then it’s the front side rather than right side).

they would still carry ~100 pounds bows for both sides. The mongol khan empire made longbow poundage in a smaller package to be used by their mounted archers.

I hate pullovers I will never wear them again

Why it's just a jumper with a hood ,?

@@RichardPhillips1066 I don't know what a jumper is.

​@@ShrockWPSpullover hoodie without a hood

​@@Tuck-Shop Ah, so a sweater. I don't have any of those either

Yeah, the median samurai unquestionably beats the median Viking.

​@deriznohappehquite idk about that. An average Samurai was an alright archer, swordsman ect, but they still weren't the best. They didn't have the perfect armour always depicted, most was weaker than that the main leader Samurai wore. As for their weapons, a Viking typically has better quality weapons, both in terms of the fact they used steel (rather than folded iron) and in the actual weapons in comparison to the Samurai. In addition,Vikings were typically better trained than their stereotypical savage farmer idea makes them out to be. It's actually kinda even, at least until you take cavalry, shields ect into account.

@@owenwoolley3394 The point was that a samurai devotes huge amounts of their time and life in training, practicing, strategy, and discipline. Vikings were usually just common people who had some experience fighting, but were typically not as trained. So, the median samurai was going to simply be better at fighting, more skilled. In a case where the two warriors have very different styles but are otherwise equally armed, the more skillful warrior usually wins.

@@jeremiahbell6129 I sort of disagree with this but not entirely. Vikings trained very much as well, and their training was similar to Samurai in many senses, with training in hand to hand grappling, swordsmanship and other respective weapons, their respective modes of transport (longship or horse) and more. Along with this, a Viking would most likely be better fed, bigger and stronger than a Samurai. When the gap in skill isn't that much, these things can tip the edge, especially size which equals reach which can make a huge difference in the way a fight turns out. Better equipped, better physically, I would way that on average they are equal in skill, perhaps with a slight edge to the Samurai on average. While Vikings certainly did come from normal common folk a lot, they also came from good fighting stock a lot as well.

@@owenwoolley3394 Average samurai would be better fed than an average Viking. A samurai's lord would usually make sure that their strongest warriors are well fed. Vikings, on the other hand, were usually fed by themselves, and Scandinavia is notoriously difficult to farm and gather in. That being said, Vikings were usually bigger people, physiologically, but if a battle occurs, it's more likely a samurai would be fighting on a full stomach. And yes, Vikings would be training as well. Certainly! Their culture loved wrestling and feats of strength. We can read the epics and see the virtues they extolled. But if you have to spend a lot of your time farming, gathering, preparing your house, and doing day-to-day things, there's a limit to how much you can invest in improving with weapons. Beyond that, samurai often trained in schools called goju for many years. Vikings also would train under masters, but their curricula would be more scattered. There wouldn't be a high chance that they'd become as disciplined and technical in their skills. It would be more wild and savage, which can leave lots of openings that samurai were trained to exploit. (That's literally what a lot of kendo focuses on.)

Yep, yep. They also had slings and stone-shooting crossbows, and there was no mention of javelins or thrown spears. Then there's the throwing axes, 'Viking' groups like the Franks perfected, bouncing them off the ground underneath an opposing shield-wall. Consequently, the Nodachi was thrown into enemy formations rather than weilded like a daito, but it looks like the whole 'horse leg removal' thing is being perpetuated on the samurai side.

​@@christiansorensen7567Never, and I mean *never*, have I heard about throwing nodachi. Could you post a source?

​@@Myomer104 I'm searching but having trouble finding the detail. I don't think it was Metatron, but perhaps Antony Cummins. I know it was mentioned somewhere in a Sengoku history and tactics, and in Museum Replicas magazines. I'm afraid, without being able to search in Japanese, which I can't read, I can't get to the historical source. There's artwork though.

@@christiansorensen7567 i dont say this to be condescending, i am genuinely curious: can you provide any further information on stone shooting crossbows? any sources? ive studied the viking age pretty extensively and ive never heard of or seen this before

@@einarr7301 There was an episode of Forged in Fire where the final challenge was making stone-shooting crossbows. Otherwise, I just have some books with the few historical examples in them. Additionally there's the sling-staff- I forgot the name. Fistabula or something. Anyway, they were in Mount & Blade Viking Conquest, so I looked them up and they're legit. You-Tuber tutorials on making both the staves and the crossbows. I could probably find some links on Skandehoovian historical sites.

it does sound a bit tricky and/or dangerous but I'd like to see this 100%

Though a horse wouldn't normally gallop into a spearwall or quickly get stopped in its tracks. Generally light cavalry doesn't go into melee combat unless the opposing formation is properly broken up.

@@MDP1702 in the spirit of a 1v1 like they were tallking about.

@@holtec333 1v1 the viking would use the reach of the dane axe to hit the samurai or his horse before the sword can reach him. Ofcourse someone on foot always is at a disadvantage against someone on horse back, but that is why a Viking wouldn't pick a 1v1 battle with a (skilled) mounted opponent to start with.

@@MDP1702 Where is this magical dane axe going to teleport to him lmao

And comment the lack of Samurai Guns. Mathclock type aquabusses

Heian Period (794 - 1185) The Viking Age (793-1066 CE)

@@achtungpanzer7728 Samurai were persistent until the 1870s. The viking arsenal is from the 11th century, the samurai arsenal is from the 19th.

The samurai would be absolutely destroyed, man, and I love me some samurai. Spartan, viking, or knight would annihilate, however. I'm not being strong of words, I really think the fight would be short.

@@TenMillionYearProgram42 Well I'm not saying the samurai would win. I'm just saying I'd root for them given my interests. I think it's also fair to account for the fact that vikings were generally bigger and stronger than the samurai, and if we're going to give the samurai horses, then I think it's fair to give the vikings ships, which aren't as immediately applicable but the samurai were pretty lacking in naval skills so I'm definitely of the mind that the vikings would win. Doesn't mean I can't vote for the underdogs because I just personally like them a bit more. But only a bit, mind you.

@@TalesofDawnandDusk I can see that, and I definitely agree the underdog is fun to root for, and samurai are just so damn cool it's hard not to root for them!

@@TenMillionYearProgram42 The median samurai: warrior from the nobility class who has trained his entire life to fight. Has a horse and armor Median Viking: Nordic shepherd with a spear and shield who murders Baltic peasants to steal their stuff.

@@deriznohappehquite You can't teach size, or really train for it either.

People favor their heritage-adjacent fandoms, and cherry pick weapons and armor. Most samurai are not depicted with shields, so ppl forget it happened at all...

Vikings are a hit and run type of combat and use boats for everything which I imagine would negate any advantage of a Calvary I’d imagine they’d have been just as legendary in Japan as they were in Europe and the Mediterranean

Check out the history of England. A lot of pitched battles and seiges in the Migratory Period, all on English soil. It led to half of England being ruled by the Danes. (See 'The Danelaw.') One of the greatest threats was "The Great Heathen Army" under Ivar the Boneless. He literally formed a horde, and zerged the Anglo-Saxons. It wasn't all Lindasfarne.

@@christiansorensen7567 correct and I'm aware but look at the globe and tell me you think they'd be able to dedicate the same amount of resources in the time required to an initiative in Japan...they might have made it to America first but that didn't work for them either and that's arguably the easier territory to conquer for the Vikings.

@@mrgandolf5349 correct but the Japanese were used to sea attacks from Korea and China by this point and they're not going to set sail in numbers this far from home even with fairly accurate Intel of what's to be gained.

Hann stóð svá vel til hǫggsins. 🙂

Meh, Idk why this is even a contest, just look at the size of a Viking compared to some tiny japanese dude. I bet in most 1vs1 melee fights, the Viking would win with his bare hands

@@mcmarkmarkson7115 Samurais were around 5'5 while Vikings were around 5'7. There would've been shorter and taller individuals. People back then didn't have the nutrition we have today and that's why they were shorter on average. But in terms of bulkiness and mass, Vikings were bigger. Samurais tend to be slimmer. But here we're merely talking about swordsmanship and sword combat, not one on one UFC style combat because in that case, Vikings would always win

@@ironiccookies2320 The raiding Vikings were taller because they could afford a better diet + Samurai had weak bodies because they did no manual labor unlike the Vikings Combat with weapons and armor also heavily relies on your physique. There is simply no way weak japanese would have a chance against a Viking shieldwall Archery would be the only thing going for Samurai, but not enough to win again shields + chainmail, Vikings were very much used to breaking into places while constantly under archer attack

and who is the more experienced warrior.

@@ethannehring3355 this would be the most important thing but for the argument I'd suggest they all get the same skill.

And what about the samurai's ax? They will also use hinges And what about the shields of the samurai? And what about daggers?

@@אורן-ב8ע the wakizadhi(small katana curved, and or tanto(straight dagger like blade with one side being sharp and tapered single edge) (European daggers often had two blades edge's allowing you to cut on any side of the blade which is great for cqc) bends easily but if a samurai could say tackle a Viking down it would be the best weapon available to dispatch even a plated soldier. I do believe Vikings had daggers available though so dagger v tanto I'd say the dagger wins. The pinning of an enemy is often what ends up killing people, say legs on the arms near the armpits and u stabbing a person in the face. You don't need to kill people right away if u get stabbed in the face ur virtually useless and out of the fight. The samurai axe is dope but most of them are heavy and large. The axe could be useful against the shield but it would be one swing and done. The Viking has a sword that could take advantage of the axe if stuck in the shield or as the samurai pulls back. I'd say the Viking may have enough adrenaline even if the axe breaks his arm. He still has one good one to counter or pin. These scenarios are all very dependent on what is used and what it's going against. This is why I think it's a coin flips chance for either one. I'd even suggest they probably end up all dying. I doubt these two groups on a one on one would walk very far after the fight. I have to check into it later when I have the time but these fights normally end with the "winner" walking away but later dying from blood loss, broken bones and unable to move, internal bleeding, and or fatigue. At best one walks away with a long term injury.

@@DemiSamaKun The samurai will definitely try to lock the viking and stab him with a dagger and will also be skilled at this. This was an important part of samurai battles, not really viking battles, and it's very likely to happen because the samurai is heavily armored so it's hard to stop him if the samurai gets very close the viking will be in trouble, but even if he's far the viking will be in trouble because of his bow and armor, or his spear , the Viking will have to fight from medium range. The viking's sword will not do much to the samurai because of the armor the viking will have to hit the samurai faster than the samurai hits him no matter what weapon he used he can always use his shield to hit the samurai but it is not really lethal. The thing is I think the samurai can handle a viking even with only a tanto, I also think the average samurai before the Edo period would be much more skilled than the average viking, he was a professional fighter

Not really, the you won't be able to impart the full force of the horse's weight into your weapon as he pointed out, and while the horse can be used as a weapon. Thats just asking for the viking to dismount you by abusing your horse's eight against it and jabbing their wapon directly into it's body which will either kill it. Or cause it to flee, and once again that shield will definitely allow you to tank the single kick it's gonna send your way before it flees... which then just evens the battlefield. People also often forget the viking's were well documented for taking on and beating places with cavalry and what not, so they did have tactics against them. Yes, keeping distance and pining a viking from a far is going to be a winning srtat, but if you foolishly charge in, your horse will be taken out. Vikings, especially berserkers were *known* for intimidation tactics and being veeeeerry hard to kill, just not as hard as the stories make it seem. And as someone else pointed out, they were generally larger than samurai physically

On an open battlefield, yes. Fight anywhere else and they're much less of an advantage, if they don't have to be abandoned.

Vikings dealt with horses with those large axes and spears... The problem is the Vikings were just bigger and were much more capable at handling a samurai and his army.

That was warlord Takeda Shingen who was the cavalry expert.

The Takeda clan. They had a good chance of winning the Sengoku Jidai but some not so good battles against the Uesugi and the unlucky death of Shingen meant that they ultimately lost. They are still quite famous in Japan and while the main family was destroyed they also had branches. The martial arts of the one to the east are the foundation of Aikidou and they also had a small branch that held the only Japanese castle on Hokkaidou, Matsumae.

Thanks for the additional info!

hm tactics matter between equals, in this case, the superior body anatomy of Vikings alone would let them win.

I'm pretty sure the vikings did trade with the mongols... and became the russians, although im probs mixing it up

@@craytherlaygaming2852 Some part of the Viking migration indeed went east (Rurik in 862), but the timeline is important here. Mongol battle in Vienna took place in 1241, Mongols in Japan 1274 and 1281. The most commonly referred to Vikings are the great Dane army that came in 865. Vikings did not have to face the Mongols and the Japanese were never as good as Mongols, with the whole story of heavenly winds saving them.

@@KyaragoThere are many conflicting opinions on the success of the Mongol invasions, prior to the kamikaze, with some sources say the Japanese were doing fine against them once they adjusted their tactics. The samurai as the existed in the mongol invasion, don’t really resemble the samurai of 15th-16th century, and happened during a time period where Japan hadn’t really seen any major wars in a generation. They were used to skirmishes and glory duels at the time. Their tactics changed drastically over the course of the invasions.

Mongols were giant armies with thousands of horses and resupply lines for arrows. Nothing compared to what the Japanese had to work with.

Depending on the era Samurai had a bit of the unruly touch too. After all your rewards depended on how much personal glory you achieved.

​@@kaltaron1284 Yeah, there were many peaceful eras where they didn't have real fights, so they probably got lazy with training. By the end, it was mostly nobility cosplaying as warriors 😆

Vikings are it seems culturally just as likely to be professional warriors as merchant, its easy to let the portrayal of the raiders facing no real opposition and usually reported on by the victims. If they really were the wild, entirely uncoordinated wild men they are often painted as they would simply not be effective on those occasions they faced real opposition...

@@Bosnerdly Even in those peaceful times there were a few revolts here and there to keep them busy. It wasn't until the late Edo Period that samurai really become more of cosplayers. Esp. the lower ranks.

Only if hit head on, and its not like they'ed just stand there, so at most they'ed get a grazing blow before taking down the horse with a single jab with the horse's own momentum pushing it into the weapon. If it surfvives the samurai sure as hell ain't getting it to head back in, and it'll only get like, one kick in before running off, which is where the shield would save the Viking. I wager the shield would break in the process but the samurai loses his cavalry evening the playing feild.

The problem here is that samurais and Vikings were so far apart in history. By the time we have samurai, Vikings had already assimilated (or created) into the local cultures and had become traditional European armies. And during their own time, they weren't that much different to the armies they fought against, it's just that men in Scandinavia are taller on average and their belief in dying on the battlefield, with the additional spice of nowhere to return to made them extremely fierce. A video analysing the difference between Alfred's army and the invading Vikings would be more interesting.

@@Kyarago Strange, I had the impression Samurai were also around in the 11th century.

@@jeffreygao3956 Must admit that I didn't double check and always imagined that samurai were much later (14th century). But even then, looks like the true rise to power of samurais happened in 12th century (so we could include 11th as well). The Vikings we refer to most commonly are the ones that invaded the British isles with the great Dane army arriving in 865 (according to Wiki).

​@@jeffreygao3956 they were but the armor and weapon types they became known for were later inventions. For example, the laminated iron technique that made formidable tachi and katanas were not perfected until the 14th century. Vikings were using Damascus and crucible steels imported from the near east in the 9th century. The only point at which Japanese military tech has ever exceeded western military tech was for a brief period in the beginning of the 20th century when they were the first to properly understand the potency of naval aviation.

@@AaronLDeWolf Katanas didn’t even exist until 1392 so Samurai coexisting with Vikings would of course have tachi as their sidearm and preferred mounted archery.

Yes

Yeah, and did a terrible job at it.

Yeppers. Vikings clearly won. These kind of things are making a lot of assumptions though. Pitched battle, and everyone is wearing/weilding best in tech. No logistics or weather to worry about ect...

@@alexyehendal9495 that show was absolute horseshit XD

Have you ever seen a horse charge head first into a steel blade? its not pretty... for the horse and its not like the Viking would just stand there while it heads his way which is likely why they didn't bring it up.

@@craytherlaygaming2852 Yeah Cavalry being used to break formations is normal for medium and heavy less so for light. But with light Cavalry archers they will flank and get behind the enemy and that is always bad

@@Max_Flashheart Ye but then the issue is in one on one, a viking can very easily turn to face the circling cavalry and block the arrows with their shield. And in a group, the shield wall was a very common tactic vikings used *explicitly* against archers and covered both the front and their heads cause of how light their shield's were. Not to mention that even taking geography into account, the viking's level of adaptability is through the Fing roof so home turf doesn't really give as much of an advantage as you may think. They are very experienced at fighting in a disadvantaged state and used various tactics to demoralize and throw their oppnents off. And don't even get me started on if you have a proper berserker with them, those guys were so hardcore the FING ROMANS hired them as bodyguards when the praetorians failed them And weather through drugs or intense training those guys were terrifying on a battlefield. Also believe it or not, the vikings *were* actually known to use cavalry time to time, its just you can't carry horses on a boat which is what most people think of regarding vikings.

@@craytherlaygaming2852 I am a viking fan and study historical warfare plus did iaido for 20 years. So I agree it is very hard to do a 1 v 1 comparison with battlefield weapons, armour and horses. As soon as you have an archer on a horse it multiplies the force of that archer. That is why the saying "The Cavalry has arrived" came about it is a serious threat. The Mongols are the classic example of light Cavalry archers being super OP.

They enhanced it in two ways: 1) Making it out of iron, Or 2) Applying iron studs along its length.

They just forgot a teeny tiny detail. Both Kanabou and Tetsubou were at least partly iron. It's in the freaking name. But if you want an example for a samurai taking a stick and going "Good enough." look up Miyamoto Musashi.

@@kaltaron1284 Hmm. All I have is this knife and a paddle. **Carve, carve, whittle** *Two-shots opponent*

@@Myomer104 I'm sure he had other options for that battle but he purposefully went for an unusual weapon and length and arriving late. Although to be honest it's difficult to tell how much of the stories is true. But they are entertaining and believeable.

Calling what they had a Kanabou is fairly disingenuous a proper Kanabou isn't a uniform thickness so that it has a proper handle and has multiple flat sides with metal studs along the entire length. What they have looks like it had cloths hanging on it in a closet.

Yes. And how about the light cavalry of the Hungarians?

And wasn't those eastern Europeans vikings or descendants of vikings?

going to valhalla, or seppuku/honor , people of that era were real giga-chads, now we have drag queens...

Well, where'd they get that matchlock arquebus? It's from Portuguese traders in the 1550s. German and French cavalry (some of them knights) at the time were carrying two wheellock pistols.

thats too modern... and boring.., we must enjoy weapons before the gunpowder times, besides, samurai is too advanced, i think the asian parallel of the viking is the mongol warrior, and the european counterpart of samurai is the knight

Heian period samurai didn't which is who they're comparing. Which is the only fair way to do it since they coincide chronologically.

thats too modern... and boring.., we must enjoy weapons before the gunpowder times, besides, samurai is too advanced, i think the asian parallel of the viking is the mongol warrior, and the european counterpart of samurai is the knight

Just imagine Hafthór Björnsson ancestor coming at you, covered in chainmail, boiled leather, shield and axe in hand...

vikings were not tht tall tbh

@@polinolvera95 probably 4" on the average samurai. Go stand next to someone 4" taller than you and similar or larger build, as the Vikings would be to the samurai. It's a massive difference, actually.

I'm putting my vote on Viking.

Not at all, that the Vikings were great is a myth, the average Viking man is 1.70

Later the Vikings became fucking england and *made* said fire arms.... or did you forget how those guys have a hand in the creation of almost every damn country in europe... INCLUDING BECOMING RUSSIA

Heian period dumbass

boring, too modern, be a chad and use old weaponry