Let's settle this once and for all!

Let's settle this once and for all!

Which of these is the superior?

The average northern viking raider, the Knight, or the Samurai?

samurai > knight >>>>> shit >>> viking
i know, i saw matpat's informative video on the matter

um you're forgetting someone

it was peasant levy tier, maybe less so

it was surprising to see him make such a completely inaccuracy laden video, he usually seems to be smarter than that

none. spartan hoplite

>can't redeploy to handle anything from the right or left

STOP WITH THESE MEME THREADS

THEY ARE POINTLESS AND REPETITIVE

I also like to trust YouTube-qualified historians especially those Anglo guys like Lindybeige

say what you will about the man, but he's spot on about the french resistance's usefulness

Then again, his own country barely did shit in the war either
Pot calling the kettle black

knight are superior as they evolved in a far more competitive fighting cultures
I mean look at a map of Europe, like 60 nations warring throughout history and Asia is 3 countries basically
east asian men are naturally low test also and don't fight well

...

that's an argument for another time, but whether you consider their efforts important or not to the war effort, it's a far cry from surrender and collaboration

Even metatron, the most learnt weeaboo on youtube doesnt think the samurai would win.

In any case, they all existed in different forms and only very narrowly coexisted in the 11th century.

We had samurai who were horse archers in one period and bearing guns in another period.

yes, because they were a bit long in the tooth at that point, the arms were european as well :^)

Vikings just won the faction war, so....

Why not Mongol? BTFO'd of all of those queers

>matpat
kek

>tfw chose knights because of memes
:/

>Mongols
>Literally beaten by some wind and rain
The mongol invasion of Japan was incredibly successful
Way to stop those Woku raiders

>literally killed by the wind

The Mongolian invasions, plural. Were not defeated by a storm. There were several battles over two campaigns in which the mongols had mixed to poor results.

Religious authorities in Japan were quick to take credit for victories after every battle. They legitimately believed that even the warriors were only acting out the divine will they were influencing, and that every accident or misfortune was caused by the gods and their prayers.

Knight > Samurai > Viking raider

...

And a whole campaign preceeded that which the mongols lost.

that was preceded by a first campaign where they had initial successes but were eventually beaten back.

The idea that Japan was saved by a storm is no longer taken seriously, as the mongols were already losing when it happened.

vs. Legions vs phalax vs winged hussar vs mongols vs swiss mercenary vs Janissary vs Teutonic Knight vs pikeman from aoe2

did i forget any of them?

no one cares about those

what kind of viking? 1066 or just a random raider?

what would 1066 have to do with anything?

I hope you are not trying to claim that normans are vikings