Created by gl0ckc0ma
Post Reply History's Warriors - Who will come out on top?
1517 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Inglewood, Ca.
Posted 6/15/17 , edited 6/15/17
If there was an all out battle which one would be victorious. I am leaning Viking or Aztec Warrior, but I am a little biased. I wanted to write in more but I was only allowed 5 slots;


Shaolin monks


Roman Gladiators



2103 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / US
Posted 6/16/17 , edited 6/16/17
Knight, cuz armor
I doubt any of the others can get through that shit, at least not easily
Early firearms couldn't get through that shit.

On the other hand, long bows.
The Samurai actually used a bow more, and a proper long bow could pierce Knight armor (I think, and dependent on era), so I guess the Samurai?

But then there are the Mongols, the only ones who could match the range and power (As far as I know).

Plus, are we talking 1v1 or several v several.
300 Spartans held the whole of the Persian Empire at bay, and Roman legions were trained to fight as a unit.
Also, never underestimate home field advantage.
Or horses.

And last, is this a one off fight, or is a long-running feud where the sides can adapt? All of these things are important to consider.
1522 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / SF Bay Area
Posted 6/16/17 , edited 8/21/17
God, I hope this doesn't turn into a cesspool of weebs screeching about how the samurai would beat all because of their magical karate and katanas that can cut through a black hole. No disrespect to samurai as they were great skilled warriors, but they and their weapons are incredibly overrated, especially among anime fans.

As for the question itself this is rather hard to answer as it would depend greatly on the skill and equipment of the individual as well as battlefield condition and just plain luck. To make it clear from the start I assume we are discussing one on one combat, with individual from prime point in the warriors history. Speaking in general terms though the viking and aztec are not likely to come out on top here contrary to your leanings (that does not mean they aren't cool or interesting in their own way. A one legged person with a handgun could beat all of these warriors and that wouldn't be interesting at all). An Aztec warrior wouldn't have used metal weapons or armor which would put them at a massive disadvantage, and looking to the conflicts between the Aztecs and conquistadors we can be pretty certain how that would turn out. As for the viking that would be nearly impossible to determine as vikings had nearly no standardization in training so we could only judge them based on what kind of weapons they would use, and the best they would have could only have been as good as that of a early knight (minus standardized training).

Out of all the warriors you mentioned the samurai and the knight are the standouts here because they both fill very similar roles: they both are a warrior class in a feudal society separating the nobility from the commoners who train for most of their lives to be as effective fighters as they can be, and put heavy emphasis on use as heavy cavalry. They both would have begun training at around 6 or 7, though I believe the knight would have continued to train for longer (until 20 for knight, around 14 or 15 for samurai?) before officially having been designated a knight, so may have the advantage in terms of skill. Skill a very difficult to predict factor, and as long as they are reasonably similar we may have to consider them equal.

So assuming both the knight and samurai are of equal skill, and luck is of no factor, who would win? Well this is now simply a question of who is better equipped, in which case the answer would most clearly be the knight. The biggest advantage comes from a knights armor, which at its peak in the late 14th and 15th centuries would have been made of full body plate armor over a gambeson (coat made of 5 or 6 layers of linen) with budded mail between the joints, and earlier than that a knight would have worn segmented plate armor over budded mail over a gambeson. The Europeans at the time were the only people capable of making full plate armor because of their more advanced metallurgy that allowed them to be the first to figure out how to make hardened spring steel. Early or late there is nearly no way that a katana or nearly any weapon a samurai would have likely used could have got through the armor. The katana especially is a terrible weapon for this purpose as the folding and differential hardening that make it so sharp also make it very brittle. This is advantageous against soldiers in East Asia who would have mostly worn light armor made of cloth or paper (paper armor is more effective than you'd think), of which is more effectively countered by the katanas cutting ability, though highly disadvantageous against mail or plate especially due to its curve and lack of tapered point that makes it a poor thrusting weapon. As for the samurai's armor they would have most usually worn some type of lamellar armor, which is layers of overlapping scales or small plates woven together to simulate solid plate. This issue with this is that this type of armor is effectively only as strong as what is weaving it together, and leaves a large amount of room for thrusting strikes to make their way through. It doesn't significantly lighten the weight of the armor either as is the common misconception, and a samurai's armor would likely have only been slightly lighter than that of a knight's (which was a lot lighter than is commonly assumed, at about 50b max being lighter than the equipment carried by a modern US soldier, and highly mobile). All of this can pretty much be summed up by looking at some of the armor the samurai started using sparsely during the 16th century. You may recognize that samurai's body chassis from many examples of this armor as being similar to those that the conquistadors wore, because thats literally exactly what it is. When the Portuguese started trading with the Japanese in the early 16th century they began selling them plate armor. This armor would have been the most expensive available to the samurai, and only the wealthiest of them could have afforded it, but it was highly coveted over all other armor because of the shear effectiveness of it. This armor is actually low grade munitions armor, so what this tells us is that the worst armor available to a knight during the late medieval period would have been better than the best armor available to a samurai of the same time period. The best tactic for the samurai to win would be to turn the fight into an endurance match, as a knights armor had the disadvantage of overheating quickly which could tire them out and even force them to remove their helmet. None of this is to say a knight is objectively "better" or more effective as a soldier of war than a samurai- it simply means that in a one-on-one fight a knight holds significant advantages over a samurai that would help make it more likely to win. If the fight is altered to include horses (as both warrior would have most likely used) then that would be a completely different fight and could completely change the outcome. It also should be noted that while Japanese society was composed of up to 7% samurai, European society was composed of up to only 2% knights.

Though, you know, if the knight really wanted to win he could just throw his pommel at the samurai and end him rightly.
15503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Posted 6/16/17 , edited 6/17/17
Knights (at least one from the Late Medieval period).

It's not that knights are the greatest warrior of all time, far from it, but compared to the rest, they have a considerably technological advantage of hundreds, and in the case of the Romans/gladiators, a thousand years. As other have painstakingly pointed out, a knight's armor would make him somewhat impervious to most of the other warriors as their equipment is not on par to take on full plated knight. As ferocious as an Aztec warrior may be, his obsidian blade would only shatter when struck against the knight. A Samurai's blade would bounce off the plate steel, etc. It wouldn't be impossible for a knight's armor to be pierced, but it would be considerably harder, giving the Knight a very big advantage when facing any of the foes listed.

Although a Knight from earlier era would be fair game, in which case, I'd go with Vikings or a Legionnaire (not listed, but a nomination).
1161 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Posted 6/17/17 , edited 6/17/17

(watamote was a great show)
19860 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / B.C, Canada
Posted 6/17/17 , edited 6/17/17
As others have said this is really more a contest between the Knight and the Samurai.

The European Knight , for the simple fact that they hold a distinct advantage in equipment and I'd argue training and experience . A full suit of plate armour is made of hardened and tempered spring steel which offered near invulnerability to slashing and piercing weapons. So much so that concussive weaponry became the norm on the battlefields of Europe . However concussive weaponry never really did catch on in Japan so the Samurai would be fighting at a distinct disadvantage, since the Katana is a slashing weapon excelling in push and draw cuts. And while it is entirely possible to thrust a sword into the gaps of a Knight's armour one should take a look at the swords designed to do so.

The Estoc for example, a straight two handed sword with no sharp edge but featuring a sharp and rigid point. It's cross section was usually triangular which increased the overall rigidness of the blade allowing fine point control. Late model Estoc's often had finger rings, curved quillons, or other forms of a compound hilt allowing for even more point control.

A Katana on the other had often had a tip and blade geometry unsuited for the kind of thrusting and point control it would take to punch through a Knight's armour.

Now for the training and experience and a side note on physicality. A knight is in my opinion a superior fighter due entirely to the chaotic nature of Feudal Europe, warfare was a constant concern. And due to it's position between Africa and the Middle East there was a constant flow of foreign opponents. with everything from Genghis Khan to the Crusades. This influx of foreign warfare and ideology I'd argue shaped the Knight into a highly refined fighting force adept at adapting to the situation at hand.

Samurai on the hand often fought only other Samurai . A state of affairs that would I argue lead only to stagnation in the development of fighting styles and tactics. Since nothing all that new is being developed since their opponents are using the same wargear and fighting styles they themselves are using. There is no chance to learn the merits of other ways of doing it.

And as a closing note I will say that your average Knight would be larger to a significant degree than your average Samurai. And while size is not everything it is yet another advantage for the Knight. Being both taller and stronger allows you a greater reach. And the ability to keep out of the range of your opponents weapon while being able to keep them within the range of your own is a advantage that can not be ignored.

Lastly I'd argue Europe has proven historically that it was the home of the greatest military powers. Since European powers went on to conquer much of the world and turn foreign nations into colonies subservient to the them. This sort of Imperial culture isn't possible without a significantly military and technological advantage. Which only adds to the Knight's advantage I'd argue.
7716 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / UK, Chester
Posted 6/18/17 , edited 6/18/17
Medieval Knight were soft as they weren't expected to fight they were symbolic mostly.
Samurai is a myth that they fought close range a lot.
Aztec Warriors... just nut jobs on drugs (to me they stand second)
Viking were proven warriors, they invaded to take more stuff... the longer they were a live the harder they were
1263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / The wrong side of...
Posted 6/18/17 , edited 6/18/17
without going into other samurai more than not would win; if not for gun power samurai would still be thriving
Posted 6/18/17 , edited 6/19/17
Gonna say viking, because why not.
89 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Posted 6/19/17 , edited 6/19/17
976 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / SOCAL for now
Posted 6/19/17 , edited 6/19/17
Flemish militia, They decimated the French knights at the battle of the Golden Spurs.
1276 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / F / Haymarket, VA
Posted 6/29/17 , edited 6/30/17
Mongols would destroy anything in their way if you didn't give them food.
1070 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / Canada
Posted 7/20/17 , edited 7/20/17
The Vietnamese people!
You must be logged in to post.