Knight vs Samurai vs Viking

[Adamjensen2030]

Who would win in a fight and why?

Thanks for reading.

 

[FanofRPGs]

The Samurai is out quickly, he has the best skill out of the three for sure, but it is not so much he easily defeats them. He is still smaller, lesser equipped (In armor compared to the knight, and in weaponry compared to the viking), and probably won't dent the knight's armor with his Katana.

Now between the Knight and Viking? Well a viking honestly seems no different from the germanic barbarian, just with slightly more advanced technology. The reason they caused such a mess in history was because they came out in a time where the entirety of Europe was disunified, preocupied with not getting screwed over by the Arab or Turkic hords from the south from and northeast, and had no professional army. Had the vikings invaded say, 2nd Century Rome, they would stand no chance. Knights evolved from late-roman soldiers, who were a hybrid of barbaric and roman technology, which was a deadly blend. The only reason they kept losing to the barbarians were due to incompetent generals on the Roman side. Knights fight like warriors, but with more advanced technologies of war. I personally think due to this, the knight would beat the viking, who are relatively unarmored too.

 

[Adamjensen2030]

FanofRPGs:

I also wanted to tell you that this video has been the target of debunks which is also why I disagree with it to some degree.

Also why do you think Viking beat Samurai out of curiosity besides Viking having superior weaponry?

 

[FanofRPGs]

FanofRPGs:
I also wanted to tell you that this video has been the target of debunks which is also why I disagree with it to some degree.

Also why do you think Viking beat Samurai out of curiosity besides Viking having superior weaponry?

Well there I think its more that the knight beats the Samurai before going on to the Viking. Problem is that vikings are too unpredictable, too violent, and too durable and tolerant to pain. I think they would be the type of warrior to completely smother any attempt of the Samurai fighting in a civil and "honorable" way

 

[Adamjensen2030]

Well there I think its more that the knight beats the Samurai before going on to the Viking. Problem is that vikings are too unpredictable, too violent, and too durable and tolerant to pain. I think they would be the type of warrior to completely smother any attempt of the Samurai fighting in a civil and "honorable" way

I see. How about a bloodlusted battle where the Samurai cast away their civil and honorable way of fighting and fights with bloodlust, would the Viking still beat him?

Also did you assume latest technology for Knight, Samurai and Viking? I did. Hope we don't run into any misconceptions.

 

[FanofRPGs]

Well there I think its more that the knight beats the Samurai before going on to the Viking. Problem is that vikings are too unpredictable, too violent, and too durable and tolerant to pain. I think they would be the type of warrior to completely smother any attempt of the Samurai fighting in a civil and "honorable" way

I see. How about a bloodlusted battle where the Samurai cast away their civil and honorable way of fighting and fights with bloodlust, would the Viking still beat him?
Also did you assume latest technology for Knight, Samurai and Viking? I did. Hope we don't run into any misconceptions.

wait, Samurai with latest technology?

They had muskets by then, if that's the case they will win

A bloodlusted samurai would beat a viking (as vikings are already bloodlusted), but IDK if they beat a knight still

 

[Adamjensen2030]

wait, Samurai with latest technology?

They had muskets by then, if that's the case they will win

A bloodlusted samurai would beat a viking (as vikings are already bloodlusted), but IDK if they beat a knight still

Samurai used Arquebuses at the Battle of Sekigahara.

Are Knights bloodlusted in general or do they fight with honor?

In a fight this is how I see it:

Samurai (bloodlust) > Viking (bloodlust by default) > Samurai (honor)

I'm not sure where to place Knights (bloodlust) and Knights (honor) yet though.

 

[FanofRPGs]

wait, Samurai with latest technology?

They had muskets by then, if that's the case they will win

A bloodlusted samurai would beat a viking (as vikings are already bloodlusted), but IDK if they beat a knight still

Samurai used Arquebuses at the Battle of Sekigahara.
Are Knights bloodlusted in general or do they fight with honor?

In a fight this is how I see it:

Samurai (bloodlust) > Viking (bloodlust by default) > Samurai (honor)

I'm not sure where to place Knights (bloodlust) and Knights (honor) yet though.

Knight (Bloodlusted) > Samurai (Bloodlusted) >= Knight (Honor) > Viking (Bloodlusted by Default) > Samurai (Honor)

 

[Adamjensen2030]

Knight (Bloodlusted) > Samurai (Bloodlusted) >= Knight (Honor) > Viking (Bloodlusted by Default) > Samurai (Honor)

So I take it as though Knights fight with honor by default.

I personally believe that Knights, Samurai and Vikings are 10-A for being physically stronger, smarter and more skilled with weapons than the average human being. Do you have any disagreements?

 

[FanofRPGs]

Knight (Bloodlusted) > Samurai (Bloodlusted) >= Knight (Honor) > Viking (Bloodlusted by Default) > Samurai (Honor)

So I take it as though Knights fight with honor by default.
I personally believe that Knights, Samurai and Vikings are 10-A for being physically stronger, smarter and more skilled with weapons than the average human being. Do you have any disagreements?

10-A is athletic human, technically any guy in the olypics is 10-A. I think they stem from 10-A to very low 9-C, definately 9-C with weapons.

 

[ThisIsMySwagPack]

Knights are definitely the best out of the three and it's mostly due to their equipment. I don't know much about samurais, but from what I've seen, they don't use shields that much or at all. Therefore, I would put a viking above samurai.

 

[Adamjensen2030]

10-A is athletic human, technically any guy in the olypics is 10-A. I think they stem from 10-A to very low 9-C, definately 9-C with weapons.

That's good to know.

I'm glad that we are having a civil discussion.

It's also great to learn the truth. Anime has distorted the minds of Samurai fanboys into thinking that samurai are faster than lightening and that their swords can cut through anything when they're actually not as powerful as weaboos make them out to be.

I'm a big fan of Samurai don't get me wrong and also I agree that in a fight:

Knight (Bloodlusted) > Samurai (Bloodlusted) >= Knight (Honor) > Viking (Bloodlusted by Default) > Samurai (Honor)

 

[Adamjensen2030]

Knights are definitely the best out of the three and it's mostly due to their equipment. I don't know much about samurais, but from what I've seen, they don't use shields that much or at all. Therefore, I would put a viking above samurai.

Agreed.

Samurai also go by the Bushido code and they fight with honor. They usually don't use shields because shields were seen as cowardly thus the Viking would take advantage of that.

 

[FanofRPGs]

I think Samurais get overplayed because they are just cooler and more exotic. When you think of Dark Age Europe, you think of a foggy and gloomy wasteland with illiterate zealots wearing bulky armor and using "crude" wooden technology. When one thinks of Samurai...


SABATON - Shiroyama (OFFICIAL LYRIC VIDEO)

 

[Adamjensen2030]

Agreed.

Even as a big fan of Samurai I don't think a bloodlusted Samurai can beat a bloodlusted Knight. Some weaboos will say "But Samurai have trained very hard to use martial arts thus they can disarm the knights" guess what the Knights are trained to protect themselves from enemy attacks thus why they wear superior armour. Even if they got disarmed their armour is strong enough to handle a stab from their own sword let alone a slash.