Game Theory: Who Would Win -- Samurai, Knight, or Viking? (For Honor)

Off-topic
#15

Wouldn’t state it as a sign of military art. King Charles The Bald had dificult reign, as he had problems with internal disputes, disputes with his brothers and even more, Vikings raiding his realm. He wasn’t able to assemble large enough army to effectively use defense network built by Charlemagne and deny Vikings to attack core of Frankia. Several sackings of Paris during 840s and 860s were results of false planning and lack of Frankia to unite and hold incoming outer enemy imho. Charlemagne was able to unite Frankish tribes and form them into state, that means he had working army that could protect his empire from northern threat. His successors actually failed in this and first who succesfully defended Paris was Odo during 885-6 siege.

Again, same as in Frankia. No real big threat, no strong leader that could unite whole Anglia to actualy stop invaders. British Isles were full of petty kingdoms and duchies, remnants of fallen Roman Empire.

This is what was used during whole middle ages. Most of warfare took place during summer, because it was much easier to obtain supplies to keep marching that colossus of several (tens of) thousands soldiers. And I believe that meeting of knights of high middle ages era with vikings of their era, would end conclusively in knights success. But this is what I think is uncomparable, because right now we are comparing two “doctrinas” that are divided by 200-400 years of military advancements.

Back to the topic.
Basically fully equipped knight is heavy infantry or heavy cavalry, while vikings were light infantry. Mobile and deadly, but single blow from a knight makes end to him. And those people, that say “faster swordsman is better than armored one” can go to (insert some shiny place with flowers and birds here). Heavily equipped knight losses his breath after longer fight, not instantly after first two blows (he trains that whole life!), light foot can withstand this longer, but usually he gets hit much sooner. That would have to be fight of heavily equipped greenie against lightly equipped vet. Something like me standing in full armor against Anton Kohutovič => jelly good show! Lasting few seconds…
And from what I saw, Samurais were in fact light infantry/cav, compared to mid European knights…

#16

The Byzantines and the Persians. Diplomacy and cunning > battle skills. Always.

Plus they fielded the best military unit ever… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataphract

1 Like
#17

Well light armored archers did beat knights with axes and blunt weapons in agincourt after they had managed get that muddy field with arrows raining on em to other end…

#18

Ranged units always beats melee… :sunny:

#19

Best military unit ever? I think that title belongs to these guys. No one is stronker than Poland Winged Hussars.

#20

Well light armored archers did beat knights with axes and blunt weapons in agincourt after they had managed get that muddy field with arrows raining on em to other end…

Alright, you’ve entered my realm now, so buckle up.

Those archers were vastly outnumbered. VASTLY. The odds are normally accepted as 30 to 1, though some say it was anywhere between 20 to 1 odds all the way up to 50 to 1 odds. Regardless, the English were outnumbered, underfed, weakened from a long campaign, all manners of things. They had been on the run from the French for weeks as they did not have the numbers for a pitched battle. But Agincourt. Agincourt the English were caught in and they had to fight. In the night it is said the English, laying on nothing but their own clothing and eating wormy bread and watered porridge, could see and hear the French feasting on foods that wafted to the English camp. Yet God had favored the English that night.

You see, the English man-at-arms, despite having horses, were commanded to fight on the ground. Why?

The field was muddy.

Now the French, being the arrogant frogs they are, mounted onto their plated destriers and thought the battle would be won the way the French always won; through horseback. On the other side of the field was the English archers hammering stakes into the ground, affixed to aim for a horse’s chest. Behind those stakes the archers waited and the men-at-arms behind the archers.

Now, you can obviously tell me what happens when a horse tries to charge in mud. It won’t charge. It’s bogged down.

At the same time, in that rainy night before Agincourt, the English had dug holes in the muddy field in order that, when the French charged on their horses as they were expected to do, the horse’s legs would break and the French would be forced to the ground.

The muddy ground.

So here we are, French charging their destriers and faltering. The English archers firing volley after volley, piercing flesh and mail as their yew longbows strained again and again. And when the French fell, their plate, now bogged in the mud, suffocated them. Trapped them. Killed them. And from the English ranks, when the French retreated on October 15th, 1415, did the archers and squires file onto the field, searching for French knights who could be held for ransom and sliding their rondels into the visors of those who were worthless.

So without that muddy field, those archers would have been killed. In a one-on-one fight, the archers are worthless against knights, lightly-armoured or not.

And before you say, ‘‘what about French archers?’’ Genoese Crossbowmen. And crossbows don’t have the range a longbow has, so those crossbowmen had to walk onto the field just to get in range, where they, in their light armor, walked into archer fire and died despite their pavises. So they ran back to their lines. The French lines.

And the French charged the mercenaries and killed them all before they themselves were slaughtered.

2 Likes
#21

Didn’t the crossbow men also leave their crossbows out in the rain over night, and thus make them worthless? Or am I thinking of Crecy…

#22

“surviving French men-at-arms reached the front of the English line and pushed it back, with the longbowmen on the flanks continuing to shoot at point-blank range. When the archers ran out of arrows, they dropped their bows and using hatchets, swords and the mallets they had used to drive their stakes in, attacked the now disordered, fatigued and wounded French men-at-arms massed in front of them. The French could not cope with the thousands of lightly armoured longbowmen assailants (who were much less hindered by the mud and weight of their armour) combined with the English men-at-arms. The impact of thousands of arrows, combined with the slog in heavy armour through the mud, the heat and lack of oxygen in plate armour with the visor down, and the crush of their numbers meant the French men-at-arms could “scarcely lift their weapons” when they finally engaged the English line”

Odd way of suffocate and yes that did too happen but there is times when light armor guy can beat shit out of heavy guys and you just can’t admit that.

#23

Yes, and according to your own post the heavily armoured men could barely lift their swords because they were so exhausted. So for the English troops it was like clubbing baby seals at that point, since the French knights couldn’t even fight.

#24

If you are talking 14th century - Knight, hands down.

Viking - different, much earlier time. The knight has an extra 500 years in armor and weapons improvement, in addition to a more formalized and rigorous training regimen.

Samurai - different place. Japanese armor was absolutely awful. It was a badly distributed metal trunk with leather on the limbs. Katana was a great weapon but not an ideal weapon against plate.

1 Like
#25

They did with mixed results. They were best as raiders but they did manage to conquer parts of Britain and Normandy.

#26

Well, for honor has warriors walking around half naked. And the only ‘properly’ armored warriors/soldiers are the knights.

So based on that, the knights should win.
And like people have said here before, the training and armor and weapons are superior then the other 2 factions.

That said, I would love to know how vikings would fare against knights in their shieldwalls. The vikings do get some benefits from that.

And the samurai, well, i’ve heard that their armor isn’t really that good. And even the swords aren’t as great as the ‘legends’ say they are. But I honestly don’t know. I know of their way of the warrior and serving their lord, so their discipline is to be respected and admired. But the katana and all variants were good for the time period and location but as a whole they were not that great.

Again, I don’t know much about samurai… Than again I barely know anything of the other two factions, compared to some on this forum. But I know that for honor is far from accurate in any way, and it just irks me the wrong way when people want to compare those three factions because of that game. Don’t really know why, but unfortunally it does.

#27

To make it more correct, katana and wakizasi (this pair is called daisyo) was a part of samurai’s civilian outfit. At war they used a daisyo of tachi (longer blade) and tanto (knife).
Main force of samurai armies were ashigaru infantry, equiped with lighter tatami-do, easier to cut. But daisyo served as a secondary weapon, while longbow daiku and spear yari were bushi’s primary weapons.
Also, don’t seek any truth in For Honor.

2 Likes
#28

fairly confident that a 15th century night would be the winner in that fight. The vikings are going to be in trouble either way, mail does not give much protection from lances or poleaxes. Samurai are an interesting comparison because (and my knowledge here is far from extensive) was that they were mostly mounted archers, so that could be an interesting matchup. If your talking about dueling, on foot, in armor, longsword>migration period sword>katana

#29

Tachi and tanto. (Daisyo) [quote=“camshron, post:28, topic:31503”]
mounted archers
[/quote]

Daiku, tari and daisyo.

#30

Easy. The US miltary or if you want to go oldschool, Rome. Undisputed Champions of the modern and ancient world.

#31

knights obviously. samurai sword breaks on contact with plate armor. viking are basically the same as knights except centuries behind in weapon and armor technology.

just lol at a game concept that cringey. same concept as pirates viking and knights, which was already silly as a mod for source engine

#32

Well, Vikings figured out the folding of steel to forge swords before samurai did, and learned how to navigate the ocean very well (not an easy task) before anyone else had much of an inkling, so they weren’t exactly stupid.

Plate mail had weaknesses just like anything else.

Most samurai actually carried spears into combat.

But, really, you can argue about equipment all day long and it won’t make a difference.

Any fight comes down to the fighters. There is no definitive answer to the question. They all had warriors capable of defeating someone from the other groups.

I’ve heard the question, “whi would win a duel between a rapier and a katana?” so many times. Again, it’s not about the sword, it’s about the swordsman.

#33

Okay then rephrase the question. Who would win if two opponents were equally skilled? Rapier or katana? :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:
I know what you’re saying.
When it comes to each of these troops though we are talking about the most skilled warriors from each group. And its just that- we can never know because we don’t know who in each group is the most elite and how skilled they are compared to each other.
What especially fools us is we don’t know EXACTLY how any of them fought.
Thus the only way we could possibly know is to compare the gear. In the end its just speculation.

#34

Knight would win other two for sure.

From many chronicles, during Third Crusade in Scandinavia, it always goes like this; there’s several hundred of viking-type infantry on pagan side, about as much men-at-arms on other side. And 5-10 Teutonic knights or knights templar. Chronicles go in big length describing how dangerous knights were and if vikings lost, it was due knights - even though their numbers can be counted on hand or two.

True, this was about skirmish battles - I’d imagine most dangerous thing about a knight was his high, well-bred horse. A single viking or samurai would just be trampled before they could even do anything. And if a samurai is mounted, tiny central Asian horses would still be no match. So a knight is something like a tank on modern battlefield, thanks to armor, strong hitting and mobility it’s nearly impossible to take unless attacked in numbers. But there’s also records how knight was dismounted and still fought numerous foes and couldn’t be brought down.

Those knights, even though few in numbers, usually gave Teutons a serious edge even when armies were matched in every other way.

Sure, most chronicles about crusades were written by monks and monks were clearly biased toward Christian side of the army. But few rare records from pagan side and actual outcome of the battles (and entire Crusades) tell basically same story.

Teutons roamed across Norther-Eastern Europe in much fewer numbers and subdued (and baptized) Chudes and Baltic Tribes who were more or less vikings by its classical sense (actually Chudes raided “true” vikings quite often, for example Estonians and Oeselians (an island in Estonia) raided Sweden and burned down the city of Sigtuna in 1187. Third crusade started just 2 years later.). Crusader armies were usually made out of few knights and bunch of low-lifes or just poor people who seeked redemption and riches in Holy Crusade. So exactly the knights were the true problem for otherwise very battle-hardened defenders. Make of it what you will.

© 2015 Warhorse Studios www.warhorsestudios.cz