Again Vikings aren't really comparable to samurai, they barely used horses because you can't take a horse on a longboat, and they were far more about raiding and withdrawing before reinforcements could come than fighting a pitched battle.
The Varangian guard sound like complete badasses though: 'In 989 the Varangian guard, led by Basil II himself, landed at Chrysopolis to defeat the rebel general Bardas Phocas. On the field of battle, Phocas died of a stroke in full view of his opponent; upon the death of their leader, Phocas' troops turned and fled. The brutality of the Varangians was noted when they pursued the fleeing army and "cheerfully hacked them to pieces."'
That may be so, but still it's a huge mass of muscle swinging any piece of sharp metal he can at anything that moves. Does it make sense he could be so easily killed by a warrior 3/4 his size?
Yes, because it's a fight with weapons and armor, not a weight lifting contest.
Actually, I have been taught that if you are fighting someone who is in a berserk state of mind like a viking even if you have a weapon it is best to turn around and run away. I find it ironic that the Svetzna's were showing off that fancy punch to the gut trick that supposedly got Houndini killed. Namely that trick only works if you know the punch is coming.
Exactly. I think for any warrior (even one as disciplined as the samurai) it would be daunting to see someone that big wielding that much power without any concern to whom he is hacking at. The vikings were simply insane, and nothing can account for that type of mentality.
I've seen a couple of different Fechtbuchen. And all of them made reference to grappling as a way to get advantage for a weapon or using grappling against unarmored foes. All of the styles place empahsis on weapon work. You can find very simliar techinques for shield work, using a shield to keep an foe off balance, or pin a foe. That's a huge leap to go from used as a supplment to "often" settled combat.
If you really want to take a look at one of the more detailed Fechtbunchen, I'd recommend Flos Duellatorum. It's one of the better ones for seeing the actual fighting styles, and one of the ones that places the greatest weight on the combination of wrestling and dagger work. There is a section for dagger work against armor but it's not as large as the section for daggers against unarmored foes and his swords section. A lot of his techniques became the basis for a couple of the various Renaissance schools of combat.
If I recall correctly, the dagger work shown in armor concerns those techniques that aren't applicable to unarmored close combat, involving moves that require you to wear armor to execute them safely. Besides, most dagger techniques shown unarmored are applicable to armored combat as well as unarmored, as well as being tied to all the sword techniques as per Fiore's philosophy of assembing his system from the basic guard positions and the flow through the movement arcs from one position to another. Most of the illustrated techniques can be broken down to relatively few basic phases, which are used in different combinations throughout the treatise to form different techniques.
Grappling is quite essential to a majority of his techniques beyond the first strike, as the remedy, counter remedy and counter-counter remedy are virtually always performed involving grappling when using daggers, and often(though not always) with swords. Besides, when it comes to armor, using a dagger in close combat can be more effective than swatting with the sword(unless you employ nice anti-armor techniques such as pommel strikes, use the sword as a miniature spear to the throat, mordhau if your following a german school, etc.).
To be honest, the common portrayal of the samurai as this super-skilled, disciplined warrior, while the western knight is shown to be basically a brute in a tin-can, hacking until the enemy is dead, is something I find very irritating. These people trained a lot, in sophisticated weapons systems, and fought quite a lot on the battlefield, so even experience wouldn't be an issue. Any cursory research into the subject shows the common portrayal to be bollocks.
Flos Duellatorum(facsimile) can be found as a PDF through Wikipedia, if anyone's interested.;-)
That may be so, but still it's a huge mass of muscle swinging any piece of sharp metal he can at anything that moves. Does it make sense he could be so easily killed by a warrior 3/4 his size?
Yes, because it's a fight with weapons and armor, not a weight lifting contest.
Actually, I have been taught that if you are fighting someone who is in a berserk state of mind like a viking even if you have a weapon it is best to turn around and run away. I find it ironic that the Svetzna's were showing off that fancy punch to the gut trick that supposedly got Houndini killed. Namely that trick only works if you know the punch is coming.
Exactly. I think for any warrior (even one as disciplined as the samurai) it would be daunting to see someone that big wielding that much power without any concern to whom he is hacking at. The vikings were simply insane, and nothing can account for that type of mentality.
I don't really think that's accurate at all. You don't fight like a maniac with no concern for your own well being. The whole 'berserker on shrooms' thing is a bit silly.
Raiding vikings (is that a pleonasm of a sort?), far from home, divided into longboats, weren't going to just throw their lives away in some bizarre display of bloodlust. They'd hit their targets, plunder them, and get out. You fight smart when you're with your boat crew in a foreign country, you can't afford to prance around without armour, eating mushrooms and flailing wildy with a comically oversized axe - shields and spears would be more likely than a reckless attack.
I'd say evidence points to vikings being quite disciplined and smart fighters when actually going viking? As someone said, they'd avoid combat if possible, and I think there's evidence to suggest that shield/spear walls were used when that wasn't an option. That's pretty far from 'rawr, berserker!'
I just realized that vikings and samurai are actually an interesting comparison (thought not necessarily "Who would win in a fight?"): They're both the product of warlike and sea-dependent people, but the samurai is what happens if the people use the water to isolate themselves and vikings are what happens if the people use the water to rape coastal neighbors.
how about mongols vs aztecs?
they havent done those two yet have they?
Civilization that controlled the largest empire the world has ever seen
vs
Entire empire that was crushed with a force of 500 men
Maybe it's a rock-paper-scissors thing. Mongols beat whites, whites beat Aztecs, Aztecs beat Mongols. But then again Mongols kind of beat everyone else also.
how about mongols vs aztecs?
they havent done those two yet have they?
Civilization that controlled the largest empire the world has ever seen
vs
Entire empire that was crushed with a force of 500 men and the angry hordes of every single surrounding nation
how about mongols vs aztecs?
they havent done those two yet have they?
Civilization that controlled the largest empire the world has ever seen
vs
Entire empire that was crushed with a force of 500 men and the angry hordes of every single surrounding nation
Fixed that for you.
well yeah
but if it just takes 500 dudes with like 20 horses to upset the balance...
how about mongols vs aztecs?
they havent done those two yet have they?
Civilization that controlled the largest empire the world has ever seen
vs
Entire empire that was crushed with a force of 500 men and the angry hordes of every single surrounding nation
Fixed that for you.
well yeah
but if it just takes 500 dudes with like 20 horses to upset the balance...
well, it helps a lot when those 500 dudes appear to part of a prophecy, spread deadly plagues wherever they go, and are led by someone who was very poltically savvy.
Wookies versus Mongols, the Mongols get to use their horses/bows but the Wookies are really pissed off.
I was going to say Mongols versus a division of Imperial Stormtroopers, but I'm pretty sure the Mongols could take out the Ewoks and the Ewoks did a number on the Stormtroopers.
That may be so, but still it's a huge mass of muscle swinging any piece of sharp metal he can at anything that moves. Does it make sense he could be so easily killed by a warrior 3/4 his size?
Yes, because it's a fight with weapons and armor, not a weight lifting contest.
Actually, I have been taught that if you are fighting someone who is in a berserk state of mind like a viking even if you have a weapon it is best to turn around and run away. I find it ironic that the Svetzna's were showing off that fancy punch to the gut trick that supposedly got Houndini killed. Namely that trick only works if you know the punch is coming.
Exactly. I think for any warrior (even one as disciplined as the samurai) it would be daunting to see someone that big wielding that much power without any concern to whom he is hacking at. The vikings were simply insane, and nothing can account for that type of mentality.
I don't really think that's accurate at all. You don't fight like a maniac with no concern for your own well being. The whole 'berserker on shrooms' thing is a bit silly.
Raiding vikings (is that a pleonasm of a sort?), far from home, divided into longboats, weren't going to just throw their lives away in some bizarre display of bloodlust. They'd hit their targets, plunder them, and get out. You fight smart when you're with your boat crew in a foreign country, you can't afford to prance around without armour, eating mushrooms and flailing wildy with a comically oversized axe - shields and spears would be more likely than a reckless attack.
I'd say evidence points to vikings being quite disciplined and smart fighters when actually going viking? As someone said, they'd avoid combat if possible, and I think there's evidence to suggest that shield/spear walls were used when that wasn't an option. That's pretty far from 'rawr, berserker!'
If I remember right berserkers were only used during a limited time, and even then they were used to break the lines of your enemies by charging in recklessly and looking as terrifying as they could.
I think that kind of thing would have been extremely rare, if it occured at all.
You tend to find the majority of references to berserkers ('bear-skin', or 'armor-less', depending on how you want to translate/interpret it) in the sagas, which aren't exactly a good starting point for a realistic look at the viking. The concept is also a little too closely associated with shape-shifters and the gods to be taken entirely seriously, even if they make for good entertainment.
One dude in animal skin, fucked up on shrooms (or in a shamanistic trance, depending on your interpretation again), doesn't break the enemy line. He just gets dead.
All I am saying is that Ghengis would have had them in the ground in a day.
i dunno, aztecs have anywhere from 100-200 years on the mongols. The slight tech edge might be all they need. Besides, mongols never had to deal with biowarfare. So you mongols don't get smallpox blankets and aztecs don't get wall building technology. There, fair fight
All I am saying is that Ghengis would have had them in the ground in a day.
i dunno, aztecs have anywhere from 100-200 years on the mongols. The slight tech edge might be all they need. Besides, aztecs never had to deal with biowarfare. So you mongols don't get smallpox blankets and aztecs don't get wall building technology. There, fair fight
just because they were around longer, doesn't mean their technology is better.
Iron age weapons beat stone age weapons any day of the week.
All I am saying is that Ghengis would have had them in the ground in a day.
i dunno, aztecs have anywhere from 100-200 years on the mongols. The slight tech edge might be all they need. Besides, aztecs never had to deal with biowarfare. So you mongols don't get smallpox blankets and aztecs don't get wall building technology. There, fair fight
just because they were around longer, doesn't mean their technology is better.
Iron age weapons beat stone age weapons any day of the week.
All I am saying is that Ghengis would have had them in the ground in a day.
i dunno, aztecs have anywhere from 100-200 years on the mongols. The slight tech edge might be all they need. Besides, aztecs never had to deal with biowarfare. So you mongols don't get smallpox blankets and aztecs don't get wall building technology. There, fair fight
just because they were around longer, doesn't mean their technology is better.
Iron age weapons beat stone age weapons any day of the week.
Plus, horses.
yeah, but the computer can't handle horses... or long boats... or ships with cannons and really to be fair, Spetsnaz should have been allowed to deploy nuclear weapons in the simulation.
All I am saying is that Ghengis would have had them in the ground in a day.
i dunno, aztecs have anywhere from 100-200 years on the mongols. The slight tech edge might be all they need. Besides, aztecs never had to deal with biowarfare. So you mongols don't get smallpox blankets and aztecs don't get wall building technology. There, fair fight
just because they were around longer, doesn't mean their technology is better.
Iron age weapons beat stone age weapons any day of the week.
Plus, horses.
Also, the mongols were extremely adept at bio warfare. They used that, frequently, when they were seiging walled cities.
Pi-r8 on
0
Options
Suicide SlydeHaunts your dreamsof mountains sunk below the seaRegistered Userregular
edited May 2009
I spoiled this for length, its about vikings/Norse(I use the term interchangeably sue me I'm not feeling especially scholarly) and how they attacked. I'll add/change more if I think of something, most of this stuff is off the top of my head.
Tl;dr version 1.0
The vikings attacked from seas and rivers, an angle of attack not used frequently during this time period and therefore led to the majority of their success. Also, berserkers where used to break an enemy line that was already in disarray not for single combat.
Ver. 1.0
If I could weigh-in on the vikings for a moment. You have to remember the viking specialty wasn't land warfare, they were a sea-faring and trading oriented. Warfare became necessary because of an increasing population and lack of resources due to the terrible climate. So instead of being involved in prolonged wars which in the end used more resources, the Norse took to regularly raiding each other. Eventually, the Norse turned their attention towards England and Ireland. Especially after they discovered that the entire countryside was littered with massive buildings that had food, wine, and gold just stashed away in them with no military protection. These of course were the Christian cathedrals, which had little meaning to the pagan Norse and therefore were raided constantly. My point? The vikings originally spent most of their time raiding religious structures. Of course everything we are going read about them is going to say they were these uncontrollable savage warriors who stood 7 feet tall and breathed fire, they were committing an act most foul in all of Christendom. The strongest point of the viking military was the raid, especially from the sea and rivers. Their unconventional tactics of approach meant that even heavily defended towns (see the raids on Paris) couldn't really be prepared from where the vikings would strike. Of course when Paris chose to defend itself they were beaten mercilessly.
The individual viking was not an especially devastating warrior, his equipment was par for the course at the time, however the overall strategy of the sea and river raiding meant that towns were more than likely unprepared for the raid and fell quickly to it before a sound defense could be mounted. Now this is where the Berserker comes in. As a town militia prepares to mount a last ditch defense, probably within the walls of the town already, out comes a man charging at them with reckless abandon, constantly swinging his axe. His constant movement and aggression means that the militia's only option is defense and therefore unable to attack. After suffering a few blows the smart ones flee while the valiant defenders either kill or are killed. In all the psychological effect has already taken place and the town surrenders itself.
That would be the anatomy of a viking attack, there are no special weapons and the berserker isn't a superhuman, he just doesn't care because of the shrooms or the religion. I think the modern military calls this "the violence of attack" which is essentially a psychological effect on your opponent where loud noises and speed are used to throw them off balance both mentally and physically.
Hypothetically, could "the violence of attack" have the same effect on a Japanese town? I don't see why not, they were human and reacted the same way. However if an individual Samurai were to fight an individual viking, berserker or not, I don't think violence of attack would really make a difference. The Samurai was trained for combat and therefore would be ready and trained to face an unrelenting attacking opponent. After all isn't the samurai saying something like "hit without being hit"?
I spoiled this for length, its about vikings/Norse(I use the term interchangeably sue me I'm not feeling especially scholarly) and how they attacked. I'll add/change more if I think of something, most of this stuff is off the top of my head.
Tl;dr version 1.0
The vikings attacked from seas and rivers, an angle of attack not used frequently during this time period and therefore led to the majority of their success. Also, berserkers where used to break an enemy line that was already in disarray not for single combat.
Ver. 1.0
If I could weigh-in on the vikings for a moment. You have to remember the viking specialty wasn't land warfare, they were a sea-faring and trading oriented. Warfare became necessary because of an increasing population and lack of resources due to the terrible climate. So instead of being involved in prolonged wars which in the end used more resources, the Norse took to regularly raiding each other. Eventually, the Norse turned their attention towards England and Ireland. Especially after they discovered that the entire countryside was littered with massive buildings that had food, wine, and gold just stashed away in them with no military protection. These of course were the Christian cathedrals, which had little meaning to the pagan Norse and therefore were raided constantly. My point? The vikings originally spent most of their time raiding religious structures. Of course everything we are going read about them is going to say they were these uncontrollable savage warriors who stood 7 feet tall and breathed fire, they were committing an act most foul in all of Christendom. The strongest point of the viking military was the raid, especially from the sea and rivers. Their unconventional tactics of approach meant that even heavily defended towns (see the raids on Paris) couldn't really be prepared from where the vikings would strike. Of course when Paris chose to defend itself they were beaten mercilessly.
The individual viking was not an especially devastating warrior, his equipment was par for the course at the time, however the overall strategy of the sea and river raiding meant that towns were more than likely unprepared for the raid and fell quickly to it before a sound defense could be mounted. Now this is where the Berserker comes in. As a town militia prepares to mount a last ditch defense, probably within the walls of the town already, out comes a man charging at them with reckless abandon, constantly swinging his axe. His constant movement and aggression means that the militia's only option is defense and therefore unable to attack. After suffering a few blows the smart ones flee while the valiant defenders either kill or are killed. In all the psychological effect has already taken place and the town surrenders itself.
That would be the anatomy of a viking attack, there are no special weapons and the berserker isn't a superhuman, he just doesn't care because of the shrooms or the religion. I think the modern military calls this "the violence of attack" which is essentially a psychological effect on your opponent where loud noises and speed are used to throw them off balance both mentally and physically.
Hypothetically, could "the violence of attack" have the same effect on a Japanese town? I don't see why not, they were human and reacted the same way. However if an individual Samurai were to fight an individual viking, berserker or not, I don't think violence of attack would really make a difference. The Samurai was trained for combat and therefore would be ready and trained to face an unrelenting attacking opponent. After all isn't the samurai saying something like "hit without being hit"?
Another big difference is horses. Generally, cultures with horses are dominated by long ranged weapons (almost always the bow, but they also seemed to like the sling for support, and some would use light javelins) and melee (often preferring some sort of saber or club [the mongols carried both]) for when they got close or were dismounted. Infantry-dominated cultures, such as the Romans, Vikings, and Franks, seemed to prefer mid-range weapons (javelins and spears for the Romans and Vikings, francisca by the Franks and other Anglo-Saxons) and melee (pikes, axes, and swords) for when the mid-ranges were depleted (although some could do double duty).
The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
0
Options
Suicide SlydeHaunts your dreamsof mountains sunk below the seaRegistered Userregular
edited May 2009
Good point I forgot about Scandinavia's horrible lack of horses. Viking raiding tactics weren't exactly hindered by not having horses, after all it would be extra weight on the ships and more mouths to feed, but a prolonged battle or engagement with a cavalry based opponent, like the samurai, would leave them at noticeable disadvantage.
Good point I forgot about Scandinavia's horrible lack of horses. Viking raiding tactics weren't exactly hindered by not having horses, after all it would be extra weight on the ships and more mouths to feed, but a prolonged battle or engagement with a cavalry based opponent, like the samurai, would leave them at noticeable disadvantage.
On the other hand, we all know what happened to the Persians when the Athenians were able to take horses out of play. Really though, the viking wouldn't stand a chance against the samurai, not because of some difference in effectiveness in the two cultures' militaries, but because the samurai was an elite from a rich warrior class, and so had been trained from an excessively young age by the best tutors and provided with the best equipment, regardless of cost.
To perhaps contrast with Suicide Slyde a little . . .
While it's true that for the most part Vikings were kind of risk adverse and would spend most of their time raiding easy targets for plunder, there were other situations where they may have been called on to bring their "A" game, as it were (while on raids they would not).
Sometimes these raids led to actual pitched battles against real armies (well, as real as they got 1,000 years ago in Europe). Recall that mere days before the Battle of Hastings, the Anglo-Saxons had fought Vikings at Stamford Bridge. Granted, the Vikings lost, but I would imagine that such battles would demand much more from the Viking warrior in terms of fighting prowess and acceptance of risk than a raid. Moreover, the Vikings spent plenty of time fighting amongst themselves and I think in such cases especially the fighting might have been more ritualistic and was probably a major source for the mythology surrounding the Viking warrior - though at the same time, it wouldn't have been witnessed by many foreigners who were able to spread such legends.
To try and put a conclusion to this - the Vikings for the most part probably weren't terribly impressive and your typical raid was likely a pretty pedestrian affairs: Vikings show up, simply kill anyone who resists and run off with whatever they can carry - no different than if any other group of dudes at the time (Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Picts, etc.) showed up and wanted what you had. Of course, when you're an unarmed Anglo-Saxon villager being slaughtered by a band of wild foreigners who just hopped out of a boat, you're going to be pretty terrified and they probably wouldn't have to do anything fancy to create a larger-than-life impression (plus there's the whole religious dimension that Suicide Slyde pointed out). In terms of the Vikings demonstrating real - and perhaps unconventional - fighting abilities, I think that would be more restricted to those skirmishes that could be called an actual battle or when fighting each other. When pressed into a real fight, that was probably when you saw them "shine" as it were, and some of the embellishments emerge, such as the "bezerker".
While Berserkers can regenerate health, the Samurai does have a bonus against all other unique units.
I LOVED THAT GAME.
Never bought it, got it cracked of limewire so couldn't own kids online.
yes I was cheap back then... I have orange box now tho.. any of yall hit me up..
InHuman on
0
Options
Suicide SlydeHaunts your dreamsof mountains sunk below the seaRegistered Userregular
edited May 2009
yes, I am quite inebriated now, so please excuse typos and grammatical errors as this sentence alone had quite a few I was able to correct on my own and I'm sure this probably makes little sense.
I think we all can agree that the viking was, at his core, a raider with little military training and saw it originally as a requirement for survival in the late 8th and 9th centuries. However, the battle training by 1066 or earlier probably had changed and greater idea of tactics and combat had emerged. After all the "Varangian Guard" of the Byzantine Empire were originally Vikings, which could possibly mean that at prolonged battle and expedition they had something more developed rather than "charge at enemy" and "make loud noises." As well as according to the Primary Chronicle the Varangian Rus actually ruled the Slavic tribes of Russia, contrary to the idea of the raider and pillager.
Flip side to that, according to the accounts of the Battle of Stamford Bridge, a single Viking held off the forces Harold Godwinson until he was killed by a spear from underneath the bridge he was standing on. That last stand is would hardly be considered a tactically wise decision. As well as the aforementioned Viking raids on England which were about plunder not about conquest.
I guess the point now is, which Viking are we talking about? Are we talking about the Viking who raids and pillages, or the more cunning, tactical, and ruling Varangians?
I guess I should point out now that I am well versed with Germanic and Scandinavian history, but I know little to nothing about Asian history so if someone wants to jump in about the Samurai feel free.
Specific time period plays heavily when you're talking about Vikings. There's a good 300 years to work with (if you don't want to count descendant cultures). In addition, Vikings tend to be associated with an entire culture with different castes of people and warriors, whereas samurai tend to be narrower caste.
While it's true that Vikings were initially heavy raiders they ended up settling in disparate portions of Europe. Much of England and Normandy stemmed from the descendants of Vikings (to the extent that the Norman invasion of England ends up being Viking descendants versus Viking descendants). They also integrated into vast portions of the Russian steppes and parts of southern Italy and the Byzantine empire.
If you really want to peg it down to one Viking versus one samurai you'd need to pick what type of Viking soldier you're referring to. One of the fundamental problems with this show is that it insists on having one on one combat, but a vast majority of warfare relies on group combat.
There's also that time problem. While it's easy to think "knight" covers 1000-1600, but that's like saying "marine" covers 1700s to now. A marine at the battle of Tripoli would not function the same as a marine stationed in Iraq.
UltimaGecko on
The facehuggers want to play with you in the AvP LP. Facehuggers also want you to check out the TF2 cards here. View the in-progress RE mansion recreation for L4D here.
I did like the spooky ass Spetsnaz guy though. Watching him handle the Karate guy in those sparring matches was pretty funny. It was like watching a grown man fight a child.
I don't really think that's accurate at all. You don't fight like a maniac with no concern for your own well being.
'
I am pretty sure it is. From a physiological standpoint you do start becoming numb to pain unless you are really well trained to suppress that instinct.
I did like the spooky ass Spetsnaz guy though. Watching him handle the Karate guy in those sparring matches was pretty funny. It was like watching a grown man fight a child.
My favorite part about those guys was how calm they were all the fucking time.
"WATCH ME FUCK THE SHIT OUT OF A GEL TORSO WITH A SHOVEL!"
"I'm ready to fire the balistic knife."
"BLARHARHAR I'M RUNNING IN THE DARK WITH A PISTOL SHOOTING TARGETS AND WATCH ME DO IT SO FAST!"
"Center mass, eye, centre mass. My targets are dead, I'm going to sleep for a bit."
Posts
they havent done those two yet have they?
The Varangian guard sound like complete badasses though: 'In 989 the Varangian guard, led by Basil II himself, landed at Chrysopolis to defeat the rebel general Bardas Phocas. On the field of battle, Phocas died of a stroke in full view of his opponent; upon the death of their leader, Phocas' troops turned and fled. The brutality of the Varangians was noted when they pursued the fleeing army and "cheerfully hacked them to pieces."'
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
Exactly. I think for any warrior (even one as disciplined as the samurai) it would be daunting to see someone that big wielding that much power without any concern to whom he is hacking at. The vikings were simply insane, and nothing can account for that type of mentality.
Marvel thor does not accuratley represent vikings.
If I recall correctly, the dagger work shown in armor concerns those techniques that aren't applicable to unarmored close combat, involving moves that require you to wear armor to execute them safely. Besides, most dagger techniques shown unarmored are applicable to armored combat as well as unarmored, as well as being tied to all the sword techniques as per Fiore's philosophy of assembing his system from the basic guard positions and the flow through the movement arcs from one position to another. Most of the illustrated techniques can be broken down to relatively few basic phases, which are used in different combinations throughout the treatise to form different techniques.
Grappling is quite essential to a majority of his techniques beyond the first strike, as the remedy, counter remedy and counter-counter remedy are virtually always performed involving grappling when using daggers, and often(though not always) with swords. Besides, when it comes to armor, using a dagger in close combat can be more effective than swatting with the sword(unless you employ nice anti-armor techniques such as pommel strikes, use the sword as a miniature spear to the throat, mordhau if your following a german school, etc.).
To be honest, the common portrayal of the samurai as this super-skilled, disciplined warrior, while the western knight is shown to be basically a brute in a tin-can, hacking until the enemy is dead, is something I find very irritating. These people trained a lot, in sophisticated weapons systems, and fought quite a lot on the battlefield, so even experience wouldn't be an issue. Any cursory research into the subject shows the common portrayal to be bollocks.
Flos Duellatorum(facsimile) can be found as a PDF through Wikipedia, if anyone's interested.;-)
I don't really think that's accurate at all. You don't fight like a maniac with no concern for your own well being. The whole 'berserker on shrooms' thing is a bit silly.
Raiding vikings (is that a pleonasm of a sort?), far from home, divided into longboats, weren't going to just throw their lives away in some bizarre display of bloodlust. They'd hit their targets, plunder them, and get out. You fight smart when you're with your boat crew in a foreign country, you can't afford to prance around without armour, eating mushrooms and flailing wildy with a comically oversized axe - shields and spears would be more likely than a reckless attack.
I'd say evidence points to vikings being quite disciplined and smart fighters when actually going viking? As someone said, they'd avoid combat if possible, and I think there's evidence to suggest that shield/spear walls were used when that wasn't an option. That's pretty far from 'rawr, berserker!'
Civilization that controlled the largest empire the world has ever seen
vs
Entire empire that was crushed with a force of 500 men
Maybe it's a rock-paper-scissors thing. Mongols beat whites, whites beat Aztecs, Aztecs beat Mongols. But then again Mongols kind of beat everyone else also.
Fixed that for you.
well yeah
but if it just takes 500 dudes with like 20 horses to upset the balance...
Until he died and his successor ate himself to death. :P
I was going to say Mongols versus a division of Imperial Stormtroopers, but I'm pretty sure the Mongols could take out the Ewoks and the Ewoks did a number on the Stormtroopers.
If I remember right berserkers were only used during a limited time, and even then they were used to break the lines of your enemies by charging in recklessly and looking as terrifying as they could.
You tend to find the majority of references to berserkers ('bear-skin', or 'armor-less', depending on how you want to translate/interpret it) in the sagas, which aren't exactly a good starting point for a realistic look at the viking. The concept is also a little too closely associated with shape-shifters and the gods to be taken entirely seriously, even if they make for good entertainment.
One dude in animal skin, fucked up on shrooms (or in a shamanistic trance, depending on your interpretation again), doesn't break the enemy line. He just gets dead.
i dunno, aztecs have anywhere from 100-200 years on the mongols. The slight tech edge might be all they need. Besides, mongols never had to deal with biowarfare. So you mongols don't get smallpox blankets and aztecs don't get wall building technology. There, fair fight
just because they were around longer, doesn't mean their technology is better.
Iron age weapons beat stone age weapons any day of the week.
Plus, horses.
yeah, but the computer can't handle horses... or long boats... or ships with cannons and really to be fair, Spetsnaz should have been allowed to deploy nuclear weapons in the simulation.
Also, the mongols were extremely adept at bio warfare. They used that, frequently, when they were seiging walled cities.
Tl;dr version 1.0
The vikings attacked from seas and rivers, an angle of attack not used frequently during this time period and therefore led to the majority of their success. Also, berserkers where used to break an enemy line that was already in disarray not for single combat.
Ver. 1.0
The individual viking was not an especially devastating warrior, his equipment was par for the course at the time, however the overall strategy of the sea and river raiding meant that towns were more than likely unprepared for the raid and fell quickly to it before a sound defense could be mounted. Now this is where the Berserker comes in. As a town militia prepares to mount a last ditch defense, probably within the walls of the town already, out comes a man charging at them with reckless abandon, constantly swinging his axe. His constant movement and aggression means that the militia's only option is defense and therefore unable to attack. After suffering a few blows the smart ones flee while the valiant defenders either kill or are killed. In all the psychological effect has already taken place and the town surrenders itself.
That would be the anatomy of a viking attack, there are no special weapons and the berserker isn't a superhuman, he just doesn't care because of the shrooms or the religion. I think the modern military calls this "the violence of attack" which is essentially a psychological effect on your opponent where loud noises and speed are used to throw them off balance both mentally and physically.
Hypothetically, could "the violence of attack" have the same effect on a Japanese town? I don't see why not, they were human and reacted the same way. However if an individual Samurai were to fight an individual viking, berserker or not, I don't think violence of attack would really make a difference. The Samurai was trained for combat and therefore would be ready and trained to face an unrelenting attacking opponent. After all isn't the samurai saying something like "hit without being hit"?
Another big difference is horses. Generally, cultures with horses are dominated by long ranged weapons (almost always the bow, but they also seemed to like the sling for support, and some would use light javelins) and melee (often preferring some sort of saber or club [the mongols carried both]) for when they got close or were dismounted. Infantry-dominated cultures, such as the Romans, Vikings, and Franks, seemed to prefer mid-range weapons (javelins and spears for the Romans and Vikings, francisca by the Franks and other Anglo-Saxons) and melee (pikes, axes, and swords) for when the mid-ranges were depleted (although some could do double duty).
apparently eighty percent of historical warriors used clay grenades
On the other hand, we all know what happened to the Persians when the Athenians were able to take horses out of play. Really though, the viking wouldn't stand a chance against the samurai, not because of some difference in effectiveness in the two cultures' militaries, but because the samurai was an elite from a rich warrior class, and so had been trained from an excessively young age by the best tutors and provided with the best equipment, regardless of cost.
that's why we use claymore mines these days
While it's true that for the most part Vikings were kind of risk adverse and would spend most of their time raiding easy targets for plunder, there were other situations where they may have been called on to bring their "A" game, as it were (while on raids they would not).
Sometimes these raids led to actual pitched battles against real armies (well, as real as they got 1,000 years ago in Europe). Recall that mere days before the Battle of Hastings, the Anglo-Saxons had fought Vikings at Stamford Bridge. Granted, the Vikings lost, but I would imagine that such battles would demand much more from the Viking warrior in terms of fighting prowess and acceptance of risk than a raid. Moreover, the Vikings spent plenty of time fighting amongst themselves and I think in such cases especially the fighting might have been more ritualistic and was probably a major source for the mythology surrounding the Viking warrior - though at the same time, it wouldn't have been witnessed by many foreigners who were able to spread such legends.
To try and put a conclusion to this - the Vikings for the most part probably weren't terribly impressive and your typical raid was likely a pretty pedestrian affairs: Vikings show up, simply kill anyone who resists and run off with whatever they can carry - no different than if any other group of dudes at the time (Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Picts, etc.) showed up and wanted what you had. Of course, when you're an unarmed Anglo-Saxon villager being slaughtered by a band of wild foreigners who just hopped out of a boat, you're going to be pretty terrified and they probably wouldn't have to do anything fancy to create a larger-than-life impression (plus there's the whole religious dimension that Suicide Slyde pointed out). In terms of the Vikings demonstrating real - and perhaps unconventional - fighting abilities, I think that would be more restricted to those skirmishes that could be called an actual battle or when fighting each other. When pressed into a real fight, that was probably when you saw them "shine" as it were, and some of the embellishments emerge, such as the "bezerker".
I LOVED THAT GAME.
Never bought it, got it cracked of limewire so couldn't own kids online.
yes I was cheap back then... I have orange box now tho.. any of yall hit me up..
I think we all can agree that the viking was, at his core, a raider with little military training and saw it originally as a requirement for survival in the late 8th and 9th centuries. However, the battle training by 1066 or earlier probably had changed and greater idea of tactics and combat had emerged. After all the "Varangian Guard" of the Byzantine Empire were originally Vikings, which could possibly mean that at prolonged battle and expedition they had something more developed rather than "charge at enemy" and "make loud noises." As well as according to the Primary Chronicle the Varangian Rus actually ruled the Slavic tribes of Russia, contrary to the idea of the raider and pillager.
Flip side to that, according to the accounts of the Battle of Stamford Bridge, a single Viking held off the forces Harold Godwinson until he was killed by a spear from underneath the bridge he was standing on. That last stand is would hardly be considered a tactically wise decision. As well as the aforementioned Viking raids on England which were about plunder not about conquest.
I guess the point now is, which Viking are we talking about? Are we talking about the Viking who raids and pillages, or the more cunning, tactical, and ruling Varangians?
I guess I should point out now that I am well versed with Germanic and Scandinavian history, but I know little to nothing about Asian history so if someone wants to jump in about the Samurai feel free.
SWAT just powered it's way in and took them out.
The ninja pretended to be part of the video crew filming it, and under the pretense of cleaning the ceiling cameras assassinated the target.
Couldn't find a clip of it and I don't remember what it was called. All I found was this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFMPDr7DynM
While it's true that Vikings were initially heavy raiders they ended up settling in disparate portions of Europe. Much of England and Normandy stemmed from the descendants of Vikings (to the extent that the Norman invasion of England ends up being Viking descendants versus Viking descendants). They also integrated into vast portions of the Russian steppes and parts of southern Italy and the Byzantine empire.
If you really want to peg it down to one Viking versus one samurai you'd need to pick what type of Viking soldier you're referring to. One of the fundamental problems with this show is that it insists on having one on one combat, but a vast majority of warfare relies on group combat.
There's also that time problem. While it's easy to think "knight" covers 1000-1600, but that's like saying "marine" covers 1700s to now. A marine at the battle of Tripoli would not function the same as a marine stationed in Iraq.
You just have to beleive
No you don't. They have computar. SCIENCE.
I did like the spooky ass Spetsnaz guy though. Watching him handle the Karate guy in those sparring matches was pretty funny. It was like watching a grown man fight a child.
"WATCH ME FUCK THE SHIT OUT OF A GEL TORSO WITH A SHOVEL!"
"I'm ready to fire the balistic knife."
"BLARHARHAR I'M RUNNING IN THE DARK WITH A PISTOL SHOOTING TARGETS AND WATCH ME DO IT SO FAST!"
"Center mass, eye, centre mass. My targets are dead, I'm going to sleep for a bit."