Deadliest Warrior – Samurai vs Viking

Kind of related video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxYvwEnKRjA

My money's on the berzerker.

Great video. I was actually hoping that they would put the samurai up against a traditional medieval knight as that always seems to be the argument.

Ohh well, this will be good too!

Creating a meaningful computer model of a martial art is far more complex than actually mastering the art. I therefore feel comfortable stating that their “simulations” are a joke and a fraud.

Nevertheless, I look forward to watching the show!

Totally agree – it's such a guilty pleasure.

There is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8ZivVlZK90

But you're not going to thank me for it….

hahaha – yea I've seen that one before…unfortunately. at least they had fun, that's something I guess.

I'm a sucker too! Did you see that they measured Lidel's punch at over 1,000 foot pounds on that show?

It's hard to do generalizations 'cause on any given day one warrior could be another. I'll naturally vote for the Samurai but then the Viking was kind of a thug!

Hahaha, awesome! I will have to see if I can find somewhere online to stream this (no cable TV ). I think that the Samurai would win, regardless of the shield/armor of the Viking. Why? Because Samurai defeated the Okinawan people, who had tinbe, which were small shields, and they faught against people armored with steel and lacquered leather. It will be interesting to see how it turns out, though

Hey Noah – Spike TV has the last episode with the apache and gladiator posted in full here – http://www.spike.com/show/31082

There is a good possibility they will post the samurai one there too after it has aired. Keep an eye out for it!

Sucks me in too. I don't know if meaningful comparisons could be made. I vote for the naginata.

I'd vote for the Samurai; as far as I know, the vikings would generally fight while drunk on some potent stuff. Apparently it was their secret, get drunk enough to go into a killing frenzy then go a-pillaging.

I'll look into it.

Woohoo! victory for my boy the Samurai. The chainmail was a big problem as I suspected, but the loss by the naginata surprised me.

The biggest take away from the show I think was the amazing skill by the kyudo expert. He was remarkable with his accuracy and those shots to the eyes were outstanding.

Your thoughts?

I was pretty sore about the results i felt like my homeboy the viking would win in a battle but in a duel this would go to the samurai because skill is better than brute force and the samurai had much better metalworking most viking weapons were made of bog metal all in all great show

Yea I think intense analysis of the show is probably not a good idea (there are more holes than swiss cheese). But foregoing that, it was a fun watch!

Getting a little sick and tired of the anti-european sentiment on the show. Tell me agaiin about the hue apache empore? Or exactly how often the samurai actually fought against any other group of people and won? I'm taking nothing away from either the apache or the samurai–but really. Come on. Still 522 samurai to 478 viking is a little too close for my liking. Beyond that–each winner had a bow. Want to give the viking their yew bows?

I based my choice on history.The VIKING were basically torrorists they defeated no armies but poorly trained and equiped peasants and conscripts .Their aura even in their time was based on myth and terror.
The samurai defeated armies of well trained and equiped warriors at a rate (as one chinese historian put it) of 20 to 1.
Not only would the samurai defeat the vikings the massed phalanx of a greek or trojan armie would have also swept them from the field of combat…
The only way to decide this is to pit each group against all others one at a time on a round robin method until you get to the last two at the end.

This looks pretty cool. Though, like Fight Science, I think I will enjoy the research and data, but ultimately have a lot of issue with the conclusions that are drawn for the purpose of making it 'interesting for television'.

Based on historical evidence I give it to the samurai.The samurai defeated professional armies of well trained and equiped warriors the chinese koreans and mongols .It was the 2nd mongol invasion that got wiped out by the storm .According to one chinese historian their kill rate was 20 to 1.
The vikings were basically terrorists looters and raiders who fought ill trained villagers and forced conscripts who had little skill or training.

That being said the trojan and greek massed phalanx would have swept both from the feild of combat or massed archers of the welsh long bowmen as happened at AGINCOURT against heavily armored knights on horses.
The vikings had warrior spirit but they tried to fight as heroic nordic individuals they lacked the cohesivness and discipline of a true army.

Agreed Jesse – usually the stats are more relevant than the hollywood spin.

I was pretty sore about the results i felt like my homeboy the viking would win in a battle but in a duel this would go to the samurai because skill is better than brute force and the samurai had much better metalworking most viking weapons were made of bog metal all in all great show

vikings are just barbarian we know civilization… or art of fighting.. all they know is brute force.. and go berserk..during fighting… of course..samurai will win.. they are well trained and have high spirit..they are prepare to die..and they fight bravely..not stupidly.. like a big far vikings..

I was convinced of the results; I mean the Samurai is better trained and did possess superior weaponry, but the chain mail completely surprised me when it neutralized the Katana like it was nothing. I mean there is so much bullshit attached to Samurai’s and their weaponry that I was glad to see it didn’t win decisively. I believe if there was anything that I took away from this episode it is that a samurai wouldn’t stand a chance against a well trained knight in armor anymore then a viking would against a knight. This show is simply comparing different gear combination; and really reveals that it is better to have better armor and a mediocre weapon then a superior weapon and shittier armor.

But I think the issue with this show is how it removes particular warriors out of their element and has them fight in one on one duals. I mean, Samurai vs viking makes alot of sense, since neither one of them fought in tight formation but instead in one on one duals on the battlefield. But if placed against highly trained and organized armies such as the phalanx of Ancient Greece (or even the Hellenic phalanx utilized by Alexander the Great); or Roman Maniples, they would be utterly destroyed. A more interesting question isn’t “who is the deadliest warrior” it’s “who had the greatest army?”

Yes they actually did, defeating peasants and conscripts was what happened early on until the armies on the mainland began to mobilize to protect themselves and the viking still won.

As far as vikings fighting drunk, this is false there are many nordic poems and sucj that spell out the viking woe of allowing alcohol before battle and letting it slow your wits. To me it seems that they left out the most important factor. the warriors themselves. a 5’11″-6’0″ 200lb viking against a 5’3″-5’4″ 120lb samurai?? their weapons were not so superior as to make up for this lack in strength.

I don’t understand. I completely agree (and I’m very honestly biased seeing as I practice Iaido) that the samurai would win. Speed, timing, distancing are superior, but the entire mentality of budo no bugei is missed with the gentlemen in this film. It seemed like they were more concerned with razzing the viking guys and commenting on their lack of technique than doing what a true bugeisha would do.

Considering the vikings only wore chainmail on the upper body, you wouldn't need to be that big or strong to slice their legs off with a katana as a Samurai. All these Viking advocates seem to think that the Samurai is just going to stand still waiting for the axe to chop down on his neck. You really think that a skilled martial artist like the Samurai is going to do that? He's going to move to the side of the overhead cleave or parry it and once the axe misses, he'll just slash the viking's exposed neck or legs while the axe remains in the downward position.

Yea try not to analyze it – it's just kind of a larf.

what is a larf?

P.S. I'LL ANALYZE YOU!!!

P.P.S. That wasn't as affective as I thought it would be.

Not only that but anyone studying Iai knows that you don't wail wildly with a katana, you would simply move, quickly and smoothly use a push motion to sever a major artery behind the knee, or beneath the groin. I'm not expert, and Matt is spot on with the notion not to analyze this too deeply, but then again… PFfffft, he wrote the article that got us all fired up!!!

But the bigger advantage that the Japanese had in that particular invasion was guns. There was close range fighting to be sure, but the Japanese were able to completely overwhelm the Ryukyuans with their harquebus-based firearms.

when something is a larf that just means its sort of a hoot or spectacle.

P.S. whaa?

Remember battle field samurai trained in horsemanship, swimming in armor, and military arts. They were not the sophisticated martial artists of the Tokugawa years. They were battlefield warriors, not duelists.

A great show ,I was deinatelly convinced the Samurai will win

Any of you guys have any idea how to buy these episodes ?

I stand corrected =D

Have you checked itunes? That's usually a good stop for these sort of things.

[...] week I covered the Samurai vs Viking matchup, with Samurai coming out on top. This week I think we have an even harder challenge to [...]

vikings were the men among men…the civilization of vikings was based on gigantic battles on ships roped together in the middle of a fjord…that was their life…their gods were what influenced them…you could not go to Valhalla (heaven) unless you died a warriors death…those in Valhalla would fight against Loki and the armies of Hel (place you went if you didnt die a warriors death) at Ragnarok…also many armies used berserkers as well to bolster failing points in fronts and also to demoralize the enemy.

Like many civilizations, the scale of battles the Vikings fought evolved from rather petty raids in their early days to large-scale invasions in their latter. One important tool of Viking warfare was present throughout their period of raiding and warring (roughly 800 A.D. to 1100 A.D.), and that was the longboat.

The longboat was unique from other ships used by medival nations in that it had a shallow, sleek draft, could utilize wind with a sail or oarsmen, and was nimble for the open ocean and shallow rivers. In comparison, the Mediterreanean galleys at the time were not designed for the ocean (i.e. Atlantic) and were not as adaptable for shallow waters.

The advantage the Vikings had with the longboats are obvious: since they can range on ocean or river, few places in Europe were inaccessable to them; and the Vikings could launch a surprise attack on superior numbers then make a quick getaway in their ships before their enemies could organize any resistance. Furthermore, the seaworthiness of their vessels gave them unprecedented range; they were able to explore the North Atlantic to Iceland, Greenland, and even Newfoundland, attack Moorish cities in Spain, assault Constantinople in southeastern Europe, and subjugate the city of Kiev in the present-day Ukraine.

Vikings tactics varied, but generally the Viking armies grew more bold in their later years. The first raids–such as that first recorded on an English monastary–was nothing short of a massacre against peaceful monks or citizens. The Vikings simply surprised and killed unarmed villagers and looted their wealth. Soon, however, the Vikings were becoming more unified in their efforts thanks to notable leaders and making actual invasions–such as the seige of Paris in the mid-800's in which Charles the Bold eventually ceded the region we know as Normandy to the Viking intruders. The Vikings controlled most of British Isles for about a century, including Ireland, and they also established a kingdom that would control Sicily and southern Italy. The Viking's control of Kiev led that particular group to become known as the Rus, from which our word “Russian” comes from.

Viking warriors were so successful thanks to the terror and surprise by which they took their enemies, not to mention the fact that many were ruthless and said to have gone beserk in the heat of battle. The Vikings rarely employed cavalry, since horses did not travel well on the longboats. Swordsmen or axemen were the most common Viking unit, although archers were often employed as well.

Finally, Viking raids declined sharply in the 1000 and essentially ceased to exist after 1100, for several reasons. Perhaps most important of all, the Vikings readily accpeted Christianity in place of their dark paganism, and Christian teachings did not condone the ruthlessness practiced by earlier Viking warriors. Despite the raids, the common Viking targets (Ireland, England, France, Germany) were growing in power and no longer provided the easy pickings once enjoyed by the Norse. Furthermore, many Viking settlers were quickly assimilated into local populations: the Normans became French, Vikings in England became English, the Rus became Russian. And by the 11th century, Viking kings in Scandinavia were focused on unifing their kingdoms or consolidating their power from the tribal culture in place during most of the period of Viking invasions.

these comparisons are sort of dumb anyway. why not samurai/knight (two warrior elites), viking/spartan (two legendary martial cultures), apache/ninja (two stealth warriors) and pirate/gladiator (not really that comparable, but better than pirate/knight)

it's like they just drew names out of a hat. if things keep going the way they are, the next battle will be a F22 raptor VS muhammad ali. sure, the two are both good at what they do, but can you REALLY compare them?

That's a great question hulkster, I was wondering that myself. Especially the Samurai/Knight comparison because that is a common one amongst people who talk about this stuff.

i think the show tries to emphasize what it sees as speed vs power matchups. really though, they're just peddling stereotypes when they say things like that. there were fast vikings and slow samurai, and slow apache and fast gladiators.

pirate vs knight is going to be very interesting, being as pirates had guns, which sort of renders the knight (or really, anyone without a gun) pretty useless.

yea even if you are covered in armor, a bullet shot is going to knock you down (and deliver damage if its to the head). I'll be interested to see how they handle that. Pop back in next monday hulkster when I write up my next post covering that episode – i'd like to see your thoughts.

it won't just knock you down, it will penetrate your armor and kill you. this is the whole reason why armored knights died off in the first place, as knights (and everyone else) started getting slaughtered by gunpowder weapons. it's sort of foolish to spend a lifetime training and a fortune arming and armoring a guy who can be killed in 2 seconds by a peasant with a rifle. when guns are in the equation, mobility is king, because all you can do is run and hide.

heck of a reply redhead! thanks for the background.

Unfortunately, they gave all the melee weapon advantages to the viking. It seems the show only cares about the raw brute force damage, rather than the speed and accuracy of the weapon.

Well they did make armor that stopped shots because they knew that with guns they would get slaughtered so if they are using the type of armor that can stop the shot than the knight should be fine. Also plate armor is not as heavy as people think it is lighter than what US soldiers use in battle. Knights trained going up and down a horse while it was running to get use to the weight and make sure they had full movement.

No, if they had gone for brute force damage, the Viking would have won hands down. When you have a 6'2″ 200 pound Viking vs. a 5'5″ 120 pound Samurai, Viking obviously has a huge edge in brute force. When you take skill, speed and accuracy into account, it evens out the field. BTW Hulkster, you are so right, the matchups are rather screwed up because of the speed/power comparison.

P.S The Viking also has a 20 pound ax.

Samurai still would have owned them…they can shoot both eyes of a person

I like that people are actually taking an interest in different types of martial arts. I have been practicing kenjutsu for around 8 years now and it is good to see a more open mind on the subject. However this display is sort of pointless.

First, off it is just a test of weapons and armor not really skill. Now maybe a viking was skilled in every weapon through years of experience training. On the otherhand a samurai it depends which period? In the 1800s the end of the Towkugawa shogunate where the samurai is more of an aristocrat then a battle-hardened warrior. The 1300s when war was more like an honorable duels. Or the 1500-1600s where great warriors and Daimyo were forged such as Miyamoto Musashi, Sasaki Kojiro, Sanada Yukimura, Uesugi Kenshin, Takeda Shingen, Yagyu Jubei, Oda Nobunaga and many others. An age where samurai were born in battle and lived for strife.

Second, not all samurai were profficient in the yumi at that period or the naginata. Naginata were more of a specialized weapon, it was more prevailent the 1200s and 1300s why many were cut down into katana or wakizashi blades. It remained a Sohei or warrior monk weapon. A weapon that would have been better tested would have been the yari which is a spear. The yari were generally given to the ashigaru footsoldiers along with the introduction of firearms in the form of the arquebus brought from the dutch and portuguise missionaries. Which in turn changed the mentallity of warfare. Samurai were also a class as well as warrior in the Japanese caste system. Higher ranked samurai were allowed to ride horses where as lower ranked ones were foot soldiers. The one priviliage that samurai carried at this time was also the daisho or two swords the Katana and Wakizashi a symbol of status.

Third is the lack of emphasis on the sword. The sword is literally the soul of the samurai. A sword is not a weapon it is an extension of ones arm. When wielded you do not swing blindly you move at one with the blade in fluidic motion. Do not waste excess strength strike when your opponent shows weakness. That is just the very basic part of it. Not even the sheer power of the cut more the precise timing of the cut to strike down your opponent in one swing. Also where the cut was made and how it was made to decipher the skill of the swordsman. One major thing that lacks in this is the technique both in the video now and the world today. Most swordschools that date back to the time when the way of the sword was a lifestyle are gone. Each school taught a different style with different techniques and very different swordsmiths. Some techniques were more emphasized on stabbthing, others thrusting, some wide swings meant for the battlefield. Most of these schools lost in time with few remaining those which didn't perish during the sengoku jidai and others that didn't die out during the boshin war. Both of these had huge impacts on the samurai culture. Without battle, skill deminishes, true skill is gained through experience, those that survive and can learn from that expertise gain unequaled knowledge.

Last the one thing that I found a bit disturbing was the chainmail test. It was hanging rather then having support behind it or rather in it. No force on force resistence or anything to support the shock. With a katana, the major impact part of the blade is the top 1/3 of the blade by the tip. The rest is just to absorb the shock of impact. so if you cut and happen to hit towards the hilt or in the middle it could break much easier. The “samurai” towards the middle dueling are actually wearing chinese or korean armor not Japanese I don't remember the exact time. In the last fight between the viking would probably have had his shield out as the samurai drew his bow. The samurai would also have aimed for his legs as the viking charged at him no chance to ever throw his spears. Or if he did get shot and began to hurl spears it would have led to an opening in the vikings stance to get a clear shot while he grabbed his spears. The shield the viking had was also not broken might have worn down a bit why would he have thrown it aside esspecially as the “viking expert” said earlier when it was splintered it would have still worked unless his arm was broken which we cannot see. The switching of weapons makes no sense, there is hardly any skill involed in the actual combat it is just testing the power behind it with numerical values. I'm sure it is educational to some but not much more then entertainment and proves nothing. Each person or rather each warrior's skill is independent and requires personal experience, timing, technique, choice in weaponry and adaptation to terrain. Just as Kojiro Sasaki and Miyomoto Musashi dueled for the title of greatest swordsman. It comes down to strategy over strength and speed. How to use techniques with weapons not just swinging them blindly.

great comment tatsukage. I agree – the only true value for this show, besides entertainment, is the raw calculations of the power of each weapon. Everything else would be entirely based on circumstance and skill of the individual.

yes, and then they promptly made more powerful guns which could penetrate that armor.

pirates would have had access to these guns, and even better ones. they even had rifles, which would have allowed them to fire accurately from 200+ yards. even their pistols could easily penetrate armor at close range.

i like knights as much as the next guy, but seriously. any warrior from the middle ages, anywhere on earth, dies easy to a rifleman. look at what happened to the samurai, for example. they were slaughtered nearly to a man by farmers with rifles.

pirate vs knight is like comparing a sopwith camel to a F22 raptor. it's not even a contest.

they can shoot both eyes of a person who is standing still, with no shield, at close range.

there's no reason why a viking archer couldn't do the same, by the way. samurai didn't have any special powers that made them masters of bows, vikings had them and were quite proficient with them.

i really didn't like the stereotypes they threw out, either.

they portrayed all vikings as lumbering, dullwitted brutes incapable of tying his shoes, when in reality the norse were very clever people who made great advances in metalworking, sea navigation, shipbuilding, agriculture and founded or made prominent many of the great cities of europe. they were proficient traders and merchants, and they basically revolutionized warfare with their use of longships.

it's worth noting, as well, that the vikings had their own schools of thought in regards to fighting, and many of them were actually very well trained. one of their favorite tricks, for example, was to feint attack with the axe, then hook the opponent's legs and knock him down for a sure kill. they were also adept grapplers, with wrestling being used to settle disputes among men.

not that it really matters anyway, as the vikings were primarily raiders and their warfare was focused on getting in and getting out before their enemies could mobilize any real resistance. they generally fought in small, efficient bands that would be gone within a day, leaving little behind but burnt buildings. by the time the samurai would have even known an attack had come, the vikings would all be gone.

also their test of the shield was really stupid. while it was used offensively, it was akin to a boxer's jab. it wasn't supposed to kill people by itself, but rather set up further attacks. if we want to talk about skill, i think it would be very interesting to see how the samurai would cope with a shield, which would be quite foreign to him.

here's a video which demonstrates some of the grappling techniques which may have been used by vikings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvkPLvoH1vI&feat...

notice how similar many of them look to judo.

it's interesting, really, how we've all raised the eastern martial arts to veneration,yet largely forgotten all the western ones.

The shield was not a new concept to the Samurai just one not utilized by them. The mongolians that invaded in the 1200s carried shields since most of their infantry was of Korean origin. Also during Toyotomi Hideyoshi's campaign of conquering Japan after Oda Nobunaga's death he invaded Korea in the late 1500s. I am guessing it was considered dishonorable to wield one however I have seen a type of shield built in the gauntlet of some higher daimyo armor to deflect attacks. Also, in the movie Ten-to-Chi (Heaven and Earth) in english has ashigaru wielding shields in their kneeling volley positions that help mount the arquebus. I am not sure how historically accurate that is though. I really liked that you tube european grappling video though. It was german not nordic though. Probably used by the Visigoths rather than the Viking. It is really interesting seeing different cultural martial arts though esspecially for what they were originally used for, war. Against other combatants of various origin, not fighting a mirror like common sport martial arts of today. That really is degrading it from its' actual purpose and development.

yeah, but it's unlikely that any given samurai would have ever encountered a shield wielding foe before. i'm sure some did, but most of them did not, and their techniques reflect that.

by the way, all the germanic peoples (including the vikings) shared similar languages, nearly identical languages, and very similar customs and religions. the only thing that really differentiates the norse from say, the vandals, is their seagoing prowess.

it follows then, that their techniques for grappling would at least be similar to that of other germanic peoples.

True many probably had never encountered a shield before. It would have been interesting to watch. There were many other weapons of feudal Japan that could be used to various degrees such as Kusarigama. Bushido means the way of the warrior a path to follow esspecially in the arts of war. To be a true warrior would be to train in every weapon possible and prepare for any terrain or situation. Miyamoto Musashi had a great understanding of this as he developed the Niten-Ryu or two sword style. But more on mastering yourself and strategy. Using what you could in your surroundings. He dueled various great warriors with different weapon skills and styles finding a way to defeat each. Many times often fighting more then one opponent at a time. One thing that was not taken part is stances. A stance for defensive or offensive. Often in duels esspecially without a shield have no contact or much dodging and parrying. Only strike when you have an opportunity to. One thing I have learned is that you cannot watch you're opponents actions they can deceive you. You must watch his eyes for a brief moment you can gaze dirrectly into you're opponents soul and read his actions before he performs them. It is quite like chess one wrong move will cost you're life you must strategize steps ahead, know what your opponent will do before they do it and have a suitable counter.

[...] Tatsukage: True many probably had never encountered a shield before. It would have been interesting to watch. There… [...]

i think thats the one thing that everyone is forgetting is the fighting styles. the samurais meathod of drawing his sword lightning fast is his biggest advantage against the viking considering the fact that the viking fought by raising his weapon high above his head. all this does is leave your entire body including the weak points in the armor open to attack, and samurai have more then enough skill to exploit that opening before the viking can carry out his attack

I hate how gimmicky this show is. I watch it because it's interesting to see how much damage these weapons can do, but I put little stock into any verdict the computer gives.

The truth: A fight between a seasoned Viking warrior and a seasoned Samurai warrior would depend on circumstance. Modern day society has a very low regard for the VIkings, mainly because medieval Europe had such a low regard for them. They're thought of as big, dumb, lumering oafs, but reality is much different. Their advances in metalworking, craftmanship, and seafaring prove a much different tale. One thing many people don't know about the Viking culture is that honour was an extremely vital part of their society. They revered the honour of battle and the besting of one's foe every bit as much a the Samurai did, it just isn't as romanticized as much as the Samurai's code of honor is. Read some history books written by Scandinavian authors and you'll come away with a much different view of the Viking than you had originally.

As for who would win, like I said it depends on who's got better footing. Does someone catch a glare of the sun at the wrong time. Does the Samurai's katana catch in the shield for a split second? Does the Viking's axe deflect of the Samurai's helmet awkwardly? Battle between two master warriors is a test of luck as much as skill.

ummm…..yeah. vikings were actually very skilled fighters. on that show they failed to mention how quick the battle axe moved in combat. swords have nothing against chainmail (even the katana). a 7 foot naginata vs. a 5 foot axe….unless that samurai slices his neck…an axe coming on top of you will leave you immobilized. This show was done poorly. 5'3″ samurai vs. a 6'3″ viking oh and vikings purpose in battle was to die. One little samurai was not going to take out a viking without him taking 1 or 2 samurais down. Before you take down the vikings, do a little research.

the battle axe is very fast which isn't mentioned in this show. I'll agree and say the katana is much faster, but not that fast where a samurai will cut his neck or leg and leave the viking immobilized. and the only way to stop a viking is by cutting his head off….if he still has a pulse he still is a threat. both great warriors, but c'mon…the axe isn't always in the downward position. He'll surely cut off your samurais legs as well. Do some research in the viking battle axe and see how quick it is. if not…the history channel has something on viking warriors with that dude from the green baret.

vikings raised their weapons above their heads?

since when?

because i happen to be a viking re-enactor and i can tell you that a blow like that would only be used to kill a downed opponent, and that most viking styles were based off defense and trickery. one of their promonent sword and shield styles actually involved hiding the sword totally behind the shield in a low guard, then stabbing your opponent low (where he was usually unarmored) when he wasn't expecting it. then there's the whole seaborne raider thing, which would mean the viking would have been long gone before any samurai could have even been mustered.

vikings weren't dumb. they knew how to fight. it's just that vikings, not being christians, were demonized by most of europe, and since they had no paper, very few first hand accounts exist of the viking era.

most of what we get was either written a long time after the fact or comes from biased sources. the japanese didn't have this problem, and were also a quite isolated culture who retained their old traditions long after many other cultures were forced to abandon them.

it's not really a matter of the viking being dumb or untrained, but rather one of us not really knowing just how well trained he would have been.

out of spartan and ninja i think spartan will win becase spartan hase armer and he has a sheld and armered head to towe like a knight to use ninja is good becasehe jumps and thinks he can move faster bat the ninja will die if he jumps becase the spartan can stabe him while the ninja is up in the air.

Check out my video Viking vs Samurai : thrand's Aftermath on youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpu2NRg-HEg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_qFq7QfUjI

let me know what you think

I still think the Viking would win. Everyone thinks Samurai are highly advanced warriors from hollywood movies and a flawed view that Eastern martial arts are superior. The truth is ANY warrior class is extremely good at what they do. Deadly Warriors does biased and un-scientific comparisons using an arbitrarily coded video game as its “proof” that a particular warrior would win. A viking would be much stronger then a Samurai, has superior armor, and also has much more variety of weaponry. Granted, a Katana is the most advanced blade made by man, however an axe has superior weight and penetrative power over any sword. It boils down to the fact that axes are simple, and effective. It doesnt need to be steel folded a hundred times to be effective. It has much more mass then a blade concentrated in a smaller point. Furthermore, a viking wielding a shield would be able to repel most katana and arrow attacks. I have seen videos of Viking armor taking multiple arrows without any penetration of flesh. Viking armor was chain mail over padded armor. Arrows penetrate chain mail, however, an arrow slows down sufficiently enough that it does not go through the padded under-armor. The so-called “computer expert” in the Deadliest Warrior series is a total diletant. He drives me crazy with his douche-bag remarks and pretentious attitude. The program he uses to do these ridiculous “simulations” is a video game where he just arbitrarily assigns values to weapons in. Its hardly objective and a total sham.

I still think the Viking would win. Everyone thinks Samurai are highly advanced warriors from hollywood movies and a flawed view that Eastern martial arts are superior. The truth is ANY warrior class is extremely good at what they do. Deadly Warriors does biased and un-scientific comparisons using an arbitrarily coded video game as its “proof” that a particular warrior would win. A viking would be much stronger then a Samurai, has superior armor, and also has much more variety of weaponry. Granted, a Katana is the most advanced blade made by man, however an axe has superior weight and penetrative power over any sword. It boils down to the fact that axes are simple, and effective. It doesnt need to be steel folded a hundred times to be effective. It has much more mass then a blade concentrated in a smaller point. Furthermore, a viking wielding a shield would be able to repel most katana and arrow attacks. I have seen videos of Viking armor taking multiple arrows without any penetration of flesh. Viking armor was chain mail over padded armor. Arrows penetrate chain mail, however, an arrow slows down sufficiently enough that it does not go through the padded under-armor. The so-called “computer expert” in the Deadliest Warrior series is a total diletant. He drives me crazy with his douche-bag remarks and pretentious attitude. The program he uses to do these ridiculous “simulations” is a video game where he just arbitrarily assigns values to weapons in. Its hardly objective and a total sham.