Knight and Spartan vs. Samurai and Viking

Medieval knight and Spartan warrior vs. Samurai warrior and Viking.

Each have full gear and no prep.

Fight takes place in a gladiator arena.

Which team wins?

VS.

Anyone?

Tough one.. going with the Knight and Spartan for now but it's close.

Team 2 on account of the Spartan being useless due to outdated equipment.

Do these warriors have the same equipment we see in the picture? There's not really a standard equipment list for samurai, vikings, and knights.

samurai and viking.

they are more trained for single combat, and the viking will have devastating axes to crush armor

Knight wrecks

@sirdrprofessor: I was thinking he solos too, neither of team 2 really have dedicated force weapons. You'd be better off giving them Sledgehammers than an Axe or a Sword.

Knight in a stomp, the Samurai's Swords are useless against Steel Enforced Plate Armor(And it being the Katana is even worse since it's a slicing sword that's made for fighting O Yoroi armored foes), You kill a Plate Armored foe with impact, he could basically stand there and let him hit em. The Viking will be too slow to kill either of team 1. Neither of Team 2 are equipped for the Knight, the Spartan is probably the better fighter than either on Team 2. Vikings and Samurai were dedicated, but Spartans were on a different level. The Spear will also be effective against the Viking's Chainmail.

The Knight's Plate armor is even slightly lighter and has far more maneuverability than both Chainmail and O Yoroi(You can basically do somersaults in them), it being about 1/2 the weight of Kevlar is a huge advantage for the Knight. If it was in the rain the Samurai would actually be the slowest fighter here, since his armor absorbs water.

The thing with Japan is that it was a small country isolated from the rest of the world(Besides Chinese Trade, and they even cut that for a while) Western Equipment is designed to fight many different peoples and cultures, it really isn't fair.

I'd have to go with Samurai and Viking I think. The knight is a weak leak in my opinion. Spartans were trained since childhood, so they definitely have skill no doubt. But I'm pretty sure a knight's fighting style was far more cleaner. Needless to say they had a degree of skill, but I'm pretty sure none of them had the nimbleness of a Spartan or the precision of a samurai. A viking may or may not be a weak link as well. My knowledge on them is a little rougher, but I remember them having an extreme knack for warrior fierceness and brutality. A samurai, in my opinion, is the most skilled out of all of them. It's been said that a single samurai could take on twenty ninjas at once, as well as having a quick draw as fast as .4 seconds and a keen accuracy with a bow and arrow so masterful that they could shoot out an eyeball from 40 feet.

I'm having a hard time seeing anyone dealing with the knight, so even though the Spartan is outclassed, I see the Knight carrying him.

Knights were trained from childhood too.

Knights are definitely the mvp in this fight. They have the best armor and many versatile weapons at their disposal. Vikings are about as well equipped as the regular foot soldiers the knight goes up against and the samurai just don't have the means to harm the Knight unless they are really lucky.

@fetts: They are all really well trained Warriors that trained from Birth, but this fight comes down to equipment. Of which Team 1 has a massive advantage. It's hard to say who is the better warrior for sure because they were all different from Kingdom/Daiymo to Kingdom/Daiymo. A Knight from the Holy Roman Empire was considered terrifying on foot, while the French Knights were known for their excellent Horse Mounted combat. Milanese Knights were masters of Sword and Shield Combat.

Whereas a Samurai from the Date were experts with the No-Dachi while the Satsuma were experts with the Basic Katana. That said, skill has little to do with this battle because each warrior is different. Hell some clans(Like the Oda) preferred Firearms/Matchlocks entirely. (yes....Samurai from the Oda preferred to use Guns instead of Spears and Swords....)

A samurai, in my opinion, is the most skilled out of all of them. It's been said that a single samurai could take on twenty ninjas at once, as well as having a quick draw as fast as .4 seconds and a keen accuracy with a bow and arrow so masterful that they could shoot out an eyeball from 40 feet.

Unless that's Samurai Jack i'm pretty sure that's a load of bs myth. Samurai are much better than Ninja, yes, as Ninjas were mostly raised up in poverty and were forced to do crime/assassinations. As someone well versed in martial arts, I'll tell You right now fighting even 2 on 1 is extremely difficult, it's like moving from one league to another, everything becomes exponentially more difficult with each person you add. There were also far many more Samurai(By tens of thousands) than Ninja. Basically it was because it was the population of nobles.

Regardless, Knight and Samurai are both Feudal Titles. You can be a Knight or a Samurai and be a worse fighter than Grandma. It really varies from person to person. They are both inheritable ranks(Samurai even moreso). Just like how there were bad Emperors and Kings, and Good Emperors and Kings, same said with Shogunates mind you.

I'm also gonna leave these two Videos here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFu11mSutd0 --- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk Keep in mind that Chainmail is being used in the first vid. Team 2 aren't going to do squat to Plate if the best Archers in the world can't hurt it at 5 feet distance. This was mainly why Matchlocks took over bows, they were the ONLY ranged weapon that could punch trough plate. And in turn, made Armor obsolete.

We honestly should give the Samurai a Matchlock and the Viking a Morning Star.

@heinrich7: Well, when I meant "at once" I didn't mean literally countering blows from 20 people simultaneously. But it is something I've only heard from other people, and I suppose it makes since that it's myth. Regardless, my warrior expertise only goes as far as Deadliest Warrior episodes that I used to watch way back when, so I'll just trust your own expertise :)

Leaning towards the knight and spartan duo, due to above reasons, mostly.

Knight can solo everyone else, due to superior armor and weapons.

could go either way

Team one due to armour advantage

Should probably say what they have rather then post pictures that... they really wouldn't have been wearing.

Could go either way.

Excellent match-up. I would put my money on the Knight and Spartan, with Spartan as the MVP. Trained from birth and specializing incredibly in the art of spears, shields, and short swords. The only issue is the Knight's less-than-articulate armor, that would slow him down but otherwise give him extra defense against attacks.

@urban_ninja_x: Plate armor was easier to move in then chain mail was........ Plate Armor is actually easy to move in and weighs about the same as a modern soldiers equipment and it is better because the plate is spread around the entire body while the modern soldier's equipment is almost all on his torso.

.... You... do know that three out of the four here were trained from early ages (no one is trained from birth, that is silly, they are trained from childhood) in spears, shields and swords...... right?

@wut: Stating from birth is another way of saying from an earlier childhood, it's not literal. And yes, I do know that three others were trained since then, too, with those weapons. But my money is on the Spartan and Knight.

"Too close to call!" - MiB

Depends on which one is the most skilled and trained.

@urban_ninja_x: What I was pointing out is they all started training at, roughly, the same age with a variety of weaponry thus trying to say one is the MVP because of it is silly. The only real divider in these kind of threads is the equipment given which is why it is important to know what they have (as knights vary depending on what era of the Medieval period it is).

Tough match to call really, leaning ever so slightly towards team 2. Team one has both the MVP and the weak link, Knight being the MVP due to plate armor and the Spartan being the weak link due to obsolete bronze equipment. Team two on the other hand has the two warriors who run the gamut for the middle lane. I give them the edge due to the viking often carrying large heavy axes, most notably the Dane Axe. Dane Axes are what most people think of when picturing viking axes, nearly as tall as their wielder (often coming to around neck height) and being swung with both arms. Vikings would often use the head of the axe to hook enemy weapons or shields away from their opponent, leaving them open to a follow up strike, which could provide enough force to damage the knight even with his plate armor, given the weapons length, weight, and momentum thanks to the heavy head. The samurai have also been noted to wield a weapon called a kanabo, essentially a wood or iron club covered in short metal spikes or studs, often being as long as a man was tall and swung with both arms. When swung with full force it was capable of crushing armored opponents, most notably other samurai, breaking horses legs and as well as the limbs of human opponents. A samurai's armor should be at least loosely comparable to the knights in terms of blunt force durability, giving us a gauge as to how the weapon would fare against plate. Both incorporated steel plates, although the samurai had less steel they made up for it by layering a number of other materials above and below the metal.

The Spartan is the weakest here due to obsolete bronze equipment, he can hang with the others since having steel/iron equipment doesn't necessarily mean an auto win against a competent opponent, but he simply won't be as effective as his teammate needs him to be. In terms of armor the Vikings didn't usually wear metal armor besides helmets, when they did they wore heavy chain mail shirts but these were expensive and usually only worn by the most successful (and thus richest) warriors and nobles. Most wore hardened leather or heavy furs relying mostly on their shields for protection, when wearing leather more successful (but still relatively poor) warriors would incorporate some metal, likely rings sewn into the surface as opposed to plates. This would provide excellent defense from slashing weapons such as swords, notable defense from stabbing weapons like spears, and excellent defense from blunt impact thanks to the padding provided by the leather itself as well as fur or cloth lining on the inside of the chest plate.

As for who is more skilled, we really can't say, if we were using specific people from history then we could probably get a rough gauge as to who is more skilled. But the entire warrior group? No, not possible. I'd say they are all equally skilled and leave it at that.

Boom.....historic knowledge bomb you uneducated fools!

People who might be interested in this post, @wut (flashes the Wut signal) @urban_ninja_x.

@paragonnate: Agreed on trying to determine by skill is just silly which is why I say we need to know more about what era these fellows are being dragged from and their equipment given as a Kanabo would be really effective here and such heavy concussive weaponry is going to be needed if they want to use a later period knight.

@wut: Yeah, skill is a wash here.

I think that either of team 2 can last against the knight, and even defeat him depending on the gear, long enough for their partner to take out the Spartan and then double team for victory. If the Viking has an axe like the Dane Axe, I'd likely give him the nod over a knight wielding a sword and shield. The viking could hook the shield away or attempt to pull the knights legs out from under him, plate armor may not be much heavier than a modern soldiers equipment but i guarantee that if you yank hard at either a knight's or soldier's legs when they have all that on odds are they are going to fall. In fact that was a recommended tactic for lighter armored soldiers when fighting knights, land him on the ground then jump on him before he regains his feet, it was used rather successfully at the Battle of Agincourt by English bowmen against French knights. Similar situation with the Samurai and the kanabo, he could swing for the knights leg in an attempt to trip him up or break it, kanabo swings have been recorded to break katanas and rib cages through armor, for reference on how powerful a swing could be.

Overall i just see team two as having the better odds.

@paragonnate:

If the Viking has an axe like the Dane Axe, I'd likely give him the nod over a knight wielding a sword and shield. The viking could hook the shield away or attempt to pull the knights legs out from under him, plate armor may not be much heavier than a modern soldiers equipment but i guarantee that if you yank hard at either a knight's or soldier's legs when they have all that on odds are they are going to fall

I wouldn't give him the nod at all. It is a matter of ease of kill at this point. The Viking has to beat down the knight (assuming later era) and hope he, himself, doesn't get caught by the Knight's thrust. If not, he has to try and hook the shield, pull it down, and then do... yeah... cause at that point, you aren't doing much besides trying to hit the plate again while the knight is going to thrust his arming sword through you while you attempt this. Kite shields are lashed to their forearms, you aren't pulling them away from the Knight, you can pull it down... but then what? You have an open strike against... the same plate armor that is such a pain to get through.

Sure, hooking the leg would work on a knight. Would work on anyone, armor or not, a sharp pull on someone's legs tends to take away their balance, however, that is a lot of Ifs.

If the Viking can hook the knight's leg, if he can batter through the plate.... the Knight just needs to stab the viking. One has the easier job. The Knight has the advantage over the Viking even if we only give the knight a kite shield and arming sword.

it was used rather successfully at the Battle of Agincourt by English bowmen against French knights.

Unless they are fighting in the middle of a heavily irrigated field, the Battle of Agincourt isn't a great example, same reason why it isn't a great example for showing people 'overcoming' late era knights with bows since longbows were rendered ineffective very shortly after the battle with the continual advancement of plate. This is why England stopped being relevant in later medieval periods until the introduction of blackpowder.

Similar situation with the Samurai and the kanabo, he could swing for the knights leg in an attempt to trip him up or break it, kanabo swings have been recorded to break katanas and rib cages through armor, for reference on how powerful a swing could be.

He could certainly try, but one needs to remember that the Kanabo is a large, cumbersome weapon. So, yes, he could swing for the knight's leg, but if he misses, he is in trouble.

It doesn't even need to be recorded. If someone tried to use a katana to block a direct hit from a Kanabo, that is fairly obvious what would happen to the Katana. Indeed, blocking a Kanabo strike with a shield will end up with them having a broken arm.

However, once again, as I have mentioned twice now, this battle comes down to what equipment they are given, and we simply don't know. You are assuming the Viking has a dane axe and that the Samurai has a Kanabo club, which we both know, could very well not be the case same as giving the Knight an arming sword and kite shield when he could have a longsword, or a halberd, or a greatsword, or a warhammer, or a flail, or whatever else.

@wut:

I wouldn't give him the nod at all. It is a matter of ease of kill at this point. The Viking has to beat down the knight (assuming later era) and hope he, himself, doesn't get caught by the Knight's thrust. If not, he has to try and hook the shield, pull it down, and then do... yeah... cause at that point, you aren't doing much besides trying to hit the plate again while the knight is going to thrust his arming sword through you while you attempt this. Kite shields are lashed to their forearms, you aren't pulling them away from the Knight, you can pull it down... but then what? You have an open strike against... the same plate armor that is such a pain to get through.

After hooking the shield, the shield was usually pulled down and away from the opponents body leaving them open, the viking could thrust forward with the axe towards the knights head or torso pushing him back. It wouldn't hurt the knight but it would keep some distance. Also, viking shields had straps as well, for the same reason the knights did, to keep from losing their shield. Your right about the plate armor being tough to get through, I was simply throwing out an option for the viking.

Sure, hooking the leg would work on a knight. Would work on anyone, armor or not, a sharp pull on someone's legs tends to take away their balance, however, that is a lot of Ifs.

If the Viking can hook the knight's leg, if he can batter through the plate.... the Knight just needs to stab the viking. One has the easier job. The Knight has the advantage over the Viking even if we only give the knight a kite shield and arming sword.

True.

Unless they are fighting in the middle of a heavily irrigated field, the Battle of Agincourt isn't a great example, same reason why it isn't a great example for showing people 'overcoming' late era knights with bows since longbows were rendered ineffective very shortly after the battle with the continual advancement of plate. This is why England stopped being relevant in later medieval periods until the introduction of blackpowder.

Tripping the knight is a valid option regardless of terrain given the Dane axe's length and reach, and yeah Agincourt was an off example it was just the first one to come to mind.

However, once again, as I have mentioned twice now, this battle comes down to what equipment they are given, and we simply don't know. You are assuming the Viking has a dane axe and that the Samurai has a Kanabo club, which we both know, could very well not be the case same as giving the Knight an arming sword and kite shield when he could have a longsword, or a halberd, or a greatsword, or a warhammer, or a flail, or whatever else.

I threw those weapons out there because those were the only ones that i could think of off the top of my head that wouldn't leave this match relatively one sided. True their armaments could be vastly different and we don't know what to debate with until (or even if) the OP clarifies.

I agree with what you are saying, I was simply attempting to point out possible tactics that might be used.

@paragonnate:

After hooking the shield, the shield was usually pulled down and away from the opponents body leaving them open, the viking could thrust forward with the axe towards the knights head or torso pushing him back. It wouldn't hurt the knight but it would keep some distance. Also, viking shields had straps as well, for the same reason the knights did, to keep from losing their shield. Your right about the plate armor being tough to get through, I was simply throwing out an option for the viking.

Most viking shields were center grip which means you grabbed the handle with your hand, not strapping it to your arm. Doesn't mean the shield is 'worse', mind, a center grip has some advantages a strapped one doesn't or that they didn't have strapped shields, they did, but most of the ones I have seen were center grip.

You gave out options for the Viking to beat the knight then using that as a basis of giving the viking the advantage, but the problem with that is just because the Viking has ways to contend doesn't change the fact that the Knight is going to have a much easier time securing the kill while being hard to kill, and since we aren't paying mind to skill, the knight, having the superior defensive ability and having the easier time in killing his foe, should have the advantage.

Tripping the knight is a valid option regardless of terrain given the Dane axe's length and reach, and yeah Agincourt was an off example it was just the first one to come to mind.

Tripping anyone is a valid option. However, I pointed out that in Agincourt, the Knights were slogging through irrigated land which is... seriously, it is hard. As someone who has worked in one, it is like quicksand. I have had it tear my shoe off when it got sucked up into the mud. The lighter infantry would have had a much easier time in it regardless.

That said, getting knights on their back wasn't an instant win as knights would practice armored grappling for such scenarios. Not that it means they are invulnerable, mind, just that it isn't necessarily a game over.

It is alright, Agincourt is a battle that tends to pop up in the mind in most situations.

I threw those weapons out there because those were the only ones that i could think of off the top of my head that wouldn't leave this match relatively one sided. True their armaments could be vastly different and we don't know what to debate with until (or even if) the OP clarifies.

Very true, don't worry, if the OP tries to give the Samurai just a Katana, I will join you in demanding a Kanabo as there is no point otherwise.

I agree with what you are saying, I was simply attempting to point out possible tactics that might be used.

I understand that, the only thing I disagreed with in your post was that the viking would have the advantage in a one on one fight with the knight for the reasons above.

This isn't actually very close. Assuming they're all roughly the same skill, the Samurai is a non factor and gets one shotted, and the Viking dies to a 2v1.

I'm giving it to the Knight and Spartan. The Vikings were fearsome, but a large part of that was psychological. Many of those they went up against were just flat afraid of them. That advantage doesn't apply to either the Spartan or the Knight. The biggest problem with the Spartan's is that they were taught to work as a unit, so 1v1 might be an issue. I don't think it'll be that bad though... give that the Spartan has the range advantage via the spear, while the Viking's just had an ax. The Knight V. Samurai is more or less a toss-up, but the advantage goes to team Knight via the Spartan's fearlessness and reach advantage over the Viking.

Spartans and Vikings are overrated. I think the Samurai would solo.

Someone watched too much Deadliest Warrior.

With those pictures..Team 2 lol

LOL at samurai getting one shotted.

The samurai isn't soloing a knight, katanas do nothing to plate armor, the samurai would be lucky to even make a small dent. While a knight has a number of options thanks to the gaps in the samurais armor.

Knight and Spartan. Samurai and Viking can't really kill the knight. Spartan could die though.

@paragonnate: Thats true, the Katana isn't much of a stabbing weapon. I didn't look at the OP's pictures enough. The weapons this Samurai is wielding isn't very in character.....No samurai would dual wield katanas. He would probably have a naginata too, and maybe a bow. The OP's pictures are bad.

@zaluk: Viking axes can counter the plate armor due to sheer force or (based on the viking in the picture) by stabbing.

Axes are a much superior weapon to fight off plated enemies with than Katanas. and if we're going by History , Vikings had hammers and maces to deal with armored enemies.

@chu42t:And they gave the Knight a sword and a banner..... Lord knows how useful banners are in duels. So... I would assume the pictures are just for cool factor.

Katana are fairly good at stabbing, actually, they aren't good at stabbing through chainmail and the like, but they are fairly good at just stabbing through normal tissue. Their rounded, fat tip is what makes them not so great at stabbing through armor.

Spartan and knight. The Viking is to slow for either since we all know the samurai is a non-factor, in a 1v1 the Viking gets his knee hacked because of his equipment and lack of speed. Spartan counters with the sheild, or the knight disarms the two-handed slugger lands the kill shot

Knight and Spartan. They both have good piercing weapons to get through the Vikings chainmail and the Knights plate armour will stop anything except a Kanabo which is quite a slow weapon.

The Knight and Spartan have much more training than the viking and the spartan has the most training of all of them

@wut: Yes, plus they are slightly curved. Their width makes it hard for them to stab chainmail, but I suppose it would make a good skewer for flesh.

A viking would never carry a axe that size but no shield. That's the height of impracticality.

The Knight would be mounted, with an lance and a shield. Not just a sword.

@chu42t: It is good for skewering flesh because of how stiff the blade is. (Europeans would grip their swords with their hands to stiffen them when thrusting, they made them flexible to better withstand blows). But yeah, Katana are good at stabbing, just not good at stabbing through armor.

Indeed, that is a fantasy axe. Would be incredibly hard to carry, much less swing, and if you missed, you would be so dead.

Welp. Since the OP never gave my a gear list I have to assume the warriors have what they are holding in the images, in which case Team 1 stomps really, really hard.

Dual wielding katanas is a wildly poor life choice given they were meant to be used in two hands. Aside from that dual wielding two of the same weapon tends to limit your focus on either weapon individually without providing much in the way of versatility, so you just end up less focused than a warrior with a single blade. Meanwhile that axe is far too large to realistically swing. In fact it's questionable the viking can even lift it. Any half decent warrior will side step the initial stroke and then kill the viking before they have a chance to get their weapon back up to defend.

Meanwhile the spartan's gear is solid. Spear and shield, good armor. No obvious weaknesses. The knight having a banner is questionable, but it's assumable the knight will just plant the banner in the ground and then fight his opponents with his arming sword. If he needs to he still has a steel gauntlet to pimp smack someone with as a supplementary attack.