Who would win in a war, assuming Britain and Japan swapped places: Feudal-era Japan or Viking Age Scandinavia?
Who would win in a war, assuming Britain and Japan swapped places: Feudal-era Japan or Viking Age Scandinavia?
Who would win in a war, assuming Britain and Japan swapped places: Feudal-era Japan or Viking Age Scandinavia?
>viking era
>X c.
>Feudal Japan
>all the way till XIX c.
You're a Black person
1000 AD for norse and Kamakura period for nips
>Vikings: Seafaring raiders
>Kamakura Japan: Can summon typhoons to destroy enemies
No looking good for the Norse so far. What else they got?
actual quality iron and booming population
When every single person thinks of a Samurai, they picture a warrior from either the Sengoku or Edo periods. They, knowingly or not, are picturing a soldier who shared the battlefield with a gun, and may have even owned a gun himself.
It literally does not matter that there were things called Samurai previous to then, any more than it matters that there are people living today who are technically samurai, who could shoot you with a sniper rifle.
Attempts to try to "even the odds" between Samurai and other historical soldiers hundreds of years removed from them are as pathetic now as they were when that episode of Deadliest Warrior came out, which was like the Holocaust (i.e. foundational myth) for HEMAgays.
As pathetic as starting a conversation about "Knights VS civil war infantry" but then insisting that the average Knight should be one of the knighted British officers of WW2.
>When every single person thinks of a Samurai, they picture a warrior from either the Sengoku or Edo periods.
(You) maybe, but not every one is as uncultured.
>any more than it matters that there are people living today who are technically samurai, who could shoot you with a sniper rifle.
No person in Japan is a samurai, especially not technically. A samurai is a retainer in a person-to-person relationship and this feudal was abolished and not re-instated (this time).
Mass replying wanker.
>vikings
>quality iron and booming population
are you moronic, or just baiting? no like literally, i've never seen a more wrong post in my life
vikings were specifically known for having a complete and utter lack of either of those, and while japan wasnt much better they atleast knew how to turn the terrible iron they had into good steel
Kamakura is the 13th century but whatever. The japanese fought back the Yuan dynasty, so I think vikings are very much in their league.
god that artist makes me fricking goon
For me, it's Rapier.
>the only reason I'm drawing her is the butt
Absolutely based artist.
Who is the artist?
centurii chan
Must touch tushy
Spank
You really should kys though.
What game are these health bars supposed to be from?
I was aware of the "Show Me A Good Time, Jack!" reference. But the health bars here look completely different. Like something from an Assasins Creed game here, or something. I wanted to figure out exactly what.
I thought it was from Sekiro, but I'm not sure.
FEIGN FEIGN FIEGN GET PARRIED GET PARRIED GET PARRIED
why would i thrust into her chest, i'd obviously thrust into her from down below
Post more cute weapons toons
heres a weapon troon
I asked for weapons TOONS, anon
range traps are welcome as well though
>crossplay
That's a dude, man.
I'm straight and whatever makes my dick hard is a woman homosexual.
zigger logic
>muh reach
>no control authority
>literally everything but small swords parry you
>not actually that much faster than real swords
>A stupid long in most effective form to the point where nobody bothers to carry it
>literally zero martial impact
>bendy and not actually good at stabbing
Rapiers cucked to sabers (which a katana basically is) and broadswords in period. Your swordfu is shit. Shiiiiiiiiiiiiit.
Katanas are not sabers. A Katana is more like an axe than a saber, in terms of weight distribution. They require two hands to control.
Lol. Gr8 b8 m8 I r8 8/8.
You need to watch more Shadiversity videos if you don't understand. An actually decent katana would be a two handed falchion. It has a blade that isn't stupidly heavy, uses spring steel, has a pommel and a cross guard.
>Shadiversity
That fat larper isn't an authority on anything. He's not a historian or a fencer and can't fight for shit.
It amazes me to this day that people keep bringing up that fat homosexual as if he were some sort of authority.
I know you're baiting, but the katana is a genuinely mediocre sword.
>needs to be used with two hands for most effective control
>prone to bending and cracking
>bad or nonexistent (!) hand protection
A samurai was trained to use his bow, his spear, and even to throw rocks before falling back on his sword. 'Muh katana' was a modern myth invented by what had largely become a class of bureaucrats in an attempt to hold onto their martial dignity. Meanwhile a rapier even in its most tame form was a weapon used by men who regularly killed each other, and it was exceedingly good at that. The 'useless in war' thing is nonsense, and more cut-capable patterns (referred to as 'side swords' interchangeably) were on the battlefield for at least a couple of centuries, indeed alongside more thrust-centric designs that came later. Was the rapier good against armor? No, no sword was. Was it easy to break? No, but tip destruction was more problematic when it did happen. Were they easy to deflect? The blade was lighter towards the end, so yes-ish, but the point of balance being towards the hand gives the user more ability to re-engage. It also affords him quicker and more precise point control.
None of this is to slander sabers seen in Europe, which were excellent swords that proliferated for good reason.
>Bad or nonexistent (!) hand protection
Actually it's quite well comparable to simple cross guard of euro sword. Cross guard protece better in the direction of guard by leaves opening around flat of the sword, it's extremely easy to get you thumb whacked when you bought with medieval euro swords, hardshell gloves are mandatory for HEMA or you WILL get broken fingers.
And another note, for some reason modern replicas prefer smallest katana handguards possible. I am not saying such small guards didn't exist but replicas prefer size on smallest side of the spectrum. If you check antique katanas from museums they often have larger guards.
Anyway simple guards are not enough protection, and complex hilts have their own problems (of the weight and weight distribution).
Rest is the bollocks.
>Katana is more like an axe than a saber
There are too much sabers forms. 19th century euro sabers is not the only one. Far away CoG one handed sabers were widely used by middle east: kilij, shamshir
>t. George Silver
Rapiers cucked to sabers simply because those became the symbol of nobility. As a dueling weapon the rapier and knife is going to cuck a saver any day of the week unless the saber-wielder has a massive edge in skill. It doesn’t matter if the sword is bendy if you are getting fricking poked by it dude, go take a long piece of bendy metal and have someone jam it in your chest and tell me how much you’re going to want to let that happen.
>Rapiers cucked to sabers simply because those became the symbol of nobility
Rapiers cucked to sabers because duelboners weren't enough to deal with the hassle of carrying 4 feet of steel everywhere and bumping into every single thing possible.
>dueling weapon
Displaced by small swords in genteel circles because you could carry a small sword and go about your life like normal. People carrying rapiers were as bizarre and dysfunctional as the morons you see walking around with ARs in Walmart.
Also, dueling is an agreed upon combat carried out under equal terms. There isn't going to be a situation where a rapier duels a saber or broadsword. You're jerking off over a fiction that wouldn't happen.
>muh reeeeach
Clearly didn't fricking matter as rapiers jobbed to literally every other weapon. Out reached by pikes and pistols, out cut by literally everything. Impractical to carry and yet not able to overcome it's shortcomings. It's a bad compromise of a tool. Like a Nissan Murano convertible of swords, just fricking useless in every situation.
>Nissan Murano convertible
What the frick? I mean, that is a good analogy, but why the hell was such a car ever made?
Design by committee is a hell of a drug
>Out reached by pikes and pistols, out cut by literally everything
This is such a moronic comparison that apples to oranges doesn't cut it. Was your mom fricked by a rapierist or something?
Rapiers are good at thrusting, and piercing holes and openings.
and not actually good at stabbing
That is modern repros because lazy also safety (they make blunt rapiers from the same blades and stiff blades still hurt like hell even with blunt safety tip).
Real rapiers are stiff and excellent at stabbing. Your pic is of a smallsword.
And even this is wrong as the smallsword, because of the triangular blade geometry, is extremely stiff and excellent at stabbing as well.
Shut the frick up, Silver.
Really? I fricking hate this guy with a passion.
There's just something so unaesthetic about their style.
But it's like 90% lesbian cheesecake.
and it's just a that phoning it in mentality coupled with 100% phoning it in western weeb stylisation that just sets my teeth on edge. Parasitic vapor.
Why does this guy in particular set me off? No idea. He's hardly alone.
I think you're just immensely autistic. But be at ease, you're among equals.
Reminder that over eighty percent of Lesbians claim their partner abuses them, at some point, and over ninety percent of lesbians start having sex with men exclusively within a decade of "coming out".
Women are for pregnancy.
>Reminder that over eighty percent of Lesbians claim their partner abuses them, at some point, and over ninety percent of lesbians start having sex with men exclusively within a decade of "coming out".
Bullshit.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_same-sex_relationships
youre right its 40% which is only double the straights
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_same-sex_relationships
>In contrast, 35% of heterosexual women reported having been victim of intimate partner violence, with 98.7% of them reporting male perpetrators exclusively.
a 5% difference doesn't seem that significant.
nice cherrypicked data
Projecting much? It's from the same page as
Lesbians even have a slur for all the lesbians who come out then go back to men within a few years, "lugs"
Lesbian until Graduation.
He's wrong, it's "only" 50% lmao
Lesbianism is not yuri
>Lesbianism isn't fictional lesbianism
Anon I....
2d isn't 3d
There is no such thing as a lesbian all women are bisexual and are too fat and ugly or femcel to get a man. The classic dyke is also a land whale with a shitty personality and a former school bully, They are called panzers in Germany by the way,
>guy
centurii-chan is female
>female
Congrats, you can read
I know this may be hard to believe but, that's what we used to call birthing persons.
there is no proof of that
I like this one. (have a borderline sexual obsession with plate and torn surcoats)
>I like this one. (have a borderline sexual obsession with plate and torn surcoats)
Based plate lover
I also share the feelings of women in full plate being sexier.
All characters are cooler when they have face-covering helmets as well.
Damnit...
Doing it with a lady while shes still in full plate...
"Remember ladies, the clothes come off the helmet stays on"
Need a source for all them
I just find the 'uwu cute girls but history autism' and 'the joke is lesbians' to get tiresome. It's like oglaf where you can only make the horniness is your schtick joke for so long. Even Baalbuddy goes off the reservation and does something other than 'elf horny teehee'
This may just be my own personal autism but I find myself disliking every artist who ends up making "haha isn't le cute girl with le sword cute" and then devolving into odd lesbian shit. But the subject matter is also iffy. It's fine if the girl IS the gun, or IS the ship, but genderbending a soldier or landsknecht just comes out as deeply uncreative and wrong. I'm sure I'm the only moron who feels this though.
He doesn’t make enough lewd stuff
Unless there’s a stash I’m unaware of
Listen to this....
the jjapanese due to their tradition of horse archery, the vikings not being used to fighting as cavalerie and not bringing their own war horses but scrounging up wha ever horses they could to be mounted infantry for raiding.
Seahorse archers Vs. Longlandship. Who will emerge victorious?
Vikings vs horse archers is baby seals clubbing.
Vikings against anyone but unarmed monks is an unfair matchup
>According to Snorri Sturluson, before the battle a single man rode up alone to Harald Hardrada and Tostig Godwinson. He gave no name, but spoke to Tostig, offering the return of his earldom if he would turn against Hardrada. Tostig asked what his brother Harold would be willing to give Hardrada for his trouble. The rider replied "Seven feet of English ground, as he is taller than other men". Then he rode back to the Saxon host. Hardrada was impressed by the rider's boldness, and asked Tostig who he was. Tostig replied that the rider was Harold Godwinson himself
>After a bloody battle, both Hardrada and Tostig, along with most of the Norwegians, were killed
>So many died in an area so small that the field was said to have been still whitened with bleached bones 50 years after the battle
>Tostig Godwinson
>Harold Godwinson
Were they brothers?
yes. Tostig got his lands revoked for a rebellion so he moved to Norway and helped Harald Hardrader invade England.
You're bringing up a battle that is known for the vikings being caught unprepared and without the armor as an example, and where a few weeks later England was conquered by Norman vikings? You really are a special kind of moron.
>Norman vikings
Lmao
The Normans of the 11th century were even further culturally, linguistically and military tactics wise from Scandis than the Anglo-Saxons.
Normans at that point didn't have anything to do with vikings anymore. They had become culturally French, married with the French and and their military fought using French tactics.
They were defeated though? The siege of Paris was a devastating defeat for the vikings (~30k vs 200). The Franks had no naval presence, after defeating the Normans on land they were allowed to stay in exchange for defending the French coastline against further raids since the Franks didn't know what ships were.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Paris_(845)
>Large raids took place in Antwerp and Noirmoutier in 836, in Rouen (on the Seine) in 841 and in Quentovic and Nantes in 842
>Vikings returned again and again in the 860s and secured loot or ransom but, in a turning point for the history of France, the city's walls held against the Vikings' greatest attacking force in the siege of Paris (885–86)
>again and again in the 60s
imagine living in paris and getting raped every year
>imagine living in paris and getting raped every year
nvm that's actually normal today too LOL
>lose 100 to 1 because they couldn't handle some spicy walls manned by people who weren't unarmed monks
Great sailors and raiders, sure. But warriors? Hmm.
>most vikings fricked off to raid easier targets
>Weakened by marching during the winter, Henry's soldiers made only one abortive attack in February before retreating.
>paid the vikings 700 pounds of silver to frick off to raid burgundy instead
it wasnt much of a battle tbh.
Did you get mindraped by the D&C shit on /misc/?
Vikings were so bad at fighting that England had four different Danish kings, none of which were militarily deposed, with the throne returning to English rule by passing to the last guy's English cousin.
so bad that they defeated the french, sieged paris, raided it or were given tribute multiple times.
>he hasn't heard of the time when vikings went on a crusade
Norwegian Crusade
>Can't raid Christians anymore
>Muslims exist
>Time to go on a vik... eh... crusade!
>First stop England, no raiding. Promise!
>Then Spain. All good.
>jk, fight breaks out. say goodbye to your loot and supplies
>Pass Gibraltar
>frick up the Saracen slaver havens on the Balearic Islands so hard that pirate raids on southern France cease for a few years.
>"Sorry, caliph, no white girls for your harem now"
>Hang out with distant cousin Normans in Sicily for a while
>Make it to Holy Land
>Help King of Jerusalem conquer Sidon
>Heads to Miklagard to see Byzantine Emperor
>Give him ships and men for the Varangian Guard
>Make it back to Norway through the lands of the Kievan Rus, who are also distant cousins
Based Sigurd the Crusader.
>Based Sigurd the Crusader
i found my night time read. thanks anon
asians suck at warfare and would lose in any matchup
Who won the Sengoku Jidai then? Both sides were asian.
Nobunaga Oda because he was a westaboo.
>wins sengoku jidai
>by dying before it ended
Yes. Think of it like a relay race. Oda was the MVP of the 'warring' part of the warring states period. The other two picked up where he left off, finishing the unification.
Too bad he fricked his retainers kids and was a weirdo schizo later in his life otherwise he wouldve been the most based yellow Black person of all time. Although tbh he wouldnt have whacked that homosexual imagawa and set up his career if he hadnt isolated his fathers retainers by being a fruitloop of owari
>he fricked his retainers kids
Did he? I didn't know that.
>and was a weirdo schizo later in his life
The guy that responded to Takeda Shingen titling himself "Saintly Defender of Buddhism" or w/e by calling himself the devil? Yeah, that one doesn't surprise me. Frick Mt. Hiei btw that shit was deserved.
So a dickyfiend that would stand against even God. It really is just like one of my Japanese animes innit. Plus he's attributed with firearms becoming more prominent on Japanese battlefields during that period.
>would stand against even God
Didn't Nobunaga openly tip his fedora towards religion? I wouldn't really call it standing against God if he doesn't even believe in one.
>It really is just like one of my Japanese animes innit
Those writers had to get the idea from somewhere, after all.
centurii-chan
https://twitter.com/CenturiiC
Is that why America knew they couldn't fight them on land?
Except the countless times western powers did fight Asians on land and subjugated them for centuries you fricking moron
he said america, anon, not "western powers"
>boxer rebellion, japan and korea
>boxer rebellion
primarily by european powers, not the usa
>japan
tried fighting them on islands, subsequently decided it wasn't worth it
>korea
lost the war
Good to know you are moronic. So what younare saying is no Americans fought on any islands in the Pacific? They simply bombarded them to submission?
>America lost Korea
Lol. Lmao even
Can you read? Americans did fight in islands in the Pacific and this experience made them realize they could NOT fight the Japs in large scale land battles without suffering massive losses. That is the whole point of
>Lol. Lmao even
nu-/k/ope
The frick is this moronic take? No shit they couldn’t stage massive amphibious assaults and invade Honshuu without suffering many losses, no one could. They nuked them into submission but if they didn’t have nukes they would have bombed them conventionally and invaded and they would have won dumbass
>duhhhhh but a lot of Americans would have died
And ten times as many Japanese would have died moron. Derp derp they used nukes to win even harder, asia so stronk they literally can’t lose even when they’re nuked
>subsequently decided it wasn't worth it
wut
>primarily by european powers, not the usa
USA did send forces and those forces saw combat. Everything else is immaterial. Granted, most of those forces were Dan Daly but that was all the US needed to send.
>tried fighting them on islands, subsequently decided it wasn't worth it
Actually, we basically took all the islands right up to the Japanese home island. We got pretty good at capturing islands what with the Iowa Class BBs.
>lost the war
Achieved our stated objective. What's more, South Korea has more territory than when the war begun.
Those islands smelled like dead japs, best to move on, the big island smelled like neet loosers, nuke it some more
I'm not sure, but Britain would win by virtue of having access to tea centuries earlier
as well as getting to experience nice weather for the first time and not having to deal with Vikings
at least until they find out about tropical typhoons and Mongols
>nice weather
>Japan
I know Bong weather sucks but so does Japan just in different ways
For as much as they prattle on about honor. The Japanese really do stab each other in the back and sneak attack other nations a lot.
Oh absolutely. Samurai are associated with honor and bushido code, and are some of the backstabbingest, peasant abusingest motherfrickers imaginable. Meanwhile notable ninja were relatively loyal and low key. Go figure.
Then over yonder you have knights who are romanticized as chivalrous and pious when a lot of them became self employed highway robbers as soon as they were out of wars to wage and villages to chevauchée.
I'm glad both existed because we got fine literature out of it.
You've got it the wrong way around. Bushido as we understand it exists, because of literature. It's mostly fiction.
Most of our image of "honorabru samurai" comes from mostly made-up bullshit by guys living in the early seventeen-hundreds and after. The Hagakure in this case, was written something like seventy years after one of the last attempts by actual samurai to reassert their position. At his time, Samurai were just bureaucrat-nobles larping as warriors. Yamamoto Tsunetomo himself wasn't even a samurai, he had no combat experience and worked as a scribe. It's like taking the pulp fiction written by some early Millennial, waxing poetic "the honorable German officers" of World War Two, and taking that as facts.
I quote:
>Written late in the author's life, the book also reflects his nostalgia for a world that had disappeared before his birth.[4][5]
The fact some officers in the pacific war went and killed themselves in pointless sword-charges with their Wawa-tier bulk-produce swords is all the more amusing, when you consider they were high on the capeshit of their age.
>bushido was mostly fiction
Lmao this is like hearing someone say that the feudal system didn’t actually exist, no matter how fricking stupid something is there’s someone out there that will believe it just to be different from everyone else
>Bushido as we understand it
>Most of our image of
>The fact some officers in the pacific war went and killed themselves in pointless sword-charges with their Wawa-tier bulk-produce swords is all the more amusing, when you consider they were high on the capeshit of their age.
That's not nearly as amusing as the fact they were members of the organization who literally drove the Samurai to extinction in contemporary memory.
>and are some of the backstabbingest, peasant abusingest motherfrickers imaginable.
Based
Success breeds jealousy
Vikings were Pirates and Raiders. They'll avoid an open battle and would totally ambush a Samurai and his party from the bushes. They'll go into battle when they have the numbers. So what would happen is Viking raiding parties going up rivers, hitting all the soft targets, and being sneaky fricks until they know they'll get the kill. Then leave.
>Ninjas hiding in the bushes waiting for the Vikings to get in the bush.
Now this is a real fight I want to see. Vikings sneaking up on a village for only everyone in the village to start charging their "hidden" spot.
>Vikings vs Ninjas
Honestly it seems kinda boring. Vikings come up to an empty village in the mountains, decide to spend the night, and get murdered in their sleep.
Most of the stuff about honor and chivalry was written during extended periods of peacetime when the government was more afraid of its own enforcers than any outside invader. It's really no different from modern armies having diversity training.
Ninja was a job title, most ninja were samurai. The notable ninja clans were just samurai families/regions who were known for training people to do ninja work.
That's all countries though
The greatest honor of all is victory.
Who would cum and who would fart if cumming and farding swapped places? Peeper or pooper?
pooper, duh
next question
Just quick wikipedia-ing
>European population by country or region in millions, years 1000
>Sweden: 0.4
>Norway: 0.2
>Denmark: 0.5
>(England and Wales: 1.6)
>Estimated population of Japan before Edo period.
>Year 1000
>4,500,000-7,000,000
So based on this, I would assume it go very, very badly for Scandinavia.
this
you people have no idea how small the population is in northern europe at that time
I don't know what the flying frick OP is trying to say by mentioning Great Britain. Swapped places? The frick do you mean? Aren't you talking about Viking vs samurai? What does the UK have to do with that?
Regardless, The vikings should technically win by virtue of being 6ft tall and having shields while the samurai are like 4ft and only have the one katana.
>Regardless, The vikings should technically win by virtue of being 6ft tall and having shields while the samurai are like 4ft and only have the one-BANG
didn't vikings come >700 years before the debut of guns in japan?
Not THAT far away but yes, far. However, when people refer to "feudal" japan they're generally thinking of the later sengoku era, a period in which Japan got a FRICKLOAD of guns
Is he fighting a white guy dressed as an injun?
There have been quite a few "samurai in the wild west" movies owing to the very similar themes of samurai and western cinema, so yes he's probably figting an Injun played by a white a dude because of racism and not wanting to deal with Chief big-drinkums alcoholism.
I looked up the movie, and it's a spaghetti western. I figured that by the 70s, they were no longer casting white guys as injuns, aside from the occasional swarthy Italian who could actually pull it off.
Then again, Charles Bronson was meant to be an injun in Once Upon a Time in the West, as shown by the flashback at the end of the movie, and while he did have that particular swarthy look to him, the guy's ancestors were all from eastern Europe.
there where common cases where plains tribes would kidnap children at just the right age to indoctrinate when they would have less solid loyalty to their own people, but old enough to be expected to walk on their own, there where fewer pure Indians during the wild west than you think, with Geronimo having a white grandma. mongols had a similar thing with other steppe people, kids smaller than a wagon wheel spoke where spared and mongolised.
They couldn't find a sober indian.
>The vikings should technically win by virtue of being 6ft tall and having shields while the samurai are like 4ft and only have the one katana
swarthy manlets btfo tall germanics for 500 years straight
'cept they didn't
The Vikings invaded Britain, and were eventually kicked back out centuries later, but what if it was filled with japs?
>while the samurai are like 4ft and only have the one katana.
Katanas are just a sidearm though. Classic samurai kit is considered to be a horse archer.
>the samurai are like 4ft and only have the one katana.
As if, most of the samurai were barely more than 3ft (peasants were slightly above 2ft themselves) and only had one katana for every two samurai, one horse for ten or alternatively a brace of coconuts for the poorer samurai.
most scandinavians were lanky subhumans that kept getting mistaken for ghosts or skeletons because they practice involuntary starvation
>Feudal Japan lasted from the years 1185 AD to 1603 AD
Im gonna need a specific period champ, because in the late 1500s(the most famous part of "feudal japan") they had a FRICKTON of guns and manpower
>heh, our shieldwall is impenetrable, nothing can get pas-ACK
It would be like a battle between two morons.
Samurai fighting prowess is extremely overrated and mythologized, and most people's knowledge of it is based on completely inaccurate media deceptions.
Samurai warfare was not like Total War Shogun II will have you believe, with well-formed regiments and neat formations. Instead it was a highly informal, sometimes even borderline individualized affair one step above tribal warfare, and contrary to popular belief samurai were poorly trained (or not all really, until the very end of the Sengoku period) in things like tactics, drills, battlefield discipline, etc.
Vikings were a bunch of raider-tier Black folk who got absolutely destroyed in every single battle they ever fought against an actual standing army.
Samurai would probably take the edge just because they had literal guns, but in terms of tactics and strategy both parties would probably be comparable.
>win in a war
Japan
They had halberds, flanks of arrows, shield walls, oil bombs and horses. Vikings were good only good at raiding villages in groups of 500 or less then running before the knights could be gathered.
Easily the Scandis
Depends on the era. Late Sengoku Samurai would have guns, after all.
11th Century Samurai and Vikings would be...interesting. Samurai of that era were big into horse archery while Vikings were into shield walls. Vikings did have a strong archery tradition but you needed two hands for a bow and one hand for a shield. A viking could shoot back or defend themselves while the Samurai was an armored moving target. On the flip side, a viking shield wall is a pretty tough nut to crack.
I think it'll come down to how disciplined the Vikings are. If they are provoked into a charge the samurai will pick them off one by one. If the shieldwall holds untill the Samurai run out of arrows then it's a stalemate unless the Samurai decide to charge. In which case it would be a Viking victory.
Samurai would win 2 out of every 3 battles.
Britain & Japan swapped places....
You'd get the Brits wielding Chinese inspired weaponry.... Those of which would be of lower quality, because good iron was scarce.
Then the Japanese using Viking era weaponry because their iron is of better quality and easier to find.
get rotated nerd
Doing that in real life is a great way to dislocate your shoulder
Those shields aren't heavy....
5-10kg isn't light by any stretch of the imagination.
For context, a longsword is about 1 to 1.5 kg.
And you're saying that 11.5kg being twisted by a slight arm movement is enough to dislocate my shoulder? I've done it before and I was perfectly fine.
Try quickly rotating your forearm 180 degrees a few times with wrist weights and tell me how you feel
Did you one better with a 25lb dumbbell and felt nothing. It's not hard.
I'll bear that in mind in my next irl sword battle, nerd
The Norse have shields. Samurai on horseback could shoot as many arrows as they want, the Norse shields will just catch them all. As for riding round the Norsemen, the latter also have bows with which they'll happily shoot the Samurai.
The problem is that the Samurai are both moving targets and well armored. The Vikings can hold out but you're asking some of the fiercest and most aggressive non-professional warriors in history to NOT charge the enemy.
Damn, Rice cultivation OP. pls nerf.
>Damn, Rice cultivation OP. pls nerf.
>the entirety of Japan starves in a year as their rice won't grow so far up North
>England starves to death as their entire wheat crop is destroyed by the yearly typhoons.
>the entirety of the rest of the world wins
You do realize that this paves the way for French and Chinese domination, right?
the chinks were kept in check by their own moronation, not by the japs in any means.
Rather the French than the Brits.
the only "people" who thing the frogs were bad are the brits , the krauts, browns or one of their bastard offspring.
Damn why didn't the rest of the world come up with the idea to use shields against horse archers? I guess horse archers conquered half the earth and were highly sought after for thousands of years just because everyone was dumb
I read somewhere this one Asian guy exploited Horse Archers and conquered a good chunk of modern-day Russia, China, Korea, southeast Asia, Persia, India, the Middle East and eastern Europe
>eastern Europe
He got rekt there
This is correct, this is also true for the ashigaru using spears as well. Shields can easily stop these spears, so the viking would be literally untouchable and then cut the samurai in half like Thorkell in Vinland Saga trust me bro
Wouldn't the samurai just use the heavy spiked bat for the shield?
Honestly, he'd use the wings of his spear to slip around it.
It was really an anecdotal weapons. Most of warfare was done with spear, glaives and bows (and rocks). The tetsubo/kanabo really wasn't such a big thing and is hardly referenced for that matter.
The japs actually got attacked by Jurchen raiders, ie the asian equivalent of Vikings c. 1000AD and got rekt
Most Vikings weren't armed worth more than cloth maybe some leather if lucky and a spear drafted from villages and hamlets the heavily armored gigachads you guys are thinking of are Hirdmen the chieftain or kings personal guard, actual trained warriors
But i guess the same could be said about Japan and Samurais
Well, rather than being just the kings body guard, samurai formed an entire caste.
The samurai also came like 600 years later.
Samurai emerged in the late Heian period - roughly contemporary to the European early middle ages, so they overlap slightly with Vikings.
>period of asians developing martial arts
>called the Heiyah! period
Heian means something like "relaxed peace". Its hallmarks were the very high development of poetry, which was so prestigious it was used as currency. Literature was very developped as well, especially female one, major development in Buddhism.
There was not much in terms of cohesive martial arts, you'd have to wait for about 250 years or so. The most notable martial art would have been horse archery and archery in general.
And then of course it's notable for the utterly major frick-ups of the traditional Fujiwara nobility who got crushed so hard by the bushi caste they used to hide behind, that they never truly recover from it and where mostly secluded into making pretty tanka and waka poem in Kyoto for the rest of the history.
Regardless, most troops were levies in both countries at this time.
Not really, in the Heian era (700 - 1200 AD) and early kamakura, the samurai armies were centered around the bushidan, which was a bunch of samurai put together by familial and feudal ties. These were warriors through and through, not levies but a proper warrior caste. They were quite small armies though. Only after the mongol invasions, in the 14th century, do you really see ashigaru and overall "peasant" soldiers raised for campaigns beginning to appear.
>trained warriors
Slightly off topic, but given that pretty much every man was expected to be able to fight and defend his family and community, even levied irregulars in 11th century Europe would probably have been pretty well trained and possibly more experienced in real fighting than the aristocrats. Goes to show value of equipment and full time training that military aristocracies consistently won out in a world where almost everyone was a part time warrior.
>even levied irregulars in 11th century Europe would probably have been pretty well trained and possibly more experienced in real fighting than the aristocrats
>Goes to show value of equipment and full time training that military aristocracies consistently won out in a world where almost everyone was a part time warrior.
Or maybe... the "aristocrats" of the 11th century really were very well trained and experienced. It's not like it was a peaceful and unadventurous century, "nobles" were fighting all the time in some grand adventure in southern Italy and Spain. The Barons Crusades all had very experienced and hardcore leaders, hence why it succeeded for a start. The image of the non-fighting noble is really something for the 18th or 19th century, not so much beforehand.
Why put it in quotations? These people were the actual definition of aristocrats and nobles.
Yes and no, because some were from old lineages while others were upstarts normans and such. But for no real reasons...
The term aristocrat used nowadays often produce an image that is really far away from someone like Roger de Hauteville or Raymond de Toulouse who were really hard people so to speak. And then, even the prancy, powdered, "effeminate" nobles of the modern period could be extremely experienced and adept at violence, pic related.
Aristocrat just means a peer (or any kind of feudal lord) or someone related to a peer. Doesn't matter if they are a battle hardened and illiterate 11th century norman Baron or an effete 19th century English courtesy lord and aesthete who spends all day drinking laudanum and writing prose poetry while living in exile in Florence (dodging Sodom charges) "married" to a 16 year old Assyrian dancing boy he bought in Ottoman Palestine.
Aristos would fight on campaign. Average Joe fought bandits and enemy raiders whenever the need arose. Whenever Lord fancyton fought, so did Joe, but Joe sometimes fought when fancyton was at home dictating a letter in Latin to marry his sister off to the third cousin of Duke wealthyshire. Point is, levies were actually probably pretty tough.
>Point is, levies were actually probably pretty tough.
Certainly, as said in the other post, the idea of an ineffectual pampered noble is as bad as the malnourished clumsy peasant. The disposition for violent behaviour was certainly very widely distributed back then and those peasants who went to fight probably weren't the less ill-disposed of their ranks.
>would probably have been pretty well trained and possibly more experienced in real fighting than the aristocrats. Goes to show value of equipment and full time training that military aristocracies consistently won out
Contradicting yourself there lol
They also mostly attacked undefended settlements, that was kind of the point. Party of the reason the heathan army had such an easy time taking over was that English kings didn't have the wealth to support an army after so much raiding and ransoming.
sexo
Why does anyone still pretend viking shieldwalls were some amazing force of destruction when they were only used against other nord raiders and died off as soon as Christendom took over and they adopted much more typical European spear/bow/gun/cavalry warfare?
Sweden's greatest conquests and victories were all done using pretty much modern (for the time) methods, and well after the viking age.
Bro, what the frick?
No one thinks Scandis used longships and dane axes until the 17th century.
On the one hand, historically the Japanese couldn't figure out how to make quality steel on the same level as what the Romans were using during the late Republic until the 20th century, but on the other hand the Vikings couldn't be relied upon to win a battle against peasants armed with pitchforks and torches, so it's hard to say whose incompetence trumps the other's.
i'm not a historian but samurai seemed to fight in a coordinated fashion while vikings were barbaric and as always the better trained army always wins so i'd say samurai.
Rome lost to barbarians. And the Romans, where are they now?
Newark
BTW, were Japanese traditionally midgets? Where would they rank in terms of stature vs medieval peasants of Europe?
Reminder.
The left were real though and the reason they dressed that way was to tell all the other Vikings not to get close while they roided out.
It's like saying that the Marines are just a Hollywood invention because they're less "sensible" than army infantry.
This is complete and total horseshit, nice headcanon though
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserker
Blind contrarianism has rotted your critical thinking skills.
Everyone knows berserkers existed moron, nothing about them lends to the picture you originally replied to. It’s pure fantasy.
>its pure fantasy
not according to historical depictions
this comic is fricking moronic
do they not teach libshits about the stamford bridge?
Kamakura japan wins in the art department hands down.
>win a war
Forget war, think about the opportunities for TRADE!
>vikings can forge high quality steel
>japanese can make silk and paper and also have a HUGE population of farmers and skilled laborers
It's entirely possible that they'd actually ally with each other and invade france
>the only two pagan empires in europe at the time
>both are warrior led cultures of pirates
>make first contact with each other before anyone else
>france will DEFINITELY try to invade once they figure out what's going on
>japan will desperately need/want more land and food
>it'll be effectively impossible for them to pull of a naval invasion of scandinavia and mostly pointless in terms of farm land but france is so close you can practically swim across the channel and has an excellent climate as well as trade routes and connections across the entire continent by land
Assuming this is early feudal Japan, both sides would suffer from disunity and factionalism, but the Japanese would have it worse. Victory for the Scandis would rely on keeping the Daimyos divided without the same happening to themselves.
If it were a united Japan vs a united Scandinavia, then Japan would have a massive numbers advantage. Scandinavia would have to maintain constant naval dominance to win, there is no winning if Japan can maintain a well-supplied invasion force.
>japan
>logistics
Lol lmao. They got buttfricked by the korean navy of all things
Turtleships were OP tho
the gyaru landsknecht is probably my favorite so far
The landsknecht is probably my favorite look, but goddamn if I haven't gotten a ton of use out of this one.
>that pic
some people don't understand the concept of vintage, good wine brand aren't always good every single year
no one cares
>still reply
stay mad asshomosexual
Hmm, i wonder if the judges also thought that way while denigrating their wine thinking it was American.
That was actually the issue. California could produce good wines depending on the year but the French simply didn't accept that California produced anything but cheap swill. The real truth is that most wine simply isn't that distinct and the quality is often a matter of opinion.
california is consistent year round, france isnt
if california can make the same good wine all year but france can only make good wine during certain parts of the year, then that would still put california on top
It's actually a really good fit, made me laugh.
I like the executioner and lil exe
Feudal Japan includes the period when they got really gun crazy so them
The only interesting fight between the two is glorious nippon spearman versus snowBlack person spearman
carthago delenda est
>one side is 6'2, live off a diet of meat and cheese and have something called "berserking"
>the other side is 5'5, use swords made of pig iron and eat minnows
Most of the great wall is fake but we're not ready to have that conversation.
I've only briefly glanced at Wikipedia for this, so grains of salt, but the only pitched battle I could find a decent description of in Japan contemporaneous to the Viking age was the battle of Kawasaki, which was a few hundred horse archers attacking a larger entrenched force until getting btfo by a snowstorm and then being chased down and wiped out along with some foot troops. Seems like wars in that period in Japan mostly consisted of raids and skirmishes rather than big battles. Advantage to the mobile sea raiders, I'd say, like the Jurchens who raped the nips in that era.
It's not interesting question because the reason Japanese warfare and really the wider culture in general evolved as it did was because of proximity to China, and the fact that their iron ore is really bad. The katana as a weapons system is both quite ingenious but also highly overrated. The katana solved a problem that Japanese swordsmiths had where wrought iron made from the ore was too soft and steel made from the ore was too brittle. Clay patterns were placed on the blade during tempering to create a steel blade with an iron core and back.
The brittleness of the steel results in a blade that's great at slicing through organic material, but absolutely can't clash with other metal, and even wood can damage the sword. This iron problem explains a lot of things about Japan. Their tradition of nail-less carpentry is because nails made of the iron would suck. Even with modern purification their industry had to be highly centralized. Iron is even one of the driving forces of Japan spreading to Manchuria.
So the question is a little confusing. If you take Jaoan and put them where Britain is, it's doubtful you would get the same culture at all. I think it would work if you took each country from say 800 ad and swapped their places then had them fight after two or three-hundred years of development.
If it's just vikings vs samurai, it's vikings no contest. If Japan had access to Britain's resources, I still put my money on the vikings but I'd be interested to see how the samurai develop.
Care to explain technically why their iron or steel or ore was bad? You can't because you just wrote a post of complete gibberish.
Japan is like 50% mountains. If you want iron ore it's easiest to just sift it from river sand. In a way, this is renewable just like bog iron with new iron ore being washed down the mountains every monsoon season. The problem is that this iron sand is full of regular sand and separating the two is a pain in the neck that wasn't solved until the 1800s.
tl;dr Japan. Mountains+Monsoon season=Iron Sand. Iron sand easy but bad.
This doesn't explain why the sand was bad, only laborious to get and therefore expensive.
It was actually less laborous to get to. Instead of hiking deep into the mountains and breaking rocks all day for a few nuggets of ore you just walked down to your local river and shovel sand into a sluice box.
This is where the ore gets bad. Sluice boxes could only get you 30-50% pure iron. The rest was just ordinary sand. Even after putting the ore through a furnace you still ended up with a lot of sand.
Oh and the Katana is just fine. Smiths would compensate for poor ore with more work, folding the steel up to seven times to get it pure enough for weaponry. We only think it's bad because it's a 16th century sword that stayed unchanged from 1603 to 1863 and we were comparing it to 19th century steels. It's not extraordinary, it's not dogshit, it's basically a kriegmesser-longsword hybrid. Good slashing sword, useful for self-defense, really not a primary weapon.
Not him but it means it's loaded with impurities because sand is a pain in the ass to remove often requiring extra work for the smelters and blacksmiths. I think a lot of people confuse ore quality with end product quality.
Ore that you have to work harder to make a good quality metal from is objectively worse than a purer ore that takes less work. The lower quality ore is also more likely to retain undesired impurities even after all that work simply due to having more impurities from the start. This results in a very laborious process when trying to turn it into something like a good sword which requires the metal be good. If you half ass it the quality of the steel and thus the sword will suffer. If you're arming peasants that's one thing and you can skimp a bit, but that samurai over there is going to be mighty pissed if his katana comes out a piece of low quality trash due to corner cutting. The amount of work was enough that it became a borderline religious ritual.
All that shit and all you did was repeat what everybody else said while trying to imply it means a worse end product.
No. I said it takes more work to make as good of an end product. Not that the end product will always be bad.
> The amount of work was enough that it became a borderline religious ritual.
I'd call it a full blown religious ritual. Smiths went through spiritual purification (Cold baths, prayer, and meditation) to ensure that nothing would go wrong with the swordmaking process.
"The katana is the soul of the samurai" is a misquote. It's actually "The Katana is the soul of the smith."
Actually, it implies the oposite. Japanese smiths overcame shitty ore with extra work.
Anon you should learn how medieval smiths made iron and steel and stop talking bollocks.
"Enlighten" me anon. Shit ore is shit ore for a reason.
That just means the ore is low yield, not that it produces poor iron.
What's the point of doing this stale pasta when every time all you do is say muh iron sands when challenged and then frick off?
Just hoping to get lucky one day and no one notices?
Lets face it, rapiers are what happens when you actually want a spear to stab all those unarmored civilians trying to gank you but it's not fashionable to carry one around.
this is such a stupid fricking question the vikings were not one homogeneous group and you could be referring to farmers going for a vacation in england or mercenaries and professional soldiers
Viking means "big guy in light armor with a medium-large shield and axe".
Samuri means "little guy in medium armor with a little sword".
viking then samurai armor was shit around the viking era and the shield would frick up the japanese sword
>samurai armor was shit
It was good, though. Effective and mobile. Not great against piercing attacks, but vikings used axes.
broken bones are no fun and samurai armor definitely didnt have the structure to prevent that
Vikings used spears
bump
>Not great against piercing attacks, but vikings used axes.
Samurai armor of the era would face predominantly arrows and naginata. Of course it had to be ok against piercing attack. It was still a metal heavy armor, it has ups and downs compared to a mail hauberk but it's still a good piece of protection.
>the shield would frick up the japanese sword
With all the katana bashing, it's surprising to still encounter people in the wild who would say this. In the viking era, samurai would use mostly bows, naginata and spears.
With all the
When I said earlier that vikings used light armor, I was mistaken. They used chainmail and iron helmets. Samurai would be screwed because they couldn't get past the shields with arrows, and in close range the viking is better protected.
>Samurai would be screwed because they couldn't get past the shields with arrows, and in close range the viking is better protected.
I can do this too.
The vikings would never be able to get close to the horse samurai who would pepper them with arrows targeting the weaknesses as they are trained to do. The foot samurai would wreck them with naginata which are basically dane axes on steroids.
The do-maru and o-yoroi also feature large protections, iron helmets, sode which are basically two shields you don't have to hold. It's hardly worse protection if not better and more mobile as you have shield-like protection with both hands available for a pike or glaive.
The mongols were the only ones who could figure out horse archery because they made compound bows. Japan didn't have good enough bow designs for it to work.
Recurved Composite bows not compound bow moron kun. The latter is a 1960s invention
>The mongols were the only ones who could figure out horse archery
Ah yes, sure... the parthians, scythians, turks, all of them couldn't "figure out" horse archery, sure.
>Japan didn't have good enough bow designs for it to work.
What exactly did the yumi lacked tell me? Don't say power, these were three-men bows.
Stop trying to defend Japan's moronic bows, my friend. They were huge, sucked to carry and unsuited to horseback. English longbows were far better.
They were exactly made to be shot on horseback... and kneeling as well, that's the whole point, being large but still capable of being used on horseback.
>sucked to carry
Who cares, you have pages for that.
>English longbows were far better
In the 10th-12th century? They barely existed as anything else than regular longbows. And said longbows couldn't be used on horseback, while yumi could.
English longbows could equally be said to be moronic as they needed years and years of practice to be used effectively, so much that after Patay, the english longbowmen were basically gone from history.
The yumi is a weak bow for it's size. It's got a low draw weight so that women can use it. Overall it's just not serious.
I'm not that familiar with Japanese bows... but surely they have different strenght bows for different people...
This is modern kyudo, not Heian-era archery which routinely used three-men bows. These were absolutely not weak for their size.
>These were absolutely not weak for their size
The yumi was literally just a tree branch. They had that shape because the tip of a tree branch is more bendy than the base. Remember, they were used by guys who looked like this. The bows were weak.
>The yumi was literally just a tree branch. They had that shape because the tip of a tree branch is more bendy than the base.
In japanese antiquity yeah... not for bows of the 11th century. Just like other things, japanese could and did make symmetric bow, the shape is there in order to assist horseback use.
>Remember, they were used by guys who looked like this. The bows were weak.
This is a photo of samurai from the Heian-era...? Wow, most implessive time-travel-san!
>time-travel-san!
It's no secret that people were smaller in general back then, especial in japan, where most people had a low protein diet and were just naturally smaller.
>It's no secret that people were smaller in general back then
That's the trick, warriors weren't.
>need 3 men to use it
What the frick is this poormans Ballista crap?
You needed 3 men to string it, not 3 men to draw it.
>Tree Branch
English longbows were closer to a tree branch than a Yumi. The Yumi was made out of multiple types of wood glued and bound together.
>Remember, they were used by guys who looked like this. The bows were weak.
You might be surprised to hear this anon, but Vikings wouldn't look much bigger or better. People prior to the mid 20th century were operating on pretty narrow calorie surpluses and nutritional balances. Size also isn't the sole indicator of strength.
Vikings were bigger than other Europeans.
yes but fewer in number. Scandinavia was poor farmland and they couldn't maintain a large population. This meant there wasn't a lot of labor available for making armor and weapons so many vikings had very little in the way of armor.
>unsuited to horseback.
Actually...the Yumi was specifically designed for horseback archery. The weird asymmetry was so that the rider didn't get limbs tangled up with the horse. The english longbow was more powerful but needed english longbowmen to be any use.
Authority? No. But he does to practical tests and makes some compelling arguments. You can say he doesn't know anything but Shad admits that right off the bat.
Maybe early Shad, current Shad is almost nothing but poorly researched sweeping generalizations and myth overcorrections one after another.
Honestly, current Shad is doing more practical tests than old Shad. Mostly, this is because he's gotten help so instead of just one person trying something you get 3. Larger sample size=better test.
Chainmail was reserved for nobles and their housecarls. Most vikings would make due with Gambesons. Keep in mind the Vikings were knocking around in the post-rome anarchy when an army of 1000 was actually significant.
That being said, chainmail would not be an effective defense against Samurai archery. Samurai had access to a wide variety of arrowheads, some of which could penetrate chain.
>Viking Age Scandinavia?
Would win simply because they have vastly more iron ore of better quality for making weapons as well as being significantly bigger and stronger warfighters and having a superior navy.
Could an army of modern angry land whale lesbians defeat an army of feudal Japanese men? They would be substantially larger. They would just have to sit on them to kill them.
They'd need to be fit enough to lift their hands in an intimidating manner so that scrawny japanese manlets get dominated and submit themselves on their own.
Japanese hunt whales so it would just be another Tuesday for them
>forgetting Japanese are excellent whalers
They've only learned whaling after they discovered that it were whales that dropped nukes on them.
The Japanese just need to send a pretty girl at each of the lesbians. The lesbians spaghetti and cower in fear over the fact they need to need to make the first move and face rejection. The one that do have to get rejected which makes them binge eat and cry themselves to sleep for weeks at a time and then sporadically again for years.
for how much this guy cares about different medieval weapon types, he's surprisingly fricking clueless about them
can we just talk about what we want this artist to draw next, or what kind of armor a woman would look best in
heres my vote
A happy pregnant woman.
I prefer girls in Greek/Roman armor.
>everyone is talking tactics instead of logistics
The Vikings did almost all of their fighting against undefended or poorly defended targets because that’s as much as they could realistically achieve. They were able to invade the British isles, but had no ability to fight a sustained conflict, which is what allowed the English to retake the lost land- the Scandis just didn’t have enough men or enough warriors to effectively establish themselves over the locals, and they assimilated into the populace. Japan at the time had a population many, many, many times larger. They would be able to field armies significantly larger than anything the English were able to throw out against the Vikings, and the even greater population difference between the invading Norse and the Japanese would mean that the best possible scenario for the Vikings would be a less successful version of their invasion of Britain- they take a bit of land, then assimilate into the locals and they cease to exist as a distinct people within a few generations.
They are 500-680 years apart depending on what slice from feudal Japan or "Viking age" scandinavia you're referring to. Also, scandinavia was not one common fighting force. The Danes had the largest SoI at their peak than others, but the Swedes, the Norwegians, and the Gutes did their own things.
The whote lochlanach where the most vicious, and the norwegians gave the least fricks, but the danes did the best.
With that said, I think the Vikings would best the living snot out of the Samurai, of we're talking pre gunpowder. Post gunpowder, the Japs would win ezpz.
The best martial art is a fired gun.
>veekings ride out into open field ready for a charge
>this pokes out of wooden pallisades
>AIIIIIEEEE SAVE ME WODIN
Thoughts on boyars
what is it about girls in armor that winds me up so?
Japan would trade for better iron and resources and adapt to basically become Britain. The only thing Japan didn't develop was their navy, and after WW1 Japan became the third strongest navy in the world after US and UK. Living off Europe, Japan would have that navy sooner.
Got a kek out of his British East India company meme lol
Also, is Centuri-Chan like his OC? He seems to draw her a lot